That's missing the point, I think. Dr. Krauss wouldn't avoid challenging non-religious beliefs and theories that he believes are wrong, either. For example, h

That's missing the point, I think. Dr. Krauss wouldn't avoid challenging non-religious beliefs and theories that he believes are wrong, either. For example, he's vocal on climate change, and while there's some overlap between religiosity and disbelief in climate change (or disbelief that it matters even if it is occurring), the core claims of climate change vs no climate change are about sources of data and validity of models, which are secular arguments. Pointing out that the sociological pathologies that lead to bad beliefs under religion can also exist in an ostensibly religion-free culture or group does not address the disparity in social acceptance of critique between bogus religious doctrine and bogus non-religious doctrine. Krauss's argument is not that we should try to eradicate anything that encourages wrong belief (Krauss is not as extreme as Harris or Dawkins). Rather, Krauss's argument is that religious beliefs should be as open to criticism as non-religious belief (and not defended simply because they're religious in origin).