Dawk may go for 'pragmatism' at this point, but at the same time... he did author Gunslinger. The 'pragmatism' you allude to Ex-m reeks of moderately educational promotion and (perhaps) some sort of marketing strategy amongst whatever publishing company represents Dawk's authored works, including but not limited to his books on religion and his debates with catholics.

I think that there are many reasons to remain dubious towards whatever 'pragmatic humility' atheists like Dawk display regarding religion. Quite frankly, they may pretend to have such qualities in discourse, but they are still kidding themselves. I personally am having a hard time imagining RD not having a condescending and elitist attitude towards the people he debates with, because he has yet to demonstrate an absence of such personality traits in his public form.

Any attempt by known 'n grown atheist "intellectual heavyweights" at intellectual humility can kindly go to hell at this point, because no evidence exists in its favor. Like the "God" concept often laughed at by us vocal atheists everywhere, 'humble-yet-proud atheism' strikes me as largely mythical. It doesn't seem to actually exist in public contexts, because of the tortured assumption made by such "atheist vs theist" debaters that their suppositions are inherently more accurate and more salient than their opposition's unless said suppositions are convincingly challenged; IOW the "I'm automatically right until proven wrong" mentality that I've seen on the web at various lengths. It seems to be a predominate trait of what is collectively described as "New Atheism" and Abrahamics alike.  Genuinely 'pragmatic atheism' appears to have died a very obscure and ignoble death sometime during the 20th century, in part because of what amounts to a social philosophy of "the hubris of my enemy justifies my hubris" often exemplified by Fender/redneF.

Bottom line, I contend that if Dawk goes for polite accomodationism he will be laughed and heckled at by legions of supporters and critics alike. It isn't an option for him, IMO.

(Sound is almost nonexistant on this damn portapottyPC that most people call "a netbook", but I'll go on passive observation and intuition.)

 I believe ultimate origin of life was meant.

Around 1:09 the priest starts speaking after being asked why the writers of the scripture didn't say anything about the specifics of the start of the Universe. He said that the writers didn't need to speak about it, they were writing about god and the message from god. He implies that they HAD the technology but they didn't bother to talk about it.

Dawkins sort of refutes the comments but then around 1:11 he goes in the "I'm an agnostic" but not that he believes in god or a creator. He's correct in what he says, that people who preach these religions are not providing factual information. There is no proof, not even enough to even consider that there could be a creator.