Gopnik is presenting a straw man. First of all, if he bought the book the morning before the interview he certainly could not have read it carefully. Secondly, Dawkins does not dismiss the value of this art, rather he states:

1. Religion-associated art is not an argument for the truth of religion.
2. In certain periods of European history the church was the only institution paying for significant quantities of art, and if the artists had different patrons they might have produced equally good non-religious art. Clearly the artist for hire tailors his work to suit his patron.
3. Since good art can be produced without religion, good art that happened to be religiously inspired because of the time and place in which it was produced does not contribute to the value of religion itself and should not be abused as a reason for promoting religion.

It's likely that Gopnik (consciously or unconsciously) parroted views from people who also reviewed the book without carefully reading it, in the same manner that people say all sorts of crap about the bible that is unsubstantiated by the text. They plagiarize each other's interpretations without much attention to the source, and a myth about a book propagates that is only tenuously connected to the content of the book because the overwhelming majority is too busy or too lazy to read it thoughtfully.

I don't think Gopnik is necessary defending religion, though he finds problems in Dawkin's offensive against religion as a intellectual argument since the book pretty much says that "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful".

Thus everything religion has created, for example the by product of religious art and poetry is also wrong and should be cast out. That's a narrow way of looking at things, because historically back then even with your argument that religion funded art, there was devotion because there was a lack of evidence of anything other, due to the underdevelopment of scientific theory.

Likewise I disagree with Dawkin's argument that peoples spiritual needs can be met with philosophy and science. I do agree with his arguments against indoctrination and the subversion of reason through literal readings of religious texts.

The second paragraph is a non-sequitur which Dawkins himself never promoted. He attacked specific aspects of it and concluded that, overall (i.e. on average) it was pernicious, but he never said that everything that ever came from religion was bad. He did argue that good things that were achieved through religion could also have been achieved without religion.

People's psychological needs (a term I use interchangeably with "spiritual needs") are met without religion in many individuals.

>> ^jwrayeople's psychological needs (a term I use interchangeably with "spiritual needs") are met without religion in many individuals.

Yes to you and me perhaps but I doubt that can apply to everyone else. I mean religion is not all indoctrinated across the board to everyone many seek it out and become religious.

Moving this video to Farhad2000's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.