My article's history of philosophy is certainly simplified, but that doesn't mean it's an oversimplification. Do you deny that that's a predominant theme, from the confident rationalistic world systems of Spinoza, Leibniz, and even Kant and Hegel, to the greater self-examinations of the early existentialists and the postmodern hyperskeptics and relativists? The move from modernism to postmodernism has been much remarked on. I think it can be oversimplified and I don't side with relativism or with bogus, pretentious, obscurantist French criticisms of naturalism and objectivity, but there's a kernel of truth there which I attempted to capture in my article (and in various others).

I take a backseat to no one in demonstrating the irrationality of exoteric (popular) theistic religions. But I don't side with secularism or even with atheism in a partisan fashion. I aim to demolish everything in philosophy that can't stand by its own power. So I have two main sections in my lists of Medium articles, the Absurdity of God, and the Absurdity of Godlessness. There's much to criticize on both sides of the battlefield. Secular consumer culture is appalling, as is scientistic atheism.

I agree with you about the self-divided brain, and indeed I've made that point in numerous articles. But that's all the more reason to be wary of those metanarratives that catch on for the wrong reasons because they appeal to our baser impulses.

The question here is what we should put in the place of the embarrassing old religions. Pragmatism, postmodern relativism or nihilism, pantheism, Trumpism, or what? Should the successor worldview be perfectly rational or would that even be possible? What nonrational standards should we use to evaluate our secular goals, after God's death? Capitalism, consumerism, aesthetics (good taste), neo-prophetic vision via peak states of consciousness? These are some questions I mean to bring to the fore which are set aside by new atheistic, neoliberal propaganda.