The Oxford way of teaching, with its deconstructing, analytical approach, proved fatal, he says, to his assumption as "a naively dogmatic young atheist ... that atheism is exactly the same as 'common sense' or objectivity. I'm not saying that in psychological terms we can't be objective.
The speaker challenges the notion that atheism is simply "common sense" or objectivity, suggesting that this view was flawed due to the analytical approach of Oxford teaching. He acknowledges the limitations of achieving psychological objectivity but believes it's possible to be objective in other ways.