Hi, thanks for responding.

I'm not saying that "science is somehow inferior to religion." Quite the contrary. I don't know how this got across. The aim of using Dawkins as an example is to highlight how a scientific evidence can hardly be a religious evidence. Because each of them come from two different theories of interpretation.

You mentioned something interesting: "This might all be true but it's not a constructive way to build a worldview." Some scientists like van Frassen will say this: the truth of science is justified by it being constructive.

Another thing that I didn't mean to say is this: "nothing at all can be considered true." My article presumes "truth" to be a pluralistic concept. As when you think about it, "It's true that 1+1=2," and "It's true that the Earth is round" actually carry different concepts of truth.

My ulterior purpose is not to diminish scientific advancement. It's to highlight how theory-ladenness affects inter-paradigm discourse. It's to explain why is it so hard, insofar as impossible to talk to theists about their beliefs using evidence interpreted by science.