Your guest constantly contradicts himself, often over-reaches and then draws back (or vise-versa). He is a provacateur, which is fine, but his disjointed monologues,his unnecessary cheap shots, his straw-dogging of religion, conflating religion with theology (as if either is a singular) make it nearly impossible to follow whatever point he wants to make. He makes one half-cohernt criticism of faith. I wish he would have stayed at that criticism, fleshed it out, explained it, and addressed rational objections (there are some, afterall). I will read his most recent book in the hope that it is more coherent, balanced, and rational than what appears in the radio program as rather thoughtless and impolite zealotry.He conflicts and or dismisses the question of "Why" with "How," he (rightly) notes that science is about data collection and that questions are more interesting than answers and then says it can answer theological questions better than theology. His most grave mistake is an ancient one: asssuming that "natural philosophy" can address questions unique to rational people. Human existance, for example, is not reducible to evolution, however sublime that science is at describing what happens in nature. I'd love to hear him explain and justify his reductionism. He was, if I may add, most elouqent when he demonstrated his inability to explain what he understands 'love' to be.
More information about text formats