I'm a highly religious person, so it's difficult to read Dawkins--not because I disagree with his arguments or his explanations of scientific thinking...moreI'm a highly religious person, so it's difficult to read Dawkins--not because I disagree with his arguments or his explanations of scientific thinking, but because he's so endlessly condescending. Most of his arguments I agree with right up until his final point, which is generally that religious belief is incompatible with scientific thinking.
As a brief example: in The God Delusion, or what little I managed to read of it before throwing up my hands, Dawkins explains how humans evolved with a strong inclination in their brains to formulate myths and believe in gods. He uses this to imply that there is no God--it's "just our brains" and our evolution fooling us. From the same evidence, though, one could just as easily argue the opposite conclusion: because there is a God, it makes sense that He would want us to believe in him, so in the formation of our species He provided us with an actual evolutionary mechanism to believe in gods. Same evidence, polar opposite conclusions.
I think, in a face-to-face conversation with Dawkins, he and I could agree on a lot of points and have a lively debate about the rest. However, I have no way to deliver my own arguments when I read his books, and I've decided it's best just to avoid them. (less)