But no worldview is simply neutral

It's hard to know what that means. Is the null hypothesis not "simply neutral"? If not, is being "simply neutral" a relevant criterion? Is the null hypothesis a religious conviction? If not, isn't the only question whether we have sufficient evidence to overcome it? And won't each of us have a different standard of proof? Atheists believe that there is no convincing evidence of a deity. Deists of every (and no) denomination believe that there is. I agree that Maher makes a weak case for rejecting some hearsay evidence. But then what?