"That's not really side-stepping the problem though, it's merely making another assertion. You are saying 'indubitably', but it's not like you or Dawkins are proposing to hold double-blind trials on the hypotheses that religion has overall negative consequences or could conceive what such trials would even begin to look like."
I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm guessing that's what Dawkins thinks, but it's slightly unfair cos I'm putting words in his mouth. If you believe strongly that something makes something worse and it is a lie you're probably going to fight it, that's all I'm saying.
But the placebo example isn't really a good one because you quote the scientifially proven nature of the results when there isn't really an analogue if you replace placebo with religion. And without that part then the example is meaningless. What I mean is the problem you are posing is:
"placebo is a lie but works" is analagous to "religion is a lie but works"
So if there is a kinda scientific case for placebo then why not for religion? But you don't have (in fact you pretty much deny the possibility of having) the second half of the example in the analogy so the argument doesn't work.
"So when Dawkins strays from the path of true science, where does he wander? According to wikip, he suggests in The God Delusion that 'an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying "answers" to life's mysteries, could never be.' Life-affirming could broadly be defined as 'faith in life' yes?"
Sounds like it. I always get the impression that his heart isn't really in it when he's talking about this stuff though to be honest. It's kind of like he's got his mission and then people start asking him questions like "isn't this really empty?" so he's had a quick think and stuck this on top. Could be wrong of course, again I'm second guessing.
"We also return to the issue of the good; is his philosophy good because it is the truth, because it is life-affirming or because of its utility? Or does it resemble the good through a combination of these things?"
I think it's the truth. Or, while that is a controversial phrase, let's say that we use a kind of sliding scale, fuzzy concept kind of thing - would you accept that some things are more true than others? It may not be a fact that London is the capital of England but it is closer to being a fact than me asserting that my little finger is the capital of England. I reckon that religion is unnacceptably far towards the little finger end of that scale.
I also believe, while accepting that it's difficult or impossible to measure, that religion tends to have a negative effect, certainly these days and I don't want it to have any say in making laws in my country. So I suspect the utility of what he is saying is also part of why I think it is "good".
Of course you could ask this question for religion - is it good cos it is true, cos it of its utility, cos of something else?
(Well, I say his philosophy, I mean his anti-religious philosophy, not whatever else he happens to think)