I was on the opposite side of that when I was young and first read his work. I eagerly read piles and piles of philosophy and quickly shelved any interest in him and his work as building on completely unconvincing premises.
But many many years later, there's been a lot of churn in whose work I value and whose I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if I see his work in a very different light now. This news may be what gets me yo pick it up again and find out.
I enjoyed him mostly for his crusade against philosophy purporting that the mind has something other than a physical basis. Modern day philosophers that want to resurrect the “mind body problem” and panpsychism and the “hard problem of consciousness”.
He consistently argues that studying consciousness and perception is difficult but not impossible, and we will slowly make progress in this scientific endeavor just like all others we have attempted thus far. In philosophy circles he is sometimes derided as having too scientific a mindset, but that is what draws me to him. He’s very endearing to listen to as well—very idiosyncratic.
So you don't think your belief that the scientific mindset is a preferable mindset is a philosophic belief rather than a scientific belief? Because it is, since that is a belief that can't be proven empirically, rather it is reasoned to philosophically.
Now to address your misguided belief on the mind being reduced to the brain.
Under atheistic materialism what is happening is matter in motion. This means even the matter in your brain. What does that mean? Your brain is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc and even your comment was determined. You destroy the possibility of justified knowledge claims under that worldview when taking it to its logical conclusion. Also as Sean Caroll noted, quantum physics and stochastic probabilities don't mean anything, taking the worldview to the logical conclusion means determinism of the movement of matter.
You also can't account for universals and particulars on that view and solve the problem of the and the many.
Doesn't a crusade, which I think it was, imply a set of strong beliefs not a dispassionate analysis of what might be the case? David Berlinski's 'The Devil's Delusion - The atheism and its scientific pretensions' offers some serious counter arguments.
But many many years later, there's been a lot of churn in whose work I value and whose I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if I see his work in a very different light now. This news may be what gets me yo pick it up again and find out.