In my experience, the problem largely stems from, and the people to blame are, in-fact the arrogant atheists that use science as an argument against anything no

In my experience, the problem largely stems from, and the people to blame are, in-fact the arrogant atheists that use science as an argument against anything non-rational. You know the type I'm talking about. And to be clear, I'm not saying there aren't those times on all sides, but here me out. It reminds me of a video I came across a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDu2dgTT5t4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDu2dgTT5t4. It's a debate between an atheist professor (from University of Arizona?) and a christian professor (from MIT?) where they polled the audience at the end to determine a winner. The prompt was not "does God exist". The prompt was "does science refute God". The atheist spent the whole time trying to disprove God by saying he'll believe in a god if the stars align and send him a sign. The christian spent the time arguing that it doesn't matter whether anybody believes in god or not. Science is simply not a tool that can be used to make any statements on the metaphysical, whatsoever. And concepts like religion, morality, ethics, etc. only make sense in that realm. My two takeaways were 1. how annoying it was that the atheist missed the subtlety in the prompt and insisted on trying to disprove God rather than discussing the actual prompt of whether science can actually study things that aren't observable. Perhaps maybe that's the definition of a true rationalist, though. And 2. how sad it was that the audience also seemed to miss it, voting for the pompous atheist at the end. As far as I could discern, the atheist failed to provide any argument leading to the conclusion that science can refute God, irrespective of whether anyone believes in a God or not. Which brings me back to my point: things should not have to be scientific to be valid, socially. You should not have to argue that psychology, or economics is a pseudo/soft science in order to validate funding it. An archeologist or historian should not feel invalidated if they need to sprinkle in some interpretation to connect dots between the facts at hand. In fact, applying scientific method to domains where it does not apply is at best wasteful and at worst counterproductive. The whole "science vs the arts" mindset is a false dichotomy. There's a lot of useful knowledge to be gained that is neither rational nor strictly artistic. But if we reduce it to that socially, then you need to argue that you pursuit is someone rational and scientific in order to justify it to peers, etc. And I do blame the "asshole atheist" for that reductionist mentality. I think everyone should read some Thomas Kuhn. It's interesting to look at what happens when the popular rational dogma itself changes. Rationalists and even atheists are equally susceptible to dogma. And sometimes it's not about whether you're right or wrong. It's having the humility to admit that there might be another way to skin the cat that ultimately leads to real progress.