At its best, Point of Inquiry offers solid discussion of important intellectual topics and, in relation to most podcasts, at a fairly high level of discourse. Some of the interviews have been particularly engaging, offering meaningful insight into topics.
But not all interviews are equal.
Perhaps one of the most frequent problems I have with the show is its ongoing ideological prejudice qua scientific progress. Though the podcasters may think of themselves as progressive and on the intellectual forefront, much of their paradigm is borrowed from 19th century attitudes towards religion. It's as if they read Max Weber and then stopped engaging in the continuing dialogue regarding religion in the public sphere.
This is an important point to make, as political progressivism should not be seen as synonymous with their particular brand of the "science vs. religion" dichotomy. Indeed, as intellectuals such as Horkheimer and Adorno have shown, belief in scientific progress may instead be seen as the antithesis of political progress.
In the most recent decade, intellectuals like Charles Taylor, Jurgen Habermas, and Robert Bellah have put forward incredible and articulate views regarding secularization, modernity, and religion in the public sphere. Compared to them, the Dawkins-variety engagement with these issues is sophmoric.