Why Did The New Atheism Fail?

I DON'T THINK it was providential that I wrote that short series of posts dealing with Darwinism and the origin of life on Earth that this video of Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon that had some relevant content to that.  Though I'm prepared to think it might have been.  Note Rupert Sheldrake saying that our own lives are a matter of the providential because it depends on all of our ancestors "going back to the origin of life" surviving and having offspring,  which isn't considered often enough. 

Remember that when you hear some snob bragging about the age of their family. 

The brief discussion of why the atheist fad of the 00s failed is interesting.   

I was planning another post relevant to the idea that the dogmatic materialist-atheist-scientistic ideology of life was just, in the end, not satisfying because it is sensibly not true.  I wasn't going to put it exactly that way but in a way close to it.    In the post which I've started but not finished, yet, it dealt with the accusation that I said what I said just because it was the way I felt, not that I could prove any of it.   Which was funny because in each and every instance I criticized,  that was exactly what the motive for the materialists, atheists and devotees of scientism for what they'd inserted against any evidence being required directly into the formal literature and culture of science.  

ALL WE HAVE IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE AND IN THE END IS WHAT SEEMS TO BE SENSIBLY SENSIBLE.   That's as true for science and mathematics as it is for the humanities and religion and just day to day coping with what comes our way.   Only in science, it is pretended that their methodologies remove all of that when it can't.   It can try to minimize it but, as in those cases I brought up,  scientists are fully as capable of cutting their own preferences slack when they want to for ideological or professional reasons.   

Since Rupert and Vernon bring up Richard Dawkins, his own professional career is built on nothing but that since evolutionary psychology takes the unobserved and unfounded theory of natural selection and adds to that some of the most pseudo-scientistic elements of psychology, ethology, etc. to it.    

Evo-psy is some of the rankest of pseudo-science current in the academic field of science and, more dangerously, its popular understanding, in no small part due to Dawkins' story-telling accepted on the misunderstanding that many of his claims were scientifically founded when they are not.   What we choose to apply critical thinking to is, also, unfortunately, a matter of choice, in the end.  I think what I've said here shows I'm very willing to subject my own preferences to a level of criticism that is typically absent among the materialists.  Theology is a far more self-critical field than the soft sciences and even much of what is taken as hard science, especially among such as cosmologists.