The next chapters deal with the philosophical and historical arguments for the existence of god. At this point Dawkins goes completely off the rails attempting to confuse the reader by using big words nobody understands like, "ontological, anthropic, and university." This is a common tactic among proponents of sin, it displays an air of superiority and leaves the reader feeling inferior and ignorant. It has been suggested to me that I keep a dictionary at my side while reading his books, but as I often like to point out, I never need a dictionary when reading my collection of 'Garfield's' adventures, so why should I need one with anything else? The fault very obviously lies with the authors inability to communicate clearly.
In a brief flash of personal insight Dawkins perfectly sums up the creationist argument for God;
"If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God."
Instead of embracing this brilliant piece of thinking, Dawkins actually implies it is a lazy way of understanding the universe, even though it perfectly explains the reality around us. It makes my heart sad to see someone so close to the truth yet so unwilling to embrace it.
In "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?," Dawkins attempts to argue the dangers of child indoctrination and how 'moderation' in faith can foster fanaticism. He focuses far too much on inane talking points like terrorists blowing everybody up, and abortion doctors being attacked, but never once gives religion credit for having such cool outfits, or being adept at covering up child rape.
Dawkins suggests we shouldn't teach children about religious dogma until their brains have developed the ability to understand the concepts, which makes no sense to me. He never once bothers to explain how we're suppose to convince adults that a prophet chopped the moon in half, or that it's morally permissible to drown the whole planet. These ideas clearly must be thrust upon the same fragile young minds that believe Kermit the Frog doesn't have a hand shoved up his ass, and pudding is one of the 5 major food groups, in order to stick.
Dawkins also argues that not only is religion wrong on the existence of God, it is the single most destructive element introduced into human culture. Religious fanatics blew up this, and slaughtered them, they chopped off that guys head, and cut off her clitoris, all of which may be true, but what Dawkins forgets again and again is that God always has his reasons, even if they are not apparent to us. If God wanted all those people on 9/11 killed, then so be it. If He enjoys watching ISIS toss homosexuals off of roofs, then who are we to judge? Maybe he doesn't get HBO in heaven and this is his only means of entertainment. Maybe listening to inferiors beg forgiveness all day becomes tedious to the point He delights in killing a few of them now and again. My point is that because we can't know the mind of God we should probably just shut up and stay out of his way before he puts a parasite in our brain.
Dawkins lives in a world in which scientists will make everything better. He has supreme confidence in their ability to unravel impossible mysteries such as the origin of time or the popularity of Justin Bieber. He relishes in pointing out the many scientific inaccuracies of great books like the bible, and feels no guilt when suggesting the Pope dresses like a woman. However, he conveniently ignores the evils science has perpetrated upon the human race, which includes everything from annoying ringtones, to the alarm that goes off at 7/11 when I try to steal a Snickers bar. In short, he is the kind of guy that would cause you to toss yourself out a window if your daughter ever brought him home.
In conclusion, I have always been an advocate of people reading books they don't agree with, although I personally would never do that, however in this case my suggestion is to stay away. Not because the book is not well written or because it doesn't make good points that will leave many believers scratching their heads in confusion, but because I don't like the way he styles his hair. I find his long bangs unflattering and believe he should be dying it red to match Satan's ass. And I assure you, if I ever bump into him, I will tell him as much (right after I get his autograph and a selfie).