Two opposed camps can only have a fruitful debate if they agree on what it is they disagree about. A militant atheist such as Richard Dawkins is right to call out scientific ignorance in some religious settings. But at a deeper level his argument fails, because the deity he rejects is a blown-up thing, not
Comments
A blooming good offer
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting the next 3 months for £3.
CLAIM OFFER 3 months for £3Already a subscriber? Log in