Well yes, but that's sort of the his point.

Implicit in Religion is accepting that when you reach an insuperable, you can open the God trapdoor which leads outside the rational universe and becomes the answer to any further problems you encounter.

This most obvious when one group of believers decide to start mocking another (for instance, Christians on the Telegraph ranting about how damned silly Islam, or Scientology, or Neopaganism are - though you can rearrange those any way you like), it's most common when 'reformed' members of a religion - like Christianity - attempt to distance themselves from the Fundamentalists with some combination or arguments that amount to "all the irrational stuff up to this line is fine and good and sensible, but everything afterwards is obviously not meant to apply to me or today."

From without, absent the initial break from naturalism: that there is a God who can transcend Space, Time and the Laws of physics, it's all equally incomprehensible. I sympathise with religious believers who are offended by comparisons between religion and fairy tales, but they don't seem to understand that those comparison aren't made simply to be nasty, in perfect sincerity it really does look that absurd.

In any case, to briefly touch on the actual article - irrespective of how much we 'need' Christianity, the insurmountable problem that thesis has is that the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is a small a shrinking group. Slightly fewer than half the population described themselves as Christian at the last census, and less than half of those actually believe in any sort of God. The numbers shrink as you become more specific, but let's just remember less than 3% of the population attend church at least four times a year.