There are two types of thinker’s. I haven’t thought of a name for the second yet so I shall describe the first and most common. The Apologist.
The Apologist’s main concern in thinking and discussing are to come up with arguments for a concept or set of concepts they already believe in.
Richard Dawkins’ way of thinking – at least as he publicly displays it – is apologetic. His agenda is to convince people that God isn’t real. The thinking behind this is one in which a concept – atheism – is constantly analysed in order to discover more convincing arguments for it.
The thinking of most religious people is the same; which is why I lump Richard Dawkins and all stubborn atheists in the same bit of play-doh as Christian fundamentalists.
So when these people come across a new concept they don’t look at it with innocent eyes; immediately they are assessing it to see whether it can be used to confirm or deny their set of concepts.
Most of these people are obsessing over metaphysical conundrums which have been shown to be unanswerable for millenia. If, in order to ascertain the truth value of a statement you refer to experience, to what are you meant to refer to in order to ascertain the truth value of a statement concerning the causes of experience?