Bad Science. Bad Fiction. Decent Philosophy

The science was too shallow and lazy. I can probably attribute it to wanting to appeal to a broader audience. But the fiction was too predictable as well. I don't want to add spoilers here but it was obvious from the beginning.
However, the philosophical thoughts were interesting. This is something I think about a lot - how could science and religion coexist and Brown's (or is it Prof. Langdon's) conclusions go well with how I think. Being an atheist is viewed as being one with immoral behavior or lack of moral in the Western world - to much of my surprise. It's not. Religion is only one framework of morality. It's bogged down by dogmatic people who don't adapt. Being an atheist gives the freedom to follow a moral framework that is more inline with my ideals. We don't have to believe in a higher power or fear punishment to be moral either. This can be achieved while still being religious as well if people are just a little more open minded. Problem is the conformity that organized religion demands.