"My beef is they infer from science "knowledge" about religion. This is as big an error as deducing science from religion."
Where? Where do they comment on the existence of God, other than to say: 1) there's no physical evidence for Him; and 2) he's not needed for the ToE to be sound?
Seems to me as though you're really projecting. Nobody's denying God based on the ToE (well, very few people). But as a scientific theory, mysticism is not required. Because it's *science*.
Certainly you can see in proponents of ToE, often, a great animosity toward religion. And on these threads you see caricatures of religion.
But as a scientific theory, mysticism is not required. Because it's *science*.
We likely have different definitions of mysticism. Let's use the broader definition of metaphysics. The problem I have is with physics saying metaphysics doesn't exist or is not necessary to increase our knowledge of reality.
Scientist like this are woefully ill-taught in episthemology and philosophy of science. That's fine, so long as they just do science. My "beef" is when they pontificate outside science.
there's no physical evidence for Him…
This in itself points to the problem. In scientific terms there is no physical evidence for values or purpose either. There is no physical evidence for love, no simple location or quantity possible. Science, by definition cannot see them. It should say something like: "these are aspects of reality that science cannot speak to, other methods must be used to explore them," rather than "no physical evidence exists for God."
Science should be clear about the limits of its sphere of knowledge. As should religion.