How did the article on which this is a comment not get submitted?
"human sciences challenge a lot of beliefs held by many atheists"
Only in as much as science challenges a lot of beliefs held by anybody. Meaningless, but not fail.
"The modern efflorescence of evolutionarily inspired psychology and sociology tells us that the elements of religion are natural, and unavoidable, and sometimes useful"
An "ought" from an "is". Fail +1.
"So we learn at the very least that they can't be abolished."
Hasty generalisation. Fail +2.
"Religious belief is not a marker of stupidity. In this country, among the under thirties, it is most common in those with a university education. Nor is it transmitted by brainwashing."
Strawman argument . Fail +3.
"Nor has the decline of religious belief, in those countries where it has declined, resulted in a growth of scientific knowledge. If anything, the two have declined together."
Equivocation, growth in scientific knowledge is not the same thing as growth in public acceptance of science (his example). Fail +4.
"This is distressing for the atheists who believe that science and religion are natural enemies"
Very few do, particularly any who've been on the receiving end of a "bible or science" false dichotomy from some anti-evolutionist. Whether you believe in non-overlapping-magestera or not, it is a plain observation that a great number of reputable and successful scientists are not atheists. Only the worst kind of fundamentalism is completely incompatible with science. Fail +5.
"we can see from the progress of climate change denialism how helpless scientists are against the same kind of jeering and suspicious anti-intellectualism that some of them direct at religion."
Category error and a false conclusion. What anti-intellectual jeering has been directed at religion by scientists? Even Dawkins' is scrupulously intellectual in his "jeering", he may be wrong - but he is not unthinking in it. Conversely, much (but not all) of the criticism directed at climate change is precisely that directed at evolution, and frequently from the same source. It's not science, it's not testable, it's a conspiracy, it all relies on models, there's no proven link between X and Y, it's just not true lalalalalala; those are anti-intellectual jeers. But even taking the argument at face value, it is simply wrong. The jeering has not significantly hindered climate science, each year sees more and better understanding of how the climate has, is and will vary. Fail +7.
But then, this is very much par for the course for Andrew Brown's column.