Dawkins Is Wrong. Religion Is Rational

[Shadowflash]

19. That is not without the qualifiers of reason

and life experience.

If someone told me that the was a city named Alberta in Canada, I'd have to take it on faith that there is, as I've never been there. Now there are qualifiers as to whether belief in this 'Alberta' is rational - 1) I know someone who is from there and can describe it very well, 2) I can match those descriptions with photos and articles, from and about, said 'Alberta' in a large variety of credible sources that can be cross-referenced and are trustworthy. 3 ) If I wish, I can book a ticket and fly to the spot I can pin point on a map. and 4) I have been to many cities and the concept of there being yet another one called 'Alberta', in my life experience, doesn't seem too far fetched and is, in my mind, well within the realm of possibility.

Now if someone told me that there is a colony of pandas living on Saturn I would, again, have to take it on pure faith. However, this is where the above referenced qualifiers come in. As I've never been to Saturn or seen detailed pictures of the surface of Saturn that depict pandas I cannot say, without a doubt, that there are no pandas living on Saturn but, given everything I've learned and what I know about evolution, the solar System, astronomy, pandas, the atmosphere on Saturn and interplanetary travel (just from elementary school) and my (relatively limited, on a Galactic level) life experience I'd have to come to the conclusion that there are no pandas on Saturn.

If someone really expected me to believe there were pandas on Saturn, the amount of evidence they would have to produce would have to prove, beyond a doubt, that these pandas did exist.

That is the difference.