Persons of deep faith have been, are, and can be great scientists.<p>See, for example, <i>Scientific Geniuses and Their Jesuit Collaborators</i>[1]. Not to mention that the author's field (physical cosmology) was deeply influenced by a Catholic priest-scientist[2]. There are numerous other examples spanning the last few centuries, including our own.<p>Faith and reason ought to go together and are entirely compatible with one another – at least that's the Catholic view, not new but recently articulated by Pope St. John Paul II.[3]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-jesuit-collaborators/" rel="nofollow">http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre</a><p>[3] <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html" rel="nofollow">http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/doc...</a><p>[&] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio</a>
See <a href="https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-history-and-god" rel="nofollow">https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-histor...</a><p>TL;DR (even though it isn't very long): Science cannot find (direct) evidence either for or against the existence of God. It can't do this even in principle. Atheism is therefore the product of a philosophical view, rather than a product of the scientific evidence. A scientist, then, should not take a dogmatic view on this, especially not a militant one. If a scientist does so, he/she should recognize that it is unconnected to science.<p>[Edit: clarity.]
Amen to the article. Science is more than a belief system.<p>Dekhn is incorrect to say the Article summary (that is the post title) is incorrect.<p>The relevant paragraphs from the article are:<p>Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.<p>If that is what causes someone to be called a militant
atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
Article summary is incorrect. The author does not propose that all scientists be militant atheists.<p>Also any scientist worth their salt eliminates no hypothesis consistent with the data, and thus cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is a supreme being capable of constructing the results of all experiments to cloak its existence (this is a very improbable hypothesis, of course, but that's not a justification for formally rejecting it).
Militant atheists are just as annoying as militant religionists. If someone tries to lay a religious argument on me I will mention that I don't believe, but only in the sense that I'm opting out of the divine premise and so I'm indifferent to arguments that depend on it. I see no point at all in trying to persuade the other person to share my belief - it wastes my time and will only make them feel angry or upset.