Let's respond point by point.

1. I cook food for myself, but do not call myself a chef. I have managed to not kill my lawn, but do not call myself a farmer. Why then should the fact that I have opinions about philosophical topics and the existence of God qualify me to be a philosopher and theologian?

2. The fault for believing that the scientific method is a neutral approach to acquiring knowledge lies with those who believe it, and not scientists. For their part, scientists tell the story of the drunk who is crawling on his hands and knees around a streetlamp. When asked what he is doing he replies, "I'm looking for my wallet." When asked where the wallet was dropped he replies, "By those bushes." When asked why he's not by the bushes he replies, "But the light is better here!"

Scientists are very clear that they are looking where the light is good. Instead of where the answers to the most important questions seem likely to be found. Most are also clear that doing otherwise would stop them from being scientists.

3. Scientists are seldom focused on potential applications, usually can't predict what they may be, and when applications appear, are usually not in control of them. So while I agree that applications are not always neutral, I do not agree that scientists should be doing anything differently because of it.

4. We should be aware of our lack of neutrality, but I see this as advice that is best directed at influential non-scientists. And not advice that is actionable by scientists.

5. There is a long history of people cherry-picking what they want out of science, and using it to advocate for whatever positions they may hold. History shows that the support, opposition, or indifference of scientists does not much impact this. You may verify by looking at the history of Social Darwinism, Christian Science, Scientology, or Ram Dass' invocations of quantum mechanics. Given this history, why would you believe that scientists can much impact what non-scientists say and do in the name of science?

6. To the extent that scientists are the modern equivalent of high priests, they are learning what the priests have always known. They only have power to the extent that they say things that the public wishes to hear. Which winds up being less power than it would appear.

Here is an illustrative example. Jesus told us that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. And yet, this very night, millions of his followers will pray for the very wealth that Jesus warned against!

I bring this up not to argue for a specific theological interpretation, but to make a point. Suppose that a preacher at a megachurch were to decide that Jesus was right, and this should be the subject of every Sunday sermon until his flock properly followed Jesus' advice. I predict that his flock would soon find new churches with preachers that they prefer listening to. And the preacher who thought he shaped the minds of thousands, would find nobody listening to him.

Scientists are in a similar position. Except that they are trying to follow knowledge where the light is good. They neither wanted nor are suited to a role as preacher. And so they properly avoid stepping into the role, let alone stepping into it for the purpose of following the agenda that you wish that they would follow.

You somehow believe that there would be value in pressuring scientists to behave otherwise. I don't.