I won't recall the whole of the article to you, but if you get the chance you should certainly give it the once over. Below are some of my thoughts on what he has said:
To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. - Now who's trying to coerce?
All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! - Even if preachers did not believe that Adam and Eve existed-which I'm sure is not the case- it is not necessary to divulge this to their congregation. The pulpit is not the place to be mentioning what one personally thinks. But is where the Word of God is spoken, and -nota bene- not the Word of Man.
Discussing morality involves deep conversation about a world distant from the physical. We cannot engage in it with our senses, but rather with our minds, which is why we result in using ostensive definitions. Or in other words, metaphors.
How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? - See, this is what you get when someone tries to rationalise faith. Superfluous philosophical questions (I have nothing against philosophy by the way) that strain the mind searching for an answer that most likely doesn't want to be found. Although, I think the answer he is looking for is reason. Oh wait, yes I forgot, he doesn't believe that reason is related in any way WHATSOEVER with faith. How silly of me to think so.
Does Professor Dawkins really expect someone to justify what they say ALL the time?
Parent telling son a bedtime story: There was once a dragon... but of course dragons don't exist, who would be silly enough to believe that?!...and the dragon had a friend which was a griffin... again something that doesn't exist, because you know a griffin is actually an imagined hybrid between an eagle and a lion, it's hard to explain where the legend actually came from and why some people still believe in them... wait, what was I saying again?
What makes him so sure that he is right, when he implies that priests and vicars should tell their congregations outright that Adam and Eve didn't exist? If religious clergy were to say that what else might they feel that they should tell them?
Priest: ...Oh yes, you know the Great Flood didn't actually happen? It was just a patter of rain that fell on an old man's fishing boat. We just tell that story to scare the bejesus out of you. Same goes with that guy, you know the one, Jesus? Yeah, well he was just like any other man. He had a beard that never grew, but that's the only miracle about him. Wait, you know what, I might as well just tell you. The whole Bible, it's just a story. Who'd have thought it eh?!