Reply #17: It is not a fallacy to offer supportive evidence

[Silent3]

If one put forth the argument, "90% of scientists are atheists, therefore atheism is true and religion is false", that would indeed be a fallacy. But Coyne did not do that, did he? You are so fond of straw men that it seems to be an internal mental process for you -- it's as if the things you disagree with turn into the straw men you present before you even have a chance yourself to consider any original non-caricatured argument.

The high level of atheism among scientists, however, certainly does strongly suggest that religion is not compatible with science. If scientists are "dependent on what is generally described as logical positivism" (not entirely accurate if one is strict about philosophical terminology) it would be because that philosophy is what makes science work best, and still leaves those highly atheistic scientists in the position of being good authorities on what is and isn't compatible with science.

Do you actually not understand that distinction?

The distinction between what and what? Between considering something and denying it? Between what you're calling "narrow focus" and something else? You'll have to make the question more clear.

As for "focus": In a dark room with one tiny light, there may be many places you can direct your eyes, and plenty of unknowns hiding in the darkness where you can't see, but the only place you can focus is on the light. To focus on the light is not to deny that there are other things waiting to be seen, there's simply nothing else that can be brought into focus. Science has done a far better job of being like that kind of metaphorical light than religion ever has.