The author neglects basic discriminations. First between doctrinal atheism and methodological atheism. The former as an component of Marxism countered the historical theistic bias of Western peoples; it is an alternate narrative contextualizing of human struggle as material dialectic rather than passion ridden drama with a divine audience. However doctrinal atheism long antedates Marxism and should not always be regarded as within its tyrannical shadow. It is a specific heretical or skeptical reaction to a specific historical theology (Christian or Olympian). It is ironically tied to the deity it rejects, as Marxist history is paradise (re)lost. Even monotheism enjoins rejection of all “other gods.”
Methodological atheism is however a strict obligation of all science, as it is with accounting. A scientist or bookkeeper who needs to explain a discrepancy between two figures as divine intervention is just a bad explainer (or crook).
Science does not need a God nor should it be persuaded that it does.
Theologically, a God required by nature or natural law –a god of the gaps–is bad explanation, You can’t logically have the reason for everything needing to be propped up with a piece of something. if God transcends nature, he transcends natural explanation.
Historically, there have been good scientists (and doctors and test pilots) who have been believers and who have been atheists. So there are today. Every Dawkins has his Collins.
In short, there is no threat to culture from scientific atheism. Doctrinal atheism remains a religious choice for scientists or anyone, like Methodism.
The essential secularity or methodological atheism of our cultural institutions like business science and government might, however be threatened by doctrinal theists who are tempted to suggest that our science or government or economics, cannot do without the support of their personal God.
