Well, I do argue the merits in my articles. See the one below which delves further into the issue.
Scientists have known for a long time that their methodological naturalism requires them to take certain facts as brute primitives. I recall reading Russell Bertrand saying as much in his debate with Frederick Copleston. All I'm doing here is characterizing that brute physicality in dramatic terms, by comparing it to zombies. What else would you call a natural order that mindlessly starts itself and evolves? Zombies can symbolize that inexplicable animation.
The disparity is between secular humanism and something like Nietzschean cosmicism. I've written elsewhere about how deGrasse Tyson, for example, is blasé about philosophy in his promotion of science-driven progress. Science popularizers often don't want to dwell on the philosophical upshot of the scientific picture. Philosophers are less beholden to institutions, so they may have more of an outsider's perspective.
But notice that in my last comment I was saying we all have mixed motives, not just scientists. Philosophers may indeed have ulterior motives, based on resentment. Indeed, I'd extend that to marginalized intellectuals throughout history, in what I've called their cold war with the less reflective masses. So I'm not saying philosophers are saints.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2017/10/wisdom-horror-and-folly-of-secular.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tysons-scientism-and.html
