namely, the spiritual vacuity of a society that chases endlessly after pretty baubles, and the equal vacuity of a political class that sees stimulating such behaviour as the only possible means of 'wealth creation'. This contention was so against the prevailing orthodoxy that it's no wonder most commentators simply couldn't get what the economic recusant was on about.

This is a view of religion as an effective manner of dealing with life's vicissitudes

But it's in an interview recently published by the New Statesman that the archbishop most clearly demonstrates his sophistication, and a distinctly worldly savoir faire; his dismissive estimation of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the fashionable atheistic claque gathered around them was effectively a paraphrase of Voltaire: "If Richard Dawkins didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him."

All of which brings me to my core suspicion about my near neighbour in the London Borough of Lambeth: he may believe he was created by 'God', yet I find it almost impossible to equate his conception of Christianity with that espoused by sky-spirit worshipping types who really think 'He' nailed his only son to a bit of wood.

Take this observation from Dr Williams in the same interview: "Look at Christianity carefully and what you see is this balance, between dependence on the God who created you and the sense that grace and gift are utterly fundamental, and you rely on that. And, coming out of that, a certain authority in your own life, living to live your own life, and shape creatively your own life and the life of those around

you."

This, surely, is a view of the value of religion as a heuristic - an effective manner of dealing with life's vicissitudes - that no one could disagree with.

It suggests no arcane knowledge, nor presupposes any privileged faith; substitute the words 'good life' for 'God' and there could be few who would dissent - except believers in an omnipotent supernatural being who chooses to go round creating worlds as some bizarre form of real-time experiment in moral philosophy.

Of course, it may be that Rowan Williams believes in this latter kind of God quite as much as Albus Dumbledore does in magic, but I'd still contend that's not enough to justify the archbishopric; after all, magic is just another heuristic, one that its practitioners are only willing to adapt - what's important is what works.

As to the alternative, hard-line belief in God, it's worth noting that not even the most ardent fan of the Harry Potter books would be able to suspend their disbelief in them, if Dumbledore 'believed' in JK Rowling.