I have a list of like five other books that I want to read after he mentioned them.
what are these, out of interest?
I would like to read something from the other side of the fence, written by a really sharp and honest theologian.
i feel i have to point out that there are more than two sides to this discourse. i'm lazy, so i'll just quote an essay from contemporary theories of religion
armin w. geertz wrote:
the problem is that they (dawkins and dennett) are not scholars who have produced scientific books and articles arguing their particular theories of religion in the peer review contexts of the academic study of religion. both books (the god delusion and breaking the spell) are popular books with clearly formulated ideological, apologetical, and polemical agendas...
dennett’s and dawkins’s books have no regard for, nor are written to, other scholars of religion. their knowledge of religion is woefully limited and spotty, they reference comparative religionists from more than a half century ago, and they ignore the highly relevant and theoretically sophisticated scholars of religion who have been active since the 1970s. when they do refer to scholars of religion, it is only to the pioneers of the cognitive science of religion, especially pascal boyer...
put simply and highly generalised: dawkins builds on dennett, who builds on boyer, who refers to dawkins. all three build on darwin.
not to sound all snooty or anything, but it's important to know where dawkins stands. it's a big field and there are lots of fences.