Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" is setting the fires of controversy wherever it's even talked about. Why on earth would I want to set that fire myself? Don't I have any sense?!

A number of (possibly all) of my friends and family have more attachment to a spiritual practice than myself, so—although I've watched from afar as others have attempted to tackle this issue—I've kept out of the debate until now. Of course, I don't really see what there is to debate. Didn't Immanuel Kant say the same thing back in "Kritik der reinen Vernunft"?

For those who haven't followed the antics of Dawkins (non sequitur: he also invented the word "meme" back in 1976), his book proposes that the term "delusion", defined as a belief that is maintained despite contradiction by rational argument, most certainly applies to religion. He's been interviewed by everyone from the BBC to Stephen Colbert. Both the Left and Right reviews of his book and follow-up documentary "Root of All Evil?" tend to criticize his ferocity rather than his arguments. Probably because they rightly perceive the futility in doing so. Dawkins, an extremely articulate Oxford University biologist, is the Top Dog on his issues (though I'd love to see him debate Ken Wilber). His criticism of the lack of academic rigor around religion is dead on. I'm still tempted to say, "so what?"

Religion explains religion using religion. How do we know God exists? Because the Bible says so. Why should we believe the Bible? Because it's the Word of God. How do we know it's the Word of God? Because the Bible says so. Around and around we go. Any rational person who doesn't notice this should be sent back to Sunday School (another non sequitur: an overzealous Sunday School teacher once forced me to choose either Jesus and my Hindu friend Arjun... Arjun won... see you this Christmas, Arjun!). Noting circular logic need not make you an Atheist, however.

Science explains science using science. How do we know electromagnetism exists? Because scientific research says so. Why should we believe scientific research? Because it follows the Scientific Method. Why should we believe the Scientific Method? Because its results are confirmed by scientific research. Around and around we go again. As a system unto itself, science is completely coherent. As a world view, it makes basic assumptions, like "the world is understandable by the human mind", that I'm uncomfortable saying are a priori.

The real problems come about when one system tries to govern the other. "The God Delusion" is clearly an attempt to apply science to religion and, no surprise, religions fails miserably. However, religion has been doing the same to science for years—whether it's religious US politicians censoring research on sex education or Galileo being forced to recant for suggesting the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Can science and religion get along? There are lots of examples that attempt to merge the two. Christian Science characterizes disease as a separation from God and treatable through faith. Many find their objection to conventional medicine irresponsible, conveniently ignorant about both the Placebo Effect and that 1.5 million people are hospitalized every year due to adverse reactions to prescription medication. Another example (I'm deliberately picking on religions that include "science" in their name) is Scientology, an "Applied Religion" which offers its members specific techniques (like the ARC Triangle and Tone Scale) to lead more graceful lives. Though both of these belief systems have received more than their fair share of criticism, two dear friends of mine are a Christian Scientist and a Scientologist—and they're both wonderful people.

That's what it really comes down to for me. People. Many before me have asked Dawkins what, really, is so bad about religion. He shares a list of atrocities committed in its name or justified by it, ranging from genocide to homophobia. Critics of Atheism quickly retort that Stalin was an Atheist, isn't that just as bad? Of course, those who seek to control populations always make use of belief systems to do so. Though George W. Bush claims to get his orders from God, I don't think unprovoked assault is quite what Jesus had in mind. Let's not forget how Darwinism led to Nazi eugenics. In short, both religion and science can be tools for evil in the hands of a tyrant.

With that, I really have to end with Nietzsche. "God is dead!" is possibly the most misunderstood three words in modern philosophy. To really understand what Friedrich was getting at in "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft", let me include the rest of the passage.

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife—who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event—and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!

This is a question that people of science and people of faith must answer, and can only answer, together.