I very much enjoy Richard Dawkins’ take on religion, but this criticism from David Friedman is a valuable caution:

Dawkins describes religious belief as due entirely to faith and almost entirely inherited from one’s parents, scientific belief as due to rational and skeptical investigation. In doing that, he is implicitly comparing the average religious believer with the professional scientist–indeed, with the upper end of professional scientists. The average believer in evolution or relativity or whatever is no more able to provide a convincing account of the evidence and arguments for his position than the average religious believer–both of them hold their beliefs not because of rational investigation but because the people around them told them those things were true. And religious leaders, at least some of them, offer arguments for their positions which are based on more than just faith, whether or not those arguments are correct–offer the evidence of miracles, rational arguments such as those of Aquinas, and the like. It’s true that there is more rehashing of old arguments and less new argumentation in religion than in science–but then, religion is an older project than science, so presumably more of the relevant arguments have already been made.