To me, this man comes over as quite reasonable, yet very misinformed.

"... the atheist argument, led by Richard Dawkins, most improbably a fine zoologist, a good scholar, Oxford trained, who seems to have thrown everything off in this odd pursuit, particularly of Christianity.”

The religion Dawkins is most opposed to is Islam. The good prof even referred to the CofE as 'benign'. How can you critisize a person if you don't know what they stand for?

“We start with emotions and passions and feelings, the roots of which we don’t know and perhaps will never know,”

We? What we? Anyone with a basic understanding of evolution and neurology can exactly tell you where these things come from. Which IMO doesn't make them any less wonderful, on the contrary.

Bragg dismissed the philosopher’s (de Botton) proposal that temples should be built for non-believers. “For that you need faith and they haven’t got faith,” he said.

If you listen closely to de Bottons talks, or read one of his books, you notice he uses terms like 'temples' by lack of equally descriptive, secular words.

Maybe it's because I'm Dutch, but who is this guy? Have I spend 5 minutes of my life on a nobody?