Response to Shelby; "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism"

I, too, found Clark's essay to be biased in favor of naturalism. Clark portrays religious people as dangerous extremists, but anyone can be an extremist, whether or not they are religious. For example, Clark cites Sam Harris, who stated that it may be ethical to kill religious extremists. But isn't he, too, an extremist? He sounds more dangerous than the average church goer/temple goer/ etc.

Clark's essay implied that naturalists are more grounded in reality and facts than supernaturalists. However, I think that even if you simply believe in science-nothing else- that is still a belief. You are still faithful to something and worship it. I think Shelby was right when she said that supernaturalists probably question their beliefs more than naturalists. However, as somebody who relies more on science than faith, I think I should challenge my own views that I believe to be based in fact. It is no secret that facts can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and twisted to fit the beliefs of the person presenting them. It is important to question things that we take for granted as being true.

Why does our society tend to favor science over faith?