I made no use of any point about religion.<quoted text>
If Utts were correct, I would expect that many more people with bigger reputations and more influence would on board with her resulting in increased press and money for research, and the nay-saying contingent (Randi, Gardner, Hyman, Kurtz) would become marginalized like the evolution and global climate change nay-sayers. Instead, we have just a fringe group of enthusiastic advocates.
I understand the limitations of that argument, but you should appreciate its merits. It's the same approach we used to committing ourselves to a new life in what might have been a dangerous world. If it were not what we needed it to be, why were so many people like us who could live wherever they liked living there for so many years?
You've already said all of this, some in the first half of this post, and I've addressed it all already:
"When it comes to religion, were not two sides of the same coin and you dont get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, Thor and The Kraken - with the stuff that is not evidence-based " - Bill Maher
But if I had, you would arguably have a point.