One thing I have found infuriating is the way New Atheists continue to think of religious thought as involving specific mental habits which can be isolated and assiduously avoided. Thus, they conclude themselves free of faith, because they rule out the possibility of, say, the Trinity or the resurrection, yet do not recognize that faith pervades the daily life of even the most scientifically rigorous person--and is even necessary to formulate hypotheses for investigation. They conclude themselves free of fictions and fairy tales, yet don't recognize how metaphor and story are essential to any kind of thought. (As James Hillman says, "We are always in one metaphor or another," no less so than when we deem ourselves to be thinking only literally.)
So, seeing themselves as exempt from these human, and necessary, habits of thought, they go about exercising them unconsciously, without any canons of discipline related to how they are doing so. Contrast this with the educated religious person, who is well versed in the pitfalls that are inherent in these necessary (and in the case of religion, celebrated) aspects of human thought.
Educated religious practice, or at least educated tolerance of religion, has the advantage of rendering our habits of consciousness more conscious, and subject to accountability. New Atheism, on the other hand, has given up all suspicion of itself. Dangerous.
The option of scrutinizing one's own metaphors, not only those which are conscious and deliberate but those which are necessary and unconscious (root metaphors), in order to see where they might lead us astray in our apprehension of reality, does not exist for one who insists he has purged his thought of metaphors--those vestiges of primitive religious thought.