Richard Dawkins has apologised to Peter Kay.

The controversy started after Prof. Dawkins read an excerpt from Kay's autobiography, The Sound of Laughter, in which he wrote: "I believe in a God of some kind, in some sort of higher being. Personally I find it very comforting." Dawkins retorted: "How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?"

In today's Guardian Dawkins writes 'I am distressed to find myself reported as participating in a "literary spat", and as "pouring scorn" on an individual, comedian Peter Kay, for whom I actually feel nothing but goodwill.'

But what  is Richard Dawkins apologising for? 

Is he worried about offending Peter Kay, or about the bad PR arising from criticising this much-loved cultural icon?

Peter Kay has not changed his beliefs, so presumably Dawkins' criticism still stands. Or does he only ridicule those who can't answer back?

Quite apart from anything else, Dawkins’ criticism was confused. Simply because a faith is comforting does not mean that it is not true. In any case, what is wrong with the idea that belief in God is comforting?

The existence of God is a profound challenge to the idea of human autonomy and self-sufficiency. Indeed, an acknowledgement of this is often the starting point for religious belief.

Is not the real issue that Richard Dawkins knows that the taste of the future is religious and that he doesn't like it?