Well, A C Grayling certainly succeeds in being the right 'tone' for the sensitive ears of the quisling atheists, humanists, theologians are other complainers of uber atheism (as I baptise this non-movement).

I totally agree that Christianity, at least in the West, has held back and stunted human liberty (not progress) and even sent it in reverse. Surely this is the correct way to understand our history? I would be interested to hear if the theologians and other philosophers agree with this perspective.

And what if our detractors were to also weigh into A C Grayling as being too shrill, too strident, too agressive?

But I also worry that we've only had a half enlightenment (since the Age of Enlightenment) where we forgot to add the rest of the humanities within the scope of natural science. Therefore a New Enlightenment is required. This is most important because as Roger Scruton says:

Religion is more dangerous than I think this panel have recognised.