Human: John Gray is spot-on when it comes to religion. On that, we agree.

As far as Henry Bemis goes, while you might be correct that free will is not exactly "dogma", my point was that it seems to have essentially become dogma for Henry - and so much so, that he's unable to have a rational, evidence-driven conversation about a biological basis for religiosity. His fear is that if we concede a biological basis, it undermines belief in free will, and I'm saying that's not an acceptable basis for denying the possibility of innate religiosity. I'd also point out that Henry's denial of innate religiosity seems to derive from a desire to protect a set of values rather than from a (scientific) quest for the truth of the matter.

Bottom line is that Henry's devotion to the value of believing in free will is not an adequate basis for denying the possibility of a biological basis for religiosity; and if you, or Henry, or anyone want to explain to me why I'm wrong about that, please do so.