No and don’t be stupid you knew exactly what he meant. Scientists who break the scientific rules of observing, coming up with a hypothesis, and testing it lose their credibility. If you want to play scientist you use the scientific method.

“But even more importantly, are you suggesting that thinking about the world through a religious prism should be prosecutable?”

Yes if you are going to use that as an excuse to mix it with science and then teach it as science. I have no problem with you offering a course for that crap but it has to be called theology not science. The religious belief is for sunday school, proven facts are for science class. I would love to see what would happen if we suddenly decided to teach astrology and say it is an alternate view of astronomy. Maybe Health class should stop teaching sex ed all together and teach the stork method instead.

Well, at least such pussyfooting around “sensitive” questions is not the fault of “new atheists”. Or is it?

Too many times discussion about these, and may other things is getting derailed by basic inability to understand what is actually being argued for and against.

I completely agree, but probably not for the same reasons. Basic inability is the key phrase here.

I am talking about philosophical incompatibilities, you are giving me examples (from “personal experience” on top of that) of people supposedly being able to hold two contradictory views at the same time.

Too many times discussion about these, and may other things is getting derailed by basic inability to understand what is actually being argued for and against.

If I have to guess, I would surmise that you are a Militant Atheist judging from your replies to GM and Beth of which this is a notable example:

“Many of the greatest scientists have been religious. They somehow reconcile the differences in their faith and their science.”

Your response was this:

“And they invariably lived in an era when nothing else was available as an option”

“Try something better”

Some of the most rational people I know are religiously devout scientists who can clearly distinguish between their steadfast commitment to sound science and their own personal interest in having some kind of devout faith (Oddly enough, some of the most irrational people I have dealt with tend to be militant atheists. It’s really sanctimonious for them – and for you – to claim that you are morally superior to religiously devout scientists, when your own behavior speaks volumes against such superiority. One recent example of course is how one poster at a famous Militant Atheist blog “joked” that Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney should be raped and killed, along with their supporters, including presumably myself.).