Dawkins is obviously a bright guy, but I find his arguments for atheism high-school level at best. It may be that his inner thoughts are more sophisticated, and what he writes and says is tailored to sell books to a popular readership, but I don't get that impression. I think it's fair to take him at face value. The Abrahamic faiths have roots that we can trace back for 3000 years, give or take, and doubtless have untraceable roots going back millennia further. It's not reasonable to require that people 3000 years ago, dressed in sheepskins, and fighting other tribes with sharpened sticks, to have used the imagery of our scientific era when it comes to expressing religious truths. They used the imagery they had. Even at the time of Dawkins birth, 90% of the scientific knowledge he is so proud of didn't exist! He's old enough to remember when humans discovered the helical structure of DNA, and just a generation younger than the advent of the theories of relativity (1905 and 1915.) Most of our knowledge of genetics is younger than Seinfeld reruns. Knowledge that other galaxies exist is only slightly older than he is. So ridiculing faith on the basis of the impossibility of a flood covering all the world's mountains, or a virgin birth, is the intellectual equivalent of beating up your little sister. Hierarchical political structures and the bloody world of sheep herding was the imagery available in the days of Abraham, so that's the language they used. Is it hard to believe in literal terms today? Sure. But there is tremendous inertia in the imagery, and that is as it should be. Religion isn't helpful if it charges around chasing every leaf blown in the wind. Probably, in 1000 years, if we are still here, religion will be dressed in the scientific imagery of 2024. Which by then will also be wildly out of date.