The question of whether theism is compatible with science isn't so interesting to me since that's like saying science is compatible with an abstract poem or a fiction like the Star Wars story. Of course science can be interpreted as being compatible with an unfalsifiable, ambiguous, not-well-defined work of art. You can always redefine the fiction to get around contrary evidence. So that question doesn't interest me so much.
You misrepresent the article when you say that I say there are of course no secular or atheistic myths. You left out the first part of that sentence: "In so far as myths are theistic..." That whole section is about how there are secular myths in a broader sense, and I list several types.
Anyway, I agree about the strangeness of some scientific findings, and I've written several articles on that. See for example the first two links below. I'll quote from the second one (which takes you to an article on my older blog, off Medium):
'Does modernity relieve nature of its charm? Richard Dawkins pointed out that instead of “unweaving the rainbow,” scientific knowledge always raises more questions. As a winsome salesman for the New Atheist movement, though, he’s not permitted to say why that’s so. The reason why nature paradoxically becomes necessarily more mysterious even as scientific knowledge advances is that scientific explanations are naturalistic, which entails that the universe being explained is posited as godless. Thus, every natural process or mechanism must be an abomination, an appalling monstrosity, a mindless, unplanned-for, living-dead cycling to nowhere and for nothing. Science supplies materialistic models that enable us to control nature for our benefit, and these models are poised to horrify because they depict the universe as a colossal, shockingly-counterintuitive monster. Newton or Einstein can explain gravity, for example, but only by positing brute, unexplained forces and materials (including the so-called nothingness of the quantum vacuum from which natural order arises, according to quantum mechanics and the Big Bang Theory). The completeness of scientific understanding is illusory, because at the end of technoscientific mastery is the horror that nothing that ever happens can happen for a lasting good. The greater our power over nature, the deader our sensibilities become as we’re haunted by the philosophical implications of the success of scientific objectification.'
On these sorts of grounds I argue for pantheism (third link below).
I'd say it's not so much that scientists or atheists prove there's no god. It's that theists overreach and fall on their faces by proposing conceptions of gods which are vain, parochial, self-refuting, and preposterous. The absurdity of those conceptions is the whole point, sociologically speaking, since they test the loyalty of the believer to the religious group, in line with the evolutionary handicap principle.
Anyway, judging especially from your last paragraph, you seem like a non-crazy Christian.