> And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the things we

> And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the things we don’t know. Seems like this might be the central point. You may or may not be able to rationally justify atheism, but that's besides the point. If you want to do science, you have to cultivate your feeling that the world is mysterious and that there's a lot left to discover. To so that, you need to be open to a variety of interpretations of the world. Atheism might be fine for a philosopher who wants to figure out what is rationally justified, but for a scientist, you need to keep your mind open to stay creative. For me, the best argument against atheism is that it's boring. I get to choose my attitude toward the stuff that we can never know. Why not choose the more interesting choice (i.e. agnosticism)?