The question should be rephrased: Can you love God and accept reality?

At least Wilson acknowledges that evolution is a scientific not religious question, however the scientific jury is only out because it reached a verdict a long time ago. The only argument left is a religious and political one. This is not to say that everything is known or settled, rather that the only role God has is to hide in the ever shrinking gaps of our knowledge.

He introduces the term "Honest Doubter" and capitalizes it too. What I wonder is a "Dishonest Doubter"? Or is this a term like "True Christian" - a means of denigrating those the author disagrees with?

Seeing the world in mythological terms may be much more INTERESTING than reality, but it would be dangerous to believe it to be anything other than myth, I enjoy the stories of Asgard, Middle Earth, The Hitchhikers Guide, but would consider myself seriously deluded if I actually believed in them merely because they are 'interesting'.

Books like "A brief history of time", "Your Inner Fish" and "The Selfish Gene" are fascinating and mind enhancing because they provide an insight into reality that we don't normally experience directly. But AN Wilson finds them boring and would rather return to the comfortable faith of his childhood read his big book of myths.

The belief that black people are more primitive than white people is obviously perfectly compatible with Christianity. It was preached (and still is in some churches) for hundreds of years and the Bible was used by Christian slave owners as justification.

I've never heard the views that religious people are spotty, spec wearing types. That sounds more like the popular image of scientific nerds. Religious people are (in my opinion) uncool because they express certainty about things they can manifestly know nothing about and try to impose their certainties on everyone else through law and education.

Latsot couldn’t have said it better, and I agree wholeheartedly. Wishful thinking doth not an argument make.

I'm disappointed that there was no delving into the impetus behind Wilson's becoming an atheist in the first place. To be honest, I doubt there was any better motivation for becoming an atheist than those insipid "childish playground things" that were listed.
You aren't an atheist simply because you don't want to lump yourself in with the religious in-group. You're an atheist if you simply don't believe in god(s).
In my estimation, Wilson wasn't an atheist any more than a pre-teen who rebels against the religion of their parental figures is an atheist.
To be atheist is to admit to an absence of belief, not in specific dogma or the embarrassing social structure of which you were a part, but of the whole absurdity of "super"natural existence and the lazy, blanket cop out of putting the unknown in the hands of whatever god or gods apply.
If this was meant to provide illumination or perhaps to persuade atheists to consider that there might be some manner of error in their way of thinking, then it falls horribly short of the mark. Reading this, I'm not given any impression that Wilson is any sort of source of wisdom or insight beyond the idle platitudes that come a dime a dozen from any uninformed proselytizer.

It is interesting that his response to the original challenges to his faith are not given as lack of evidence or conflict with current evidence, His differentiation into scientific and religious questions at the end of the piece shows the usual parting of mental exhibited by educated religious people. It does not hold. The only thing this lacked was the tired attack on the strawman of materialism. Clearly this is a simple individual choice as so is a bit boring. It would be better if any religious person could forward a better argument than 'i quite like it thanks'

Atheism doesnt disclude mythology. There is plenty of it around. Atheists can still love father christmas and revel in fantasy and sci-fi. The are plenty of avenues for the imagination. You can indulge in them as much as you like, but self indulgence to the point of the acceptance of mythology as reality because you like how it makes you feel can be dangerous.

The Churches have always presented themselves as political organisations. They do good, of course. Any political organisation has to, but the good is used to defend the bad. Some might disagree with me, but any organisation that sells some idea, raises money for itself through this, lobbies on local and national issues and even global ones is clearly political. Especially if it is given privileges in national government. Politics based on mythology has not historically proven itself to be responsible.

Keep the good and get rid of the bad. Enjoy mythology, but dont lie to yourself about it.

Wait.. His reason for not being religious was that religious people where not the "cool kids". It wasn't the logical inconsistencies, the ability of people to come up with moral rules without a magic being looking over their shoulder, an understanding of "why" we find Bach compelling that is based on biology, society and neuroscience, not on woo about 'spooky magic feelings', or anything else tangible. This guy opted to do the reverse of my niece, who recently told me, "I was hanging on and kind of hoping it was all somehow real, despite all the nonsense, but I recently realized that all of them are totally nuts.", and instead, apparently, found that some of the members of some local church are actually "cool", so he joined up again?

Sorry, but such thinking implies that the reasons for atheism had nothing to do with logic, reason, or evidence, and everything to do with "emotional appeal". He no longer finds it appealing, so he is now shopping for something else. This isn't news, its evidence that a purely "emotional" path to atheism doesn't work, and its a tragedy. The real thing tend to start from an emotional rejection of behavior they observe, and search for why, finding that the behavior is "encoded" in the ideas, irrationality, subservience, and rejection of contrary evidence, which are the core of religions. I.e., they reject the inequities and disturbing behavior they see, then the things that "teach" those inequities. Sounds like AN Wilson never quite "got" that far. Possibly because he never had a reason to look that deep, but only a shallow rejection of it, based on it not being "cool" to him. The ones that will fall back into it, all have weak basis for their lack of faith, and you can only hope they learn better ones before they do. Mere dislike of religion, isn't sufficient, since method #1 of evangelists is, "make them feel wanted and happy, until they are hooked, then get them to push the same".