On the (typical) Dawkins view that religion is bad and God of Torah is not nice

I suspect many readers have been particularly impressed with these parts of Dawkins's book. It feels like a vindication of the atheist belief system:
hey, look at whats happening in Iraq man: the whole mess up is based on religion. And its not only Iraq, its the entire history of war on the planet; its all always been about religion. Religious systems of belief lead to all sorts of nasty things, including the stifling of a free mind, and hatred amongst different religious sects.

Point 1. Just as Dawkins's rejects the supposed happiness of religious people as good grounds for belief in God, so too do I reject the supposed nastiness of religion as grounds for disbelief in God.

Point 2. As it happens, of course, the idea that religion is the cause for any significant world conflict is false; I should be harsher: indeed, proposing.... is unlearned, and only a true anti-religious idealist would put on glasses which colour the world in these terms. In point of fact, no serious historian has ever posited religion as a major cause for either World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam, etc. To wit, World War 1 was primarily about a colonial struggle for resources (initiated by a "scramble for Africa"), and for economic and military power. The delicate "balance of power" which was woven by a net of international diplomatic agreements finally gave way in 1914 as the assassination of an Eastern European Monarch became the conflict's catalyst. Religion does not feature even as a minor cause. Millions about millions died by virtue of pure human greed. World War 2 is largely seen as an offshoot of the unfinished business of WW1. Sure, Hitler had it in for religious groups and anyone that was not of his race. But that was racial, not religious. The desire for "lebensraum" (living space), the natural evolution of economy based on military investment and expansion, and Hitler's sheer lunacy, are considered the major motivator for the German economic and military expansion into Eastern and then Western Europe [show me a significant historian that says religion was the Major cause]. And the Allies responded not for religion, but because it was in their military, economic and political interests to do so. Now consider Iraq: do you really believe the underlying cause of this conflict is religious? What about oil?

It is far more rational to hold that conflict is inherent in a world of limited resources, rather then that religion is the cause of it. Sometimes, it makes economic rational sense to fight to get what you want. Do apes kill each other for belief systems or for power? Are we different to apes or amoebas in the basic evolutionary forces that cause our actions? Are we, Mr Dawkins? The will to wealth and power is behind the world's conflicts, not religion (the fighting for which has no direct evolutionary payoff). Even in those conflicts in which religion was the surface reason for the war, historians often point out the underlying economic basis for the conflict. Religion is often used as a rallying cry, but if that particular opiate or stimulant is missing, political leaders have found no problem finding others: consider nationalism, capitalist freedom, communism, racism, etc.

Religion is not the cause of all the worlds problems, and even if it were, this is not grounds for rejecting it. Just because all religions conflict does not make all of them wrong. That would be like saying that because all opinions about the origin of the universe conflict all of them are wrong. One religion may be correct. And that religion may still have to fight for its survival.

Point 3. Dawkins discusses in a rather obvious manner the supposed harshness of the God of the Bible. Again, even if God is harsh, even if God instructs man to go to war to wipe out other nations, this does not mean that God does not exist. It only mean that you have a moral problem with God. A point of fact is that we believe, as Torah Jews, that God is the single cause and Creator of all good, and all evil, that has ever existed. We do not give up the space of evil (and death and destruction) and say this is not part of God - that would be to limit the key concept that God is One and the Creator of All. This is a basic tenant. Of course, there are deep subtleties to this concept, and the discussions of the nature of evil, its source in God, man's role, etc span literally thousands upon thousands of text written over thousands of years. Studied, scrutinised, debated, rejected, re-asserted, the Talmud is frightening in its breadth, its thoroughness, its relentless hair splitting logic, and its internal consistency. But, Dawkins has not bothered to read any of this, to understand how Jews have understood the Torah, and the reason for God's creation of evil.

Of course, you might be saying "if such a God exists you would rather die than have anything to do with such God." That is also fine. You can die and have nothing to do with such a God. But what you can't say as a rational thinker is that any of this is grounds for believing whether God exists or not. They are mere character judgement of the (hypothetical) Infinite being; they are not arguments for or against His existence. Moreover, they are unlearned character judgements, and they completely ignore the literature. For these sections of his book, Dawkins gets a miserable fail.

In any event, these sections of Dawkins's book adds not one inch to the debate about whether or not God exists or evolution is true.