Is Dawkins inaccurate in his position that people who are truly "religious" must believe in the literal truth of all the myths and miracles presented by their traditions? For example, the resurrection

I don't know, that statement is different than the one in the article which actually says 'Dawkins is at his most inaccurate when he ventures into religion'. You introduced the resurrection albeit sarcastically which I kind of knew. But I decided to make my point anyway to clarify the fact that people who are truly "religious" dont have to believe/ compel themselves to believe or have it supposed that they believe in the literal truth of all the myths and miracles presented by their traditions apart from those which are written into the Profession of Faith.

Is Dawkins inaccurate in his position that people who are truly "religious" must believe in the literal truth of all the myths and miracles presented by their traditions? For example, the resurrection

If that is his position, yes

Which, according to your post, is true. Fine. So, what, if anything, is Tudge trying to accomplish here?

1) Which according to my post is not true. However the resurrection has to be believed as it is in the creed which is a statement of fundamental beliefs.

2) Tudge has written a critique of Richard Dawkins's new book which understandably got his fans hissy fitting over it. He isn't trying to achieve anything in particular

[Edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

So a billion Christians don't actually believe in the literal truth of the resurrection?

Yes they do - it's in their profession of faith

link text

I'm afraid the only technique I've ever learned to counter it was to see it for what it is, and ignore it.

But you didn't !!!