This speech is bone-chilling. In it, Dawkins crossed over the line between science and religion. He claims he doesn't, but he does it time and time and time and time again. He even does so according to the atheistic "Philosophy of Religion" school, which states that Science deals with "How" and "When" questions of life, while Religion deals with the "Why," "By Whom," and "For Whom" questions. In other words, according to the "Philosophy of Religion" camp, Science deals with the "nuts-and-bolt" mechanics, while Religion deals with the "Meaning" ideas. Dawkins attempts to smash through that difference and give Science a role in pontificating on "Meaning" and other interpretive questions. In other words, even by his OWN camp's epistemological rules, he is a Religionist.
His understanding of Faith is entirely flawed. Indeed, in his address to the Christian understanding of St. Thomas, he demonstrates his failure to understand that faith is based in more than just "tradition, authority, or revelation." Faith, as was true for St. Thomas, is also grounded in experience and observation: the experience of the TRUTH of the Gospel by personally KNOWING the Savior, and observation of the TRUTH of the Gospel by seeing the EFFECT that this relationship has in one's life. Revelation (both special [i.e., scripture] AND natural [the created universe around us]) is the bedrock upon which our faith stands, true, and tradition aids us in our interpretation of that revelation, but it is also confirmed and further interpreted by human experience and by human reason. Dawkins fails to understand this because his comprehension of the nature of faith is clouded by his bias in favor of Science and his desire to shield his beloved science from the taint of the dreaded "faith" concept. In so doing, however, he too must appeal to faith. I counted no-less than 8 times in his speech in which he makes statements of faith. Oh, sure, he will claim that they are statements grounded in the observations of science ... but those observations are, in-turn, rooted in a series of philosophical presumptions and methodological procedures which are, themselves, rooted in tradition, authority, and "wishful thinking." There is, epistemologically, NO difference between his practice of science and that of faith, and his protestations to the contrary ring hollow. This is no where more glaringly evident than when he attempts to posit the outlandish claim that Science can offer answers to the questions of "Explanation" "Consolation" and "Uplift." In his statements on these topics, he establishes a religious function for science ... one which, he believes, "...render[s] poky and parochial the very psalms of praise." If he only understood or ever actually read those psalms!
What I found the most bone-chilling, however, was when he began demonizing religion relative to the religious education of children, referencing it as "mental child abuse." In making statements like these, Dawkins convicts himself as a zealous bigot. His claim that: "We're content to argue with those who disagree with us..." is particularly disingenuous, for it contains within it a not-too-subtle implication that religious people will always want to kill those who disagree with them. This is yet another example of the un-bridled demonization of religious people.