My point there is that beliefs, demonstrably, (objectively), produce people's notions of what is real and what isn't. Reality isn't the sole domain of science .. and I think that's the point they're trying to make. Science's reality however has the sole purpose of being useful, whereas belief based reality is more or less about corralling the troops for battle .. (aka: hostilities - as we both agree).
Is science's reality really a threat to freedom of choice(?) .. Hmm, I wonder(?)
Maybe religious folk have already broken through the perception of barriers constraining how to think, there(?)
I guess the impact of nuclear weapons added the exclamation point on the power of scientific thinking there, too(?)
They do have a valid point there .. but there should be no reason perceive the scientific method as a 'threat'. I think that perception might be because, being totally honest, there are political influences motivating 'doing' science thesedays (because of the funding process and competition therein).
Therefore there is an urgent need to be able to educate in ways of distinguishing between extreme subjective perceptions (belief based) meanings of what's real (not quite delusions .. but close to that) and science's way?
Logic is lurking underneath it all there too .. It frequently goes under the term of 'common sense', used by protesters against science, I think. One can be convinced by logic .. even when its based on an initial posit of believed-in 'truths'.
Yep .. its an extreme viewpoint .. but also a component of it is purely reactionary, (equal and opposite), IMO.
Scientific thinking determines a special kind of reality .. I call it 'Objective Reality', to delineate it from their belief-based purely personal subjective reality.
There's no sense for either 'side' in this argument, in rejecting either of these two demonstrably different methods we go about saying what's real .. and what isn't.
That's the equal and opposite reaction to science denying the belief-based method they're using to infer reality, IMO.
I think science need to pay attention to the objective test I'm referring to previously, IMO.