One of my complaints with most religions is exactly what he mentions, that adherents won’t engage in meaningful debate. To do that they have to admit 1) the story was written by an infallible human and 2) that there are holes in their story and 3) that there are things they don’t know. (some zealous political adherents are the same way) Faith is frequently cited as the great gap-filler, but I think that is sometimes intellectually dishonest and lazy.
I also like his stated goal of applying the elements of science to belief systems to carve out the ridiculous (my word choice, not his) and to continue exploring and experimenting and measuring to try to get to more information.
I have always hated the religious types who are so arrogant as to believe that they “know it all” or that “it’s true because god says so.” It is such a narrow, subjective stance and discounts the other 100% (minus their presence) of the rest of the universe.
It is gratifying to see someone so smart and well spoken eloquently state one’s own beliefs….
