Have some scientists been too fanatical?

No way.I might think that some of your ideas are foolish. But that does not make you a fool. I probably have some foolish ideas of my own. This language of "lashing out" and "fanatical" is a bit over the top. Some atheists make reasoned criticisms of religion. And some may tinge their criticisms with some emotion. But I rarely see the kind of angry rage suggested by terms such as "lashing out" and "fanatical".We also need some perspective here. Christian apologists have been criticizing non-Christians, and doing so in strong and often emotional undertones. The volume of criticism of atheism that comes from Christians far exceeds the volume of criticism of Christianity that comes from atheism.Personally, I'm a free speech kind of person. So I don't see a problem with Christians criticizing atheism or with atheists criticizing Christianity. I am one of those who says that science is not capable of determining whether there is a God. However, by its nature, science leads one to be skeptical of unevidenced claims. That is why many scientists are skeptical of religion. But it is never up to a scientist to argue that God does not exist. It is up to an atheist to argue that. Whether or not the atheist is a scientist is not relevant to the point. My personal take on science, is that a scientific theory is never a description of the world, even if it might appear to be so. A scientific theory is a framework for scientific research. Scientists support a theory based on how well it works as a framework for research. Whether or not it accurately describes the world has little to do with why scientists use particular theories. But what does "real" mean?Many theologians will say that God is supernatural - outside of nature. For many scientists, "real" implies being part of nature. So why would you object to scientists saying that God cannot be real? Can't you just interpret that as agreeing with the supernaturalists? Yes.I have occasionally criticized Jerry Coyne on his blog. Coyne says that science is incompatible with Christianity. But that cannot be correct, since there are many scientists who are Christians. To be clear, I don't have a problem with Jerry Coyne criticizing Christianity - that is just an exercise of his free speech. But he should not be co-opting science as supporting his position. Science says nothing about whether there is a God. Individual scientists have a lot to say on that, but science in itself has nothing to say on the subject.Edited by nwr, : fix typos

Here's a case where a woman died unnecessarily because of a stupid ignorant decision by theologians.
'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospitalI am accused of being a baby killer, because I believe that a woman should have the right to an abortion to protect her life.And you are complaining about "South Park" depictions of religion.How about a little equivalence. That is one of the false claims that religion makes.You really should go and learn something about how the world works.

Oh, I understand it quite well.The way the world works is that evangelical Christians say vile evil things about atheists,
and then they become incensed at a bit of gentle parody on South Park.If evangelicals want to be treated more nicely, they might try practicing their own Golden Rule. It wasn't a catholic who called me a baby killer. It was an evangelical.

Why?Supposing that life started from non-life, then why does that have to be by "some scientific means."Why does life have to have started? Maybe there was always life. Try looking up "panspermia".Personally, I think it likely that life started from non-life by entirely natural means. But that is not a required assumption. We can study biological evolution without any such assumption.

Panspermia is still considered a possibility, though it probably has few proponents. The main point, though, is that scientists have not ruled out other possibilities for the origin of life. That is a frequent accusation. I'm not sure it is true. When I discuss this with people who seem to be making such claims, it usually turns out that they are actually claiming that our knowledge is arrived at by examination of empirical evidence. And that's a weaker claim than that science explains everything.Some people do talk of a "Theory of Everything" but most people think it unlikely that we shall ever have such a theory. Or, as I like to say it, "My theory of everything predicts that there will never be a theory of everything." How about:

• John walked into the cafe and ordered soup, because the aroma was enticing and he was hungry.

It depends on what is meant by "explain". "Explain" is a lot weaker than "predict". The idea that something smaller than the entire universe could predict the future of the entire universe (including the future of itself as part of the universe) seems quite implausible.Some scientists do claim that our knowledge of science rules out free will. However, it always seems to me that their so saying is an expression of their own free will. So I don't give much credence to those claims. That is one way of looking at things. But it seems to omit almost everything that we deem important.

I don't think that is true. What is true, though, is that most believe that in principle there could be such an explanation in terms of what is known about the natural world. I'll take it that is what you really meant. That's entirely up to you. I don't criticize people for such beliefs. I do not call people "delusional" simply because they believe something that is unevidenced. I don't have a problem with that. However, some YEC creationists believe things that are not merely unevidenced, but which are clearly contrary to evidence. And that is where "delusional" might be appropriately used. I'll agree with that. Scientists are human, too, and to err is human. My disagreement there is with those words "too fanatical." I don't know what exactly you mean by that. My way of looking at it is to compare the amount of hype in what Christians say about atheists with the amount of hype in what atheists say about Christians. And by that statement, atheists look relatively mild in their criticisms. I grant that some of them say quite harsh things, but that still looks mild in comparison with what some Christians say about atheists. I completely agree with that. There are some fine scientists, even some fine evolutionary biologists, who believe in God.