"This is not about religion, this is what people think about religion"

...

Deny that the everything from the title of the piece to the emphasis placed on several of the speakers being Nobel Laureates was designed as an attempt to add an air of credibility to the views expressed.

Follow that with an assertion that individuals who are not themselves spiritual, most of which freely admit having little or no education on or experience with spiritual matters are qualified in any way to speak on spiritual matters.

I find it interesting that the Christian interpretation of God is invariably singled out for criticism by academics, yet I haven't encountered any panel discussions on how Buddhism or Taoism are irrelevant superstitions. Someone tell me that doesn't smack of religious persecution, please.

In the mean time Academics (taken in aggregate) don't seem to understand that part of the reason the majority of the population (in the US anyway, I can't comment on other parts of the world) are inherently skeptical of the Academic community is folks "don't cotton well to having some ivory tower egg-head tell them they're a bunch of superstitious nutjobs".