This book should tie in nicely as well with the study that I've launched at our church on Christian apologetics.  Dawkins, in his preface to his book, indicates that he's going to make mincemeat of several of the apologetic assertions of Christianity that we'll be covering in class.  Should make for some additional, interesting discussion.

Needless to say, I encourage Christians to read books like this (though buying them used rather than new is preferable both in simple terms of economics and in terms of not buoying the sales figures for the books).  I also make this encouragement with the caveat that you should be reading them together.  Ask your pastor or other mature Christians to form a reading group and go through the book together.  This provides both added accountability for actually reading it, and the opportunity to talk about what you're reading.  Incidentally, I make exactly the same suggestion for reading the Bible as well.  

I'll post my thoughts on each chapter of the book as I finish it, though in considerably more condensed format than my other chapter-by-chapter book analysis from several years back!  I just finished the preface, and here are the two things that caught my attention.

1.  Dawkins sees absolutely no benefit in religion.  In the preface he provides a short list of some of the outrages perpetrated in the name of various religions.  But he acknowledges no beneficial role, no contributions that religion has made to humanity in the arts, sciences, human rights, human care, or any other arena.  Very, very myopic.

2.  Secondly, Dawkins laments how resistant Americans are to electing an atheist to office.  Funny, as I'm fairly certain that Dawkins would not be inclined to elect an extremely devoted Christian to public office if given a chance and a choice.  He seems to be arguing that what a person believes is not important, yet the entire premise of his book is exactly that what a person believes is crucial and important.  If I live in a representative democracy, how unusual would it be for me to vote for someone who is not representative of the things I value most?  How odd would it be for me as a devoted Biblical Christian to think that someone could hold a completely contrary world view from myself and yet still represent me in an adequate way?  While I do admit the possibility of just this sort of thing - particularly in a situation where there is no better choice of candidate - it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone that I would seek to vote for a qualified Christian candidate rather than an atheist.  Dawkins' incredulity here seems very unconvincing and naive.  I imagine this won't be the last time I find his analysis or assertions to be rather thin and contradictory to his own agenda.