As I understood it, Cosmic was saying that scientists, good scientists, are often very undogmatic about religion. If you look at the studies done of nobel prize winners, for example, they tend to be much less religious than the public at large- at least in the way the public at large tends to manifest religion. Scientists tend to believe in a god that Einstein or Spinoza would agree with, as opposed to Jerry Falwell's God. I think the mumbo jumbo mysticism of religion probably doesn't have much appeal for scientists. After all, we can prod the brain in to having religious experiences. We can now explain many phenomenon that religions previously were created to explain. We can create new organisms, and manipulate the genome of creatures before they are born. We can probably destroy the planet with our nuclear weapons. Scientists are almost Gods themselves now, or perhaps they are Gods. As Oppenheimer said "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. " If that isn't a Godlike ability, what is?
Creation and destruction- it is encompassed in science. It is possible science will render God irrelevant, or maybe it will discover God. Either way, I can see how either of those things would pose some real problems for religious people invested in one very specific POV. Because even if Science finds God, there's no telling what kind of God they will eventually find. I can imagine some pretty long faces in many corners of the world if it turns out God is like Einstein imagined him. |
