I do respect your positions. I would add two aspects of my own. One is that my thoughts follow from the reformed tradition (se referant a reformation). Each man is capable of interpreting the scripture for himself so I acsribe to no “package” and am likewise critical of most “packages”. Second, while I might agree with much of your ideas in the way of athiestic assumptions, I believe I would disagree with your material scientism in the way critiqued by W. Barnett Pearce in Thinking about Systems and Thinking Systemically
The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. Alfred North Whitehead
Pearse reached the conclusion that;
. . . If the task is not so much to see how well our knowledge fits the Enlightenment criteria as to figure out what are the appropriate criteria for our knowledge, then we can move on with confidence . . . we should be less concerned about the hypotheses and propositions that we can assert than our abilities to enter into a wide variety of systems (or aggregates, or not-so-well-formed systems) and act effectively. The emphasis might well be on what we can do rather than on what we know — that is, on our ability to think systemically in the contexts in which we find ourselves.