I find it notably interesting that RD can begin a chapter describing one whom he does not know and whom he claims does not exist.
It appears that RD uses the Catholic Church and Thomas Jefferson as his authoritative resources, at least in the beginning of chapter 2. Just noticing there are many of today which disagree with the Catholic Church and there were those of yesterday that did not agree with Jefferson.
It also yields a lot of opinions that are somewhat without good foundations. (You would have to read to see what I mean here.)
I believe RD misspeaks when he claims, “It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists.” For he clearly notes his opinion in saying, “Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours.”
RD enjoys misquoting John Adams, for sure, out of context, (and maybe others) by not giving the complete quote(s) and not referencing where it may be found.
For one example, please consider RD’s quote of Mr. Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were not religion in it.”
Now a fuller quote, “'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."” [Ref]
There is much more I could say in this section of the book, but I will refrain.
He seems to insinuate that it is okay, acceptable, expected for an atheist to lie about their atheism to get into political power (I mean public office). Hmmm… What else is okay, acceptable, expected to lie about to get into office? What about while in office? What about reelection?
He writes, “I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.” “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
His categories (only 1, 6, & 7)
 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, “I do not believe, I know.”
 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
 Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.”
At first, his words may seem clever, but taking a further look at what he writes seems somewhat hypocritical on his part. I would say the majority of atheists I have conversed with on the internet, at least, write as if they are in category 7, for they are always telling Christians, “there is no God”. Saying, “there is no scientific evidence of God” is not the same as saying “there is no God”. As since RD points out that  exactly contrast , and  is built on faith, so must  be. For the choices 1-7 are based on faith, belief, and not on evidence.
For how many times have we heard that science cannot prove or disprove God, for He is of the supernatural realm, whereby the natural science has no means to examine? For this reason, RD decides to say, “What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.” So since science cannot prove/disprove God, it turns to test His probability. But against what, the natural? This still leaves the atheist with no greater foundation to rest their case of “there is no God” on, but their faith/belief/hope that their presuppositions “there is no God” is correct. With no probability giving a definite “no” to “does God exist”, they are still left in category  or  by their choice to deny God exist, even though science and probability are unable to remove God from existence.