"If your elders are wrong, you have as much cause to contradict them as they would to contradict you if you were wrong. [...] Once, long after I became an adult with children of my own, my parents asked me if it would have been better for them to have brought me up in their parents’ religion: Judaism. I replied that I preferred having been brought up in what they believed in: 18th century rationalism, the belief system of Adam Smith and David Hume."

This is very emblematic of the sort of thinking you also get from other modernist Enlightenment advocates like Steven Pinker or 20th century positivists but it's simply an extremely cartoonish position. For no good reason it assumes that everything worth doing is legible to individuals, even children in this case, and if you can't present an explicit "rational" argument for it, there's no good reason for it to be around.

Of course the fundamental problem is that there's no reason to believe that everything of value in the world is legible, in particular to individuals, and throwing long traditions away just because you can't defend them at any given point doesn't mean that in them isn't encoded some institutional knowledge that nobody can directly articulate. If an entire community acted like this household of eccentric libertarian economists it'd look like an insane asylum.

In many ways a good analogy for what's wrong with this worldview is the whole old vs new AI debate where you had the Chomsky rationalist, let's explicitly construct all knowledge camp vs the learning approaches. The philosophical insight for why the latter won out is because most valuable knowledge in the world can't be articulated, it's just embedded in practices.