I think it's great you sat down with him. I applaud you for that. That doesn't mean that based on your report, the only thing that has been changed in my mind is that he's probably a nice guy who likes the church. That has very little to do with his research methods and the effect they had.

What appears to be a problem in attempting to have honest discussions is that people can't handle people passionately disagreeing with him. Not every discussion needs to end in an agreement. I see nothing dishonest in the vast majority of responses to your post.