I have been fortunate enough to have had a good education, progressive work and career experiences and the opportunity to meet and associate with a vast range of people from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. This experience means that I have had to see the 'other side' of a situation, viewpoint or lifestyle. I mentioned my involvement with trade unionism, but my later years were involved with an organisation that revolved around working with people in group settings or on a one-to-one basis. In my musings I've thought back to the many character and personality traits I have met. Some have been brash and ego-centered, some shy and insecure, some wanting to know more about a situation, some happy to just go with the flow of things, some not wanting to know anything different from what they thought, some wanting to persuade me to see things differently, for whatever reason, and others did not want to participate in any event (worthwhile to them or not as the case might be). To me that was, and is, human nature.
Driscoll (and others like him) want us to behave in a certain way and believe in certain premises or prerequisites. So does Dawkins. But their prerequisites and suppositions are very different. And the arguments for an against such prerequisites and suppositions can become both heated and personal. So much so that each personality has not just their own premises adhered to by 'believers' but those 'believers' become infatuated with the personality, rather than the suppositions they are espousing. I've fallen into that 'trap' more than a few times and have had to reflect on what I've said about understanding the other side of the situation or argument, not just about right and wrong, not just about power struggling and power manipulation, one-upmanship and personality trait, but about seeing where the other side ‘came’ from. The probability of their argument at least.