According to New Atheism God is no longer necessary because science now explains (or has the potential to explain) what God previously explained. If this is true, science and scientists are not doing an adequate job of explaining and/or filling the gaps. As a lay person, I certainly still have many, many questions, and I believe there are a number of transcendental truths (unknowable certainties, beyond human explanation or experience) and spiritual speculations (unknowable uncertainties) that will never be explained. To this point, it does not appear that science has explained away God; or eliminated the need to believe; or quashed spiritual speculations; or even eliminated that gray area of transcendental truth that lies between fact and spiritual speculation. (An example of a large transcendental truth would be explaining the unmoved mover in the argument of cause and effect; if the truth is The Big Bang, neither science nor religion can prove or disprove an ultimate, transcendental cause of said truth.)

While acknowledging the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, one must ask if the condemnation of spiritual speculation by New Atheism is valid or useful; and some may ask the same about any attempts to disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

According to many Religious Believers morality and good values depend on a belief in God; (57 percent of Americans agree). Yet there are many secular nations (including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and The Netherlands) that consistently rate better on life expectancy, crime, literacy, economic equality, education, political stability, and a number of other measures of societal well-being. And there is some statistical support for some circumstance in which religion may actually contribute to societal dysfunction. (Statistical information quoted with supporting citations from 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris.) At this point, it does not appear that religious faith has justified organized religion; or eliminated the utility of science; or advanced world-wide, synergistic Goodness; or even consistently raised societal / cultural levels of morality and good values.

While acknowledging the rational validity of spiritual speculation, one must ask if organized religion has outlived its usefulness; and some may ask the same about religious faith.

Mystery allows Scientists to research and Believers to rejoice; and both camps should be allowed to do so, rationally.

So, if New Atheists (in particular) and Skeptics (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists (in particular) and Religious Believers (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to enclose a common ground and we have reduced or (perhaps) eliminated animosity.

This common ground is not a stretch for Religious Believers or Skeptics and it should not be a stretch (but rather a beginning) for Religious Activists and New Atheists; if it is a stretch for anyone, they are not practicing rational, disciplined thought, thus becoming the irrational, undisciplined zealot as portrayed by their opposite number.