Are you able to quiz Massimo as to why his accomodationist stance regarding religion and science’s supposed compatibility is not another example of ‘bunk’?
For many, including I, think that it is bunk to declare that science and religion are compatible on most assertions that most religious folk hold dear.
(I am not referring to the “fact” that scientists can be religious, which is clearly true, but I get the impression that Massimo has implied that the core philosphies of both are compatible.)

I feel compelled to respond to Massimo Pigliucci’s, misgivings about the stylistic approach of Hitchens and Dawkins. Hitchens, despite the impressive depth of his knowledge and clarity of thought, deals with a spectrum perhaps a little broad for this topic so I will confine this response to Dawkins.
There is one detail that seems to me to be missing from Pigliucci’s assessment – a detail that makes all the difference in the world. Firstly I don’t find Dawkins to be in the slightest bit aggressive to lay people who have a genuine interest, question, miscomprehension, or indeed disagreement about his field of expertise. On the contrary I find him to be polite, patient and a true educator in the finest tradition.
The detail I’m referring to is: Acting in good faith. Here is the problem. His perceived aggressive style, it seems to me, is leveled at people who are not acting in good faith. They don’t care! Does professor Pigliucci really think that any amount of charm and good grace would have any traction on these charlatans? They have made misinformation and lies their profession. What would be the point in a soft conciliatory approach when the outcome is a forgone conclusion? These people are entrenched in their position not merely by ideology, but often by trade and status. They maintain their position not by an honest, good faith debate, rather by lies and deceit. I would use the analogy of a racist who is interviewing a member of the target of his discrimination. No amount of qualifications will make the slightest difference because the outcome is already decided. Would the applicant get a better result with a soft friendly approach?
Sometimes being good neighbors is not a possible end point of a conflict, sometimes simple resolute opposition is the only way.