oops, I meant paradigm
That explanation isn’t deep enough. I think that belief conservation is mainly due to preference and pride, the pettiest and most certain two human qualities.
The function of school is advertisement and exclusion. Very few people have heard of libertarianism, much less know what it is. But every human alive has heard the ostensible benefits of a state.
Indeed, going further back (even into the domain of behavioral psychology) to the causal factors for why most post-teens stay pretty steadfast to certain sets of assumptions regarding their many aspects of life - I believe the impulse is driven primarily by fear and false pride, where the introduction of a new way of thinking hits a protective wall to an overall paradigm full of holes, illogic and even contradiction. But no matter for most, as long as they can survive another day (and a good number actually thrive in their lives, despite going to tarot card readings and aggregate demand seminars 
It’s an interesting idea. However I’m not sure I agree with what initially appears to be a solid argument. The suggestion is that Dawkins the athiest is making just as many assumptions as Fisher the christian, and that the asuumptions of Dawkins are merely different ones. However, consider the following short story…
Imagine we had Mum, Dad and little Tommy standing in the yard while Tommy throws a tennis ball to his dog. Tommy throws the ball a bit to far and it rolls across the road. Tommy’s little terrier races to fetch the ball and get crushed by a passing car.
Tommy say’s, “Woah, what’s happened to Fluffy?” And Dad says, “Tommy, Fluffy is dead. He’s lost the ability to breath, walk and think. Before he was born he was dust and now it’s time for him to go back to being dust again. Dogs, like humans, don’t live for ever - sorry mate.” Mum says “Tommy, don’t listen to your father, he’s drunk. Fluffy has moved on to a better place in doggy heaven where a nice old man is taking care of Fluffy, giving him those buscuits he loves so much and playing with him every day. You’ll see Fluffy again one day and he’ll be very happy to see you when you do”.
Now, to all appearances Tommy’s dog is no longer functioning as he was before. He’s stopped moving, he’s not at all the same shape, doesn’t breath, bark or walk and is, in short, what we refer to as dead. Additionally, human experience consists of two things. Firstly it consists of the vast infinity of what was before our birth - the nothingness that accounts for all the time before we existed. Secondly it consists of the short blip in time that we’ve spent here on earth. So although Tommy’s Dad is “assuming” certain things, he’s assuming the bare minimum. He knows nothingness can exist (that was what it was like before he was born) and he’s pretty sure Fluffy isn’t alive anymore. So if Fluffy isn’t in a “living” state then presumably he’s in some state that is “not alive” and the only other state that Tom’s Dad know’s about is the one before he was born - i.e. nothingness.
Tom’s mother, on the other hand, has invented yet a third state and made what appears to be an huge leap of faith. Not only is she assuming there can be a state other than those we know of (nothingness and living)… she’s assumed that state consists of an old man feeding Fluffy nice biscuits and playing with him all day… which you’d have to say is rather more far fetched.
It’s certainly true that we can’t know what will come next - the afterlife remains a mystery. So in a strict technical sense, either Tommy’s Mum or his Dad could be right about what comes next. However you have to admit that in an Ocam’s Razor analysis, Dad’s theory would take the lead.
In reality, his Mum probably doesn’t believe what she’s saying any more than she believes in the tooth fairy… she’s just making it up because she wants to avoid hurting Tommy’s feelings. Tommy, on the other hand, will probably choose to believe his Mum, not because he theory is more likely but because he “wants” it to be true (besides which Tommy is only 5 and kids don’t generally develop logical faculties until at least 7 or 8 - before that they just believe what their parents tell them and currently his mum is telling him that Fluffy has gone to doggy heaven, so that’s that).
So is Dawkins really making as many assumptions as Fisher? I think, at the very least, just as with Tommy’s Dad, Dawkins has Ocam’s Razor on his side - in as much as he’s making fewer assumptions than Fisher (even if, as is correctly pointed out in the article you linked to, he’s obliged to make at least some assumptions, as are we all).
I have an interesting book on my reading list (not yet read - it was recommended to me) called American Theocracy…
http://www.americantheocracy.net/
The gist of which seems to be that the United States is in effect (even if not constitutionally so) primarily a Theocracy.
If anyone else here has read this I’d be interested to hear their review.
To counter that thought, Harold Bloom wrote one called The American Religion - that essentially argues that this nation was founded mainly on gnostic principles (thus hardly making it theocratic).
Cheers, Tom
It may well have been… it once had a gold standard and may other things. The nation has changed a great deal since the founding fathers left office.
if one’s atheistic conclusion is solely empirically-based, then it doesn’t take much assuming does it (I exist; my senses show me that things exist around me; but I don’t see, feel, smell that Thing that supposedly made me and all else - ergo that Thing’s mere fantasy). But if one probes into the deeper ontological realm, then of course one’s threads of argument (and their underlying assumptions) compound significantly. One can’t apply the same Occam’s Razor to these two viewpoints, given that they’re not on the same plain of thought.