There is a much cheaper heuristic: if someone is very confident about their beliefs, can’t critique those beliefs or find flaws or inconsistencies in them, by the very definition, they are religious, and it’s not an intellectual discussion.

I can’t think of a belief I currently hold - other than more instinctive ones like children’s welfare - and that I cannot critique or find flaws in. If I you push me, I might even find inconsistencies there.

Although I agree with the author for the inverse. E.g. I haven’t heard a non-religious or non-grifter argument about AI safety, so far. But I shouldn’t conclude it’s crazy. I haven’t heard of an argument for effective altruism that is even remotely altruistic or one that is not a legitimization of libertarian-style support for social injustice. But maybe I only heard crappy arguments.