I administered a data centre for many years and RAID was a big part of that. Uptime is critical for a data centre, and RAID is a key tool in delivering it. But I avoid RAID on my home system because it adds a whole layer of complexity and administration which, for me, just isn't worth it. For example, a lot of people slap in disks into a RAID-1 or a RAID-5 configuration in the belief that they've protected their data, but when it comes time to replace a disk they haven't actually tested how to do it. They often don't even know how to tell which drive has failed. If your data is critical to you, you need to test and document all your procedures so that you're not flying blind when the time comes. And since I know that RAID alone can't protect my data from all risks, I focus my efforts on backups instead, which (if done right) are much better insurance against data loss.
In my personal opinion you're probably better off getting a larger drive than trying to RAID-0 two smaller drives together. The drives themselves essentially use RAID-0 internally to access multiple channels of flash chips. For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it. There are some bottlenecks because of the single controller (vs. two if you use two 80GB drives), but IMHO its not enough to worry about having to deal with RAID and loosing TRIM functionality.
Remember that RAID-0 can improve the transfer rates, but it doesn't improve access times, which is the most important metric for an SSD.