As far as I'm concerned, Harari is a hack and a charlatan par excellence. A disgrace to historians and archeologists. I didn't read Homo Deus, but his Sapiens is the epitome of neoliberal propaganda full of half-truths, cherry-picked data, and outright lies and ass-pulls.

With that being said, and as I see it, science merely showed that God is not a figure. As I said before, the clash you describe ("humanistic pride", that is, "anthropocentric rule order" versus "inhuman scale of cosmos", that is, "universe is just a meat grinder"), is a cognitive dissonance based on an ontological mistake not that different from ontological mistake of theism. You may call it secular theism.

Then again, even if you call it atheism, which it technically is, atheism depends on theism for it to exist. I mean, theism is obsessed with images of God (as a figure) while atheism is obsessed with refuting it.

Well, God as a figure is, indeed, nowhere to be find, but to make the long story short, consciousness is not a figure and yet it's why persons are. There is the missing God. Alive and kicking. Or better said, existing, because it has nothing to do with life. And that makes it pretty inhuman in all meanings of the word.

So again, this obsession with God as a figure, the insistence on assigning images and identities to the imageless and identityless is at the root of why people can find neither God nor themselves. You may laugh it off as an ancient bullshit, but it is neither a coincidence nor a whim of the authors that Tanakh commands not to have images of God (*). Provided, you want to know God / yourself.

After all, you too, "I am."

(*) Or why Hinduism describes Brahman as it does, why the opening line of Tao Te Ching says that Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao, or why Buddhism insists that personal self image is an illusion.