This is an excellent case against religion. I agree with virtually all of it. A question that might arise in both theistic and atheistic critical thinking is “can you be a theist without being religious?” You seem to say “yes, that’s what a mystic is.” If so, maybe to make the atheist case involves making a case against mysticism.

I’m not a mystic. However, a couple of your recent excellent articles (which were very exciting for me to read!) suggest a “black box” in our account of the world, meaning our understanding of the cosmos and our existence is (perhaps necessarily) incomplete. A mystic might say “if we could see inside the black box, we can expect to see God.” (To which I’d reply “well, maybe.”)

However, Science is in the same position as the mystic. Science says “we can’t see inside the black box now, but eventually we will.” To which I’d also reply “well, maybe,” because every scientific advance in knowledge raises new questions. In other words, every time we open up the black box, we see another black box inside.

Just to pick one example from current science, how to account for the Big Bang? That question seems as (currently) unanswerable to me as Philosophy's “why is there something rather than nothing?” In other words, they are both black boxes. So to me, the most authentic philosophy does not worry about what’s inside the black box. Science and Theism are both welcome to speculate.

Your aforementioned exciting articles (to which there is so much to reply to, but my best reply is Truth Units, sadly still in progress) point to the black box to me most interesting and worthwhile to explore, which is how we construct and make use of our (linguistic) conception of the world (which in the end we might never fully understand either).