While that article is right on point about the majority of what Dawkins talked about in his book, some of the points the author of that article makes about The God Delusion are simply false.
Quote by: Nono
Case in point:
"But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought."The "ineluctable conclusion" is that serious thought of religion should not lead to a high level of certainty in the supernatural. That was Dawkins' point. He never contended that religion wasn't worth of serious thought at all. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the most certain God exists and 7 being the most certain that God does not exist, Dawkins listed himself as a 6.9 He still reserves the possibility that he may be wrong, regardless of how small that possibility may be.
"Gone, it seems, is the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene, a writer who could lead readers through dauntingly difficult arguments and who used anecdotes to illustrate those arguments, not to substitute for them."Dawkins used a lot of anecdotes in his book, The God Delusion, but they didn't substitute for his actual arguments. That just seems deliberately biased to me.