I had a friend who said he used to be an atheist while in school and a theist while in church. He had no problem believing both because he didn't have to believe both at the same time. He eventually saw the conflict and chose atheism over theism.

in reply to you statement above the words of George Bernard Shaw spring to mind:
“No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot.” Did I miss there ceremony? When did the apotheosis of eminent atheistic scientists take place?

They have two parts to their brain. One compartment is logical and intelligent; the other believes in magic. The part that believes in magic has no issues with drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence. Compartmentalizing is the only defence against cognitive dissonance.

My ex-father in law had a double PHD in math and physics, and was a staunch born-againer. I also knew a research scientist who authored many articles and books on Christianity and the bible; he also was a man of staunch belief in god.

Bogles the mind; it's a good thing they are statistically rare. Confronting them only exposes the flawed logic they use to justify why they believe. The most important concept to understand is that they approach their belief by first drawing a conclusion, despite evidence to the contrary. Then they interpret the evidence from this bias.

I would think it says more about their thought processes and then certainly the quality of their work. How can they be factually based in one part of their lives and living in a fairy land in another and be taken seriously??

I don't see it as a "defeat", since I don't see free choice as a war that must be won.

And confront ? No, waste of my energy. Either they find their own way out , or not. And if not, they have a perfect right to remain in their muddled state .