That's How It Happened

I read this a couple of weeks ago, and I've been sitting on my review, mulling over my conclusions about Dawkins' arguments and motives. In the book he persuasively dismisses assorted "rational arguments" for the existence of god, and goes on to argue strongly for the many benefits of atheism, and the many pervasive harms associated with irrational religious belief. As a committed atheist, I really enjoyed it. It's an exhilarating affirmation of the joys of faithlessness. But in a very literal sense, if I'm representative of his readers, he's preaching to the converted.
In the introduction he claims that he hopes this book will actually cause readers to reject their gods:

"I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious....(who) should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether."

I am a committed atheist, but not an evangelical atheist. Dawkins has two fundamental misconceptions that weaken the thrust of this book. Firstly, I don't think there are any real believers in god, who will be swayed by an angry evolutionary theorist ranting at them. No matter how true Dawkins' beliefs are, no matter how well he argues, religious people won't be receptive. Clearly some people do abandon religion, but the conversion comes through introspection, not in the guise of a pop-science attack on religion.
Secondly, childhood indoctrination, may start people off on a religious path, but that's not to say they aren't rational in their adherence to religion. They recognise that belief in God is not rational, and for the most part don't seek "evidence" for his existence. Harmful though religion may be on a world stage, religion clearly brings its own personal and societal benefits, that persuade believers to stick with it in the modern age.
Chapter 8 is called "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?". While I agree with almost all Dawkin's claims and arguments throughout the book, the main reason for atheists not to be hostile, is that we would be wasting our time. Dawkins likes to interpret other people's words for them, most notably in claiming Steven J Gould as an atheist. I'm positing for Dawkins that he must at heart know that he's screaming into the void. You can't spend much time as the world's foremost atheist, without realising that you aren't winning hearts and minds. His aggressive tone and evangelical approach to atheism, are fundamentally motivated by a desire to be noticed, and to sell books, not a genuine belief that he's saving the damned.