I don't dispute Pinker and Wilson are highly erudite men, and I don't recall saying I thought they were fools. I just don't think either of them has worked through the implications of their "philosophical naturalism," and it is plain to me that both men are constructing systems that are designed from the get-go to obviate the necessity of God. I do not think that good science can start from a categorical bias like this. Especially in light of the fact that God is not an "object" for science at all. FWIW.
I'm glad you're still talking to me though RWP. You know, we can always just cordially agree to disagree.... Obviously, we do not look at the world in the same way; but this is hardly a rare occurrence these days. Just possibly we might learn something from each other.
The process by which many scientists, IMO, come to philosophical/metaphysical naturalism is by observing the success of methodological naturalism. If you don't seek supernatural explanations in your scientific work, and you see the success of that approach, you have to at least consider why you need to draw a line between scientific work and everything else. Most of us didn't set out to eliminate deities. We just noticed they never appear. I doubt Pinker or Wilson set out to construct an atheistic system; they're just used to eliminating unnecessary entities from their model.