When someone talks about their interpretation of QM it is not meaningless dribble. There is substance to such communication as long as the communication is more clearly defined (e.g., defining what what means by a wavefunction collapse, explain what what means by uncertainty in the UP, etc). Likewise, when someone references God we must understand exactly what they mean (e.g., laws of physics, laws of mathematics, absolute truth, ontological mystery that entails the existence of logical/mathematical theorems, etc). As long as one stays within the same confides of historical definitions (not just religious but also history of philosophy), then this is generally acceptable.

Warm regards, Harv