>>12971675I never understood religious scientists. They are knowingly traitorous to both reason and to faith. By their holy book's own standards (and the holy book is almost always the Bible or the Koran), any attempt to scientifically justify one's beliefs in their gods is blasphemous; faith alone suffices, according to the Christian and Muslim doctrines. If one thinks they are better scientists as a result of their religious convictions, that's fine, as long as they understand that the supernatural explanation for any phenomena has never proven superior to the natural explanation for same in terms of plausibility or explanatory power, and thus the God hypothesis is not necessary. Furthermore, one's emotional convictions are never sufficient evidence for the truth of those convictions, regardless of whether those convictions turn for or against a religion. If one's faith-beliefs are justified to them, that's also fine, as long as they understand that there is no good reason for someone else to believe them without sufficient evidence.
Maybe that's why religious people are intent on theological underpinnings: they know this and are looking for different angles to attract more adherents.
