Stephen Weinberg writes very well.

I like this essay very much.

The prestige of religion seems today to derive from what people take to be its moral influence, rather than from what they may think has been its success in accounting for what we see in nature. Conversely, I have to admit that, although I really don't believe in a cosmic designer, the reason that I am taking the trouble to argue about it is that I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. ...
As far as I can tell, the moral tone of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of the times benefited from religion. ...
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

He sure knows how to turn a phrase. Is he right? I'm not sure. Even if he is, you could just as easily say "...; but for bad people to do good — that takes religion." Which sentence is more right? Don't know.