There is a strand of Dawkins apologist who say things like "Of course, Richard acknowledges the contribution that Christianity and other religions have made to the development of intellectual life and a scientific understanding of the universe, he just can't say so because it's more important to attack religion as the root of so many people's ignorance," which strikes me as profoundly dishonest (though representative of a particular current in modern advocacy).

If Dawkins is now an agnostic, as the Ekklesia report suggested, then I have to say his agnosticism is not mine.