Why I don't think Dawkins is too bad...

In an article published in the Times in May entitled "How dare you call me a fundamentalist" Richard Dawkins answers some of the criticism that has come his way since publishing his rather dubious book "The God Delusion". The article can be found here however I was rather struck by the following excerpt:

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

...and I see his point. For once Dawkins has not actually lumped all believers into the same category and acknowledged that there is a vast difference between the belief of Rowan Williams and Pat Robertson.

Although atheists tend to sound a bit too bitter for the good of their own argument, I think Dawkins has generally been quite useful for religious belief. Much like Dawkins I am horrified by much of what goes on in the name of religion, and want to distance myself as far from some Christians as Dawkins does. In fact in many cases I find myself agreeing far more with Dawkins than I do with some others who call themselves Christians. These people do need to be confronted, and as robustly as possible, or else they risk pulling all religious belief into disrepute. In this respect I find Dawkins saying many of the things that I would really like to say, but that my well-behaved Christian politic just won't let me. I'm not saying that Dawkins isn't a twit - he strikes me as rather bitter and self-obsessed - however sometimes he does make some useful points!