I’m not sure the (paraphrased) “movement to exclude anyone who thinks that science and religion are incompatible” is more than a straw man, but there are some good points in the article.
We certainly need to promulgate a regular non-religious way of discussing moral issues and our purpose on earth, and equally find a good way of bringing the magical bits of religion (architecture, music, language, stories) into a non-religious perspective. Why aren’t there scientists discussing science on Thought for the Day?
The recognition that religion may not be the best practice to take us forward:
“I understand the reluctance to let go of religion as the lens through which we view questions of meaning and morality. For thousands of years it was the best we could do; it provided social structures and a framework for thinking about our place in the world. But that framework turns out not to be right, and itâ€™s time to move on.”
And finally, how should it be news that the new Australian PM does not believe in God, unless she used belief as an election issue?