All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
See, for example, Scientific Geniuses and Their Jesuit Collaborators[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.
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]
[1] http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
[3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/doc...
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.
[Edit: clarity.]
From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science
http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf
Science, God and Creation [video]
http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions...
Introducing Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophical Proof for God
http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/ (scroll down for the link to part 1 of the series)
His arguments largely build on the assumptions that General Relativity accurately describes the macro-scale universe and that the telescope data backing the Lambda-CDM model[2] are being interpreted correctly. However, that's a starting point familiar to most who work in the field of physical cosmology, so I don't think they're unreasonable assumptions to start out.
Also, his arguments are certainly not beyond criticism, but Fr. Spitzer is intellectually honest and overall he offers a great deal of good food for thought.
Dekhn is incorrect to say the Article summary (that is the post title) is incorrect.
The relevant paragraphs from the article are:
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.
If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
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).