I went to listen to him give a reading and answer questions today, and though I haven't read the book, it seemed to me from the reading that he knew a great deal more about religion and scripture than that review gave him credit for. I went in expecting a significantly weaker presentation than I in fact got because I read that review earlier. The arguments in the review seem to be referencing to or based almost entirely on fairly esoteric theological arguments. At least, they're more esoteric than the couple of religion classes I took in college required. Real academic stuff. Stuff which most people who profess religion, quite honestly, have never read and never thought about. It's all very well for the reviewer to say "Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that," but most of the religious I've met, and more of the religious that get media attention, absolutely believe unquestioningly. And pick and choose and all that jazz. The reviewer has some good points, yes, but I'd sure make sure to read the book too before you form a real opinion. Whichever way your views.

The, er, "you" here is meant in general, not anyone specific.