I understand where Dawkins is coming from, as a former atheist myself. Atheism is an emotional conclusion, whereas agnosticism is an honest intellectual position. At least that’s how it was for me at one time.
There are a great many people that have a legitimate anger toward God, as he was advertised at the time, among kids.
Abused, poor, sexually victimized - one could legitimately ask ‘Where was God when my Dad was sticking his penis in my ass every third night?’
I would think that coming back to the neighborhood of ‘There is a God’ would be difficult. I know that getting from ‘There is a God, and He knows me, loves me, and wants me to be happy doing His will’ is a bit longer journey.
Most of the questions I encounter among unchurched kids these days start with, “If there’s a God, then why . . . “
Paul had it easy - God literally hit him over the head. This is what modern Christians don’t understand - every single ‘hero’ of the Church was a deeply flawed individual. Almost all of them had some sort of ‘Close Encounter of the First Kind’ with God too.
This is why the story of Jesus forcing Thomas to place his hand in His wounds is so profound. How many that believe in Christ afterward would never have such an opportunity?