Richard Dawkins asks some captivating questions about religion.  Overall, he comes across as somewhat worried, like someone who, after waiting patiently for the death of religion, is finally obliged to admit that faith is showing no sign of waning.

Many viewers of his two episodes have probably considered his claims of little significance, over-charged as they were with provocative half-truths, embellished by various disrespectful remarks and crass metaphors.  If we delve deeper, however, we may extract some decent arguments worthy of intelligent debate.  I will mention three.

First, there is nothing inherently wrong in subjecting religion to criticism.  On-going self-evaluation and rational debate have been part and parcel of religion since the dawn of history.  In Christianity, for instance, much of what Jesus did can be seen as a constructive critique of the religious practice of his time.  Jesus wanted to rediscover what had become neglected or distorted.  His scathing attack on all kinds of religious hypocrisy and pride is striking.  And he wasn't the only one in history to do this.  Religion needs constant purification.

In a sense, the Enlightenment assault on religion in Western civilisation has had some beneficial effects.  It has helped us recognise caricatures of God for what they were, and thus helped us get rid of them.