I must disagree. Rupert implies his starting point is the same as yrs. he's rational, reasonable and a man of science... he's just fallen under the coltish spell that Christianity (or any religion) can weave.
For crying out loud, Alex:
he's just fallen under the coltish (sic) spell that Christianity (or any religion) can weave, you say. But if one reads the Kindle sampler of his book, it makes it plain that he's not a cultist. If anything, he's an ecumenist. His wife teaches spiritual practices, in which he occasionally takes part, to all-comers, regardless of religion. He recognises, as one of his Hindu teachers told him, that all religions properly understood and practised lead to God; and since he was brought up a Christian, probably best for him to follow Christianity.
It's not as if he is in any sense a fundamentalist. Nor, I don't think, is he saying that he follows Christianity solely because some of its various practices make him feel better. They do make him feel better, to be sure, but I think his understanding of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is nuanced.
Consider this: Tai chi (as I know from personal experience) can help people feel better, regardless of which religion (or none) they follow. The fact that underlying it is the idea of chi arising in Chinese religion and culture doesn't mean I buy into the whole nine yards. Many people feel similarly about the distinction between yoga (which I personally find hard) and Hinduism, or meditation (which I also find hard, preferring contemplation, as it can be done anywhere anytime, even when doing other things) and Buddhism. Am I right and anyone who disagrees wrong? Of course not -- each to his own.
What I think he's saying is that most if not all of us have spiritual impulses, and may desire some kind of outlet to express those, not necessarily arising from within the same religious tradition. Many (not all) of his practices
do arise from within the same Christian tradition, because, given his background, they are familiar and he feels comfortable with them. Nonetheless, he's hardly a gullible believer and still less is he a proselytiser. All I think he's saying is that given that most or all of us have spiritual needs, where should we look to satisfy them? One can do worse than look to the traditions of the society in which one was raised, but if that doesn't satisfy, then by all means look to other traditions or parts of different traditions that do. I think he knows that any such practices are just one way of satisfying those needs, and not suitable for everyone.
I probably consider myself mostly a Christian, for example, and find certain common practices and attitudes of other traditions either unappealing or downright scary. But I don't, once again, buy into the whole nine yards. I don't go to church, don't believe many of the doctrines, and have my own particular synthesis. It's not in my book necessary that Jesus was resurrected, though for many other people it is, and that's fair enough.
I find it puzzling and somewhat disturbing for you to dismiss him in such terms. I contacted him once about climate change and he's a believer, unlike me, but have I held that against him? By no means. He's entitled to his opinion , as am I mine, and I still hold him in high regard.