I was confused as well because I knew Sartre and De Beauvoir to both be hardcore atheists.

I had just slowly began to realize that landing in the questions means I’m doing a good thing hahah

I needed this

I’m in my earlier twenties and I’m currently studying philosophy and religion. I have had my fair share of time studying some Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky and I would say that I’m currently seeking some readings on Ethics/metaethics. I would consider that to be of my primary interest.

I would also say I tend to have a lot of neurotic thoughts but I don’t dwell on them too much up until now.

I’d love to hear your thought on how his arguments don’t hold up!

To answer your other statement:

The Bible itself is a compilation of many books, from many author, in many periods of time and with many genres. Am I expected to take an aesthetic poem literally? I don’t think so, nor do a major population of christianity seem to think either. My point in my comment was to stress that a synthesis of what we know to be true (by i.e. science) and what God reveals is what should be sought after.

I think the question you are asking is important, though, the problem that is see in your question is that you mainly critique Christians (mainly fundamentalist Christians). It is true that there are many contradictions with science and taking the Bible literally. Though just because there are Christians who take the Bible literally does not mean that there isn't an entirely different group that is trying to synthesize what they believe with reality.

There are some truly remarkable works in philosophy of religion (especially Christianity). One of my current favorites is William Lane Craig, who is best know for his popularization of the Kalam cosmological argument, writes on the question "What is the bare minimum we need to believe in Christianity?" This does not mean that we discard what is improbable, rather, we should interpret it in a way that is meaningful and in alignment with necessary doctrines.

To answer your question as to whether religion perpetuates regression, it depends. I think the question that should be asked is "Which religions are perpetuating regression?" It is clear that there are religions that do not allow for certain freedoms regardless of their morality. It is not a religions job to keep us from performing actions, its job is to show us that we ought to keep from performing those certain actions. From my perspective I don't know if I can answer yes or no. I really think it depends on the religion in question and if it is willing to adhere to what we know to be real.

I absolutely love this post. I myself come from the protestant tradition of Methodism. It is quite obvious that Christianity today is vastly different from what it was in the early church. I believe one of the most important aspects of Christianity is adherence to tradition. Something you had said that struck me in particular was,

Kierkegaard meshes well with the Lublin School because of their focus on human experience while not falling into relativism. — Dermot Griffin

When one does away with tradition, it makes them much more prone to falling into a state of religious relativism, which affects what they believe about essential doctrines. John Wesley saw the need for a more personal relationship between God and humans and thus started a movement that was founded upon the ideals of faith through practice (which gets to your points made about Orthodoxy). The problem that Methodism saw is that people were susceptible to falling from tradition because of the priority placed on religious experience and their neglect of scripture and tradition. It is sad to see that many people today call themselves Christians and yet are not even followers of Christ. I admire my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters and, at times, envy them due to their unshakeable faith and rigorous practices.

Albert Outler coined a term known as the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" that explains the importance of a synthesis between experience, reason, scripture, and tradition. I particularly like this system because it is similar to the checks and balances system that we see in the United States government. That way, not one aspect of the Christian faith can distort a Christian's perspective.