Thanks to 2bsirius
Some thoughts to share:
I think like you the table of knowledge is big enough for literature and science. There is this tension between those who emphasize literature and those who highlight science. Literature is not the problem unless it is dogmatic literature that poses an obstacle to scientific inquiry and curiosity. I think the literature community feels threatened by the Scientific community as being judged as not relevant or superfluous. And the Scientific community feels literature at times "muddies the water to make it seem deep" as Nietzsche opined.
For me I think we can eat from both of these fruits without becoming an us vs. them dichotomy. The appetite for knowledge should be diverse and not limited by one genre.
I think what could be part of the problematic communication is the emphasis and what one highlights. This thrust of emphasis does not cover the deep ambiguities but I do think Aronra is doing a necessary work. The problem with Creationism is that it denies human mortality, fragility and our deep connection to the Earth. The problem with Scientism is that it can be a means to be "smug about reality" and acquire a false sense of control and deny the existential anxiety - the human condition. I do not put Professor Anton or Aronra in these but there is a line of tension there. There are many ways to view the Circle and what we highlight is part of the conversation.
"One of the ironies of the creative process is that it partly cripples itself in order to function. I mean that, usually, in order to turn out a piece of work the author has to exaggerate the emphasis of it, to oppose it in a forcefully competitive way to other versions of the truth; and he gets carried away by his own exaggeration, as his distinctive image is built on it...the problem is to find the truth underneath the exaggeration."
It is not a right and wrong or black and white issue but rather a difference of what one highlights. Pathos is a variable that impacts what you underline.
Let me paint a picture for you. Religious dogma is a thick sheet of ice and the person is trapped underneath it. To use a quote from Kafka it sometimes takes an Axe to break the frozen sea. I see the New Atheism as an Axe that for some it is the only instrument to break the sheet of ice and allow them some fresh air of reason and scientific wonder. For those individuals the New Atheism was a necessary good. I think religious liberals feel that their thin ice of religion is being attacked by that Axe and it seems superfluous. I think that is the misunderstanding. The New Atheism is most beneficial for the thick ice not the thin ice.
For some people they don't even realize there is a world beyond the ice sheet and for those people I see the New Atheism as a benefit. Now that does not mean it is completely without fault. There could be problems with the style and delivery that turn people off or make them go deeper into dogma. Perhaps a more indirect approach of wonder and skepticism is better to thaw the ice instead of break it with a blunt instrument. A warmth of intellectual stimulation would be better to thaw out the ice of dogma for some.
For a large number of people in the world religion is a real influence in life that takes on many forms that are not always soft or benign. Religion often gets in the way of a child's full potential to education and greater vision. For this reason alone I cannot view religion as something to behold in passive appreciation. There are other foes to contend with such as racism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, fascism and many other isms so it should be acknowledged that there are many variables to the problems in the world and humans with or without religion have a will to power that needs to be checked by the persistent voice of reason.