Forgive me a moment of pure self-indulgence here. As someone who drives a fair deal (and occasionally tries to get a jog in), audiobooks have become a life saver. A quick little download that offers me 6-15 hours of listening is a fantastic deal.

Now, my library is obviously full of the old liberal standards. I’ve got Al Franken’s books, Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Sold as well as Bob Woodward’s State of Denial. However, the one that’s had the most profound effect not only on me personally but on my political outlook has been Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.

I’m not sure why Dawkins has a reputation for being a “dick” about his atheism (to use South Park’s terminology). The man never stages debates, he never organizes protests, and his book is as non-inflammatory as one on the topic could possibly be. I would absolutely recommend this for anyone currently religious with an open mind who isn’t ready to plunge into something like Sam Harris’ The End of Faith.

The book as a whole is concentrated on questioning religion critically, the way one might criticize political or philosophical beliefs. He goes after every one of those little arguments you hear the devout use but may not have had an answer to, such Pascal’s gambit, for example: “if you believe and you’re wrong, no problem, but if you’re an atheist and you’re wrong, you go to hell, so why not play it safe?”, or the famous “evolution is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard resulting in a fully-built Boeing 747″. I’d also be lying if I said Dawkins and his wife narrating it didn’t help. Dawkins himself has an incredibly soothing voice, and it’s good to hear a work spoken by its author.

Now, the change. Readers here must, by now, be able to infer my lack of faith. At the same time, I may often seem sympathetic to the plight of the Muslims, my liberal side playing the “respect all cultures” card that instinctively seemed (for lack of a better word) right. I hesitated to really lay into Islam for the response from the Denmark cartoons, and strained to defend those who would malign the faith due to its crazies. Perhaps this could be chalked up to my desire to perpetuate the “christianity vs islam” battle, thinking that if I went after Islam I would find myself in an unwitting alliance with the Christian Right.

Regardless, Dawkins’ book has helped me realize the folly in that. I no longer sympathize with the Muslims in the world who take offense at whatever it is that they take offense to. That they may feel deeply hurt at how their religion is being portrayed no longer arouses any sympathy in me, and I have shed my concern for anyone feeling “victimized” over “unfair representation” of their faith. This doesn’t stay limited to Islam, but I feel that’s the most prominent change given how things are in American politics. It’s also worth noting that I haven’t lost my sympathy for those of Middle Eastern descent who are finding themselves unfairly targeted over their ethnicity, just not their religion.

Though it’s something that sat deep in me for some time, it also helped me work away from my agreement that we cannot judge a faith by its worst examples. It shook my belief that “moderate” religion was fine, and as long as people would stick to that all would be well. And, equally importantly, it answered many, many questions that I myself struggled to answer.

Which is not to say I would ever go on some crusade against religion. However, I think it only fair to be open about it. Everything is a matter of personal belief, and the book pressed greatly upon this fact. Specifically, that we should see no problem in questioning faith, and questioning religion. The existence of God is a scientific question, strictly speaking: it’s either true or it isn’t. There is an answer to it, and it, as well as any other question that religion claims to hold an answer to, deserves to be sought with a critical eye. One that doesn’t stop at “God did it” or “the book says so.”

Those who shy away from such things, non-believers themselves but “conceding” that God’s existence or the origin of the universe are not for science to ponder (NOMA is the term he gives it, for non-overlapping magisteria, meaning science and religion cover two independent realms) are no longer among those I consider allies. Maybe you could say the book has radicalized me, but I’d prefer to say it’s invigorated me.

I may have alienated a few of you, angered others, but in some small way I call this my long breath of fresh air. Religion has always been a topic of great interest to me, I hold a few radical beliefs that I may get into on a later date, but for the first time I feel the most open with my beliefs and I feel less intimidated with being open with them. I don’t feel guilty, and I don’t feel quite so “extreme”.

At the very least, those of you reading this who are Christian or Jewish and feel I’ve been overly hard on your faith while giving Islam a pass can rest assured that will no longer be the case.