Dalrymple is always worth reading.
He doesn’t usually talk about himself, so I had not realized that he is an agnostic, but a sensible one who knows that he doesn’t know.
He understands the basic paradox—that without some sort of religious account, reasoning has no basis. You need something like the logos of the Greeks, or the Logos of Christianity. If your explanation of “everything” is purely materialist or evolutionary, then, as he says, you’d might as well quit thinking or worrying, because it’s all meaningless and arbitrary, including your thought processes.
There’s a *BIG* difference between an agnostic, often an honest and deep thinker who honestly does not feel that the evidence supports the existence of God(or the specific God of Judeo-Christianity, in this case) , and the Atheist who, IMHO just has a different religion, and one that is based of ‘faith’ as much as any other (with an apparent concomitant to proselytize in just as annoying a manner!). To the Evangelical Christian, of course *BOTH* are going to hell, but for the purposes of logical reasoning the former is at least an intellectually honest position.
Especially for the Shakespearean allusions. There was quite a lot in this article... but I was hoping for more. I liked his take on Hitchens, who for his drinking and ravings on religion, reminds me of Richard Burton in The Night of the Iguana. In some crazy way, if the drinking continues, Hitch is playing Burton playing Burton.