Its nigh impossible to have a career in scence if one is not atheist or does not toe the ToE line.
Today's neo atheist scientists have joined the que in securing for themselves the most effective ways of 5 minutes of stardom. He does not fool me though.
With due respect, I think being religious (or non-religious) is not required to be 'admitted' to science. You just need the requisite academic competence. In my view being 'admitted' to science is actually easier than other professions, like law or medicine, where the professional standards for admission look not just into academic performance but also moral character.
It was true once scientists needed to be religious in order to practice their field, as can be seen in the history of science with examples like Galileo or Newton, who had to swear allegiance to the official doctrines of the Anglican Church. But this is certainly no longer the case.
It is true some atheists like Richard Dawkins have vigorously argued for an atheistic world-view, and used science to support their arguments. When I see Dawkins arguing for atheism or against religion, I don't see him doing science but rather moving into the realm of philosophy and religious belief. I am perfectly comfortable with someone, including scientists, engaging in philosophy because philosophical questions (like whether or not God exists and what is the real meaning of life) are incredibly important, and scientists should bring their training and insights into these questions. I am more than happy to hear what Dawkins, Hawking, etc have to say on these questions, as scientists.
But there are also scientists who are also theists, like John Polkingthorne. He is an ordained Anglican priest and also a very distinguished scientist. This is disproof of the notion you have to be an atheist to do science, as Dawkins is a disproof of the notion belief in God is necessary to do science.
