@skinster There are extremists no matter where you go.
@Oxymandias
Who do you mean by we? Do you consider yourself part of the Cult of Science? Well I am sorry to tell you that the Cult of Science isn't a group, it is a term used to describe the phenomenon among Atheist communities to create a dogma or religion out of science.
Science does not lend itself to a creation of a religion. It is based on factors other than faith and attempts to reconcile the two make for incredible weak incautions.
That I mean by this is a lack of questioning of any scientific information and a lack of knowledge regarding science. If you asked an atheist in an atheist community what science was, chances are you'll either get no answer, a dictionary definition, or a bad answer in general.
The general public would probably do the same. Science is quite an abstract concept with poorly defined limits. Try defining the number two, without using the number two (and if you want to use other numbers in your definition, you must define that number first). It is not that easy, and despite the fact that there have been mathematical cults (Such as the Pythagoreans), it simply does not subject itself to that kind of irrationality.
And if you question anything in regards to scientific research presented (which you are supposed to do), you get backlash or you get claims like "Science has proven!" (which is impossible).
In general, if you want to question accepted science, you better have some
really good evidence to back it up, or humiliation is a perfectly acceptable response. "Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to [question] it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least." The culture of empiricism and credibility is what prevents it from descending into dogma.
The New Atheists are far from that. If you really want a community with that attitude I recommend you check out LessWrong which I think is a ten-times more better dogma than the New Atheists or the Cult of Science and isn't contradictory at all. The New Atheists I think are basically the religious extremists of the Cult of Science. In New Atheist literature there are ideas such as Scientism which basically says that can solve moral problems and can determine human values (you can obviously see the problem with that), there are beliefs that religious people are apparently less rational and less intelligent than atheists that is only backed psuedo-scientific research using technology that allows to get any result you really want, and many in the New Atheist community are intolerant to anyone who is religious in a manner that reminds me of the religious extremists in I find in my neighborhood.
My first answer is this: In any kind of group, there are always extremists. What about the guy who stabbed thee people in portland several weeks ago: Christian extremist. ISIS? Muslim extremists. Fascism? Right-wing/authoritarian extremism. The only way to get rid of extremists is to have an Orwellian society where everyone thinks the same way!
In retrospect I would also like to add that there is a decent body of evidence that those who support unconventional philosophies (liberalism, atheism) do tend to be smarter. However, as a sociology topic is it poorly defined whether it is a science or not, so argue over it all you want! The general secularization
is a good thing though, as secular extremists rarely go past words -- they are more concerned with rationality than action.
Both the Cult of Science and the New Atheists are not rational or empirical, there isn't a culture surrounding it. The only community where this does exist is LessWrong but that is also fairly dogmatic to the philosophy known as Bayesianism.
Checked out LessWrong, and it seems far more philosophical than scientific. There is an important divide between the two, as natural philosophy lacks empiricism, while science has it.
Can't find Bayesianism, just saw a bunch of statistical analysis methods. Could you link me?