PS I have a feeling this is at least part of the reason why so many scientists have such a huge problem with God. They want all the glory for their “discoveries.” They frown on the idea that everything they will ever discover is already known by God. And the idea that any given scientific discovery must necessarily glorify God (as the author and the creator of both the discovery and the discoverer) puts them in a worse mood still.
Mathematicians (and by extension, physicists) are notorious for it.
The one school says the math exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it. For instance, pi was discovered not invented. This school looks "beyond" - it wants to know why there is something instead of nothing at all.
The other school says the mathematician invents the math to describe what he perceives. It is concerned with the here and now and is content with the "anthropic principle" - origins, beginnings and endings are irrelevant.
In my view, the latter school is very egocentric.
The first, btw, is called the Platonist paradigm of math, the latter, the Aristotlean paradigm.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable - Plato and Aristotle couldn't settle it, Gödel and Einstein couldn't settle it, and today Penrose and Hawking can't settle it.
And by the numbers, there are more of the egocentric Aristotlean paradigm than of the Platonist paradigm.
I find this very odd indeed because every time a mathematician uses a variable in a formula, he testifies to its universality. The only rationale for the Aristotlean paradigm to a mathematician that I can see is pride. And I find that sad.
Yes. There are two kinds of science people to consider in this context. The ones who actualy do (or did) make a meaningful contribution to science, and the science-talking atheist, who is a parasite. The latter case is particularly interesting because we run into him frequently here. The science-talker is invariably a evolutionist and holds all the correct opinions: nothing can be proved, nothing is true, everything is relative, science can only falisfy things, materialism is synonymous with science, Christians are science-deniers, etc. The science-talker is much offended that Christians worship a Person who is not him. He says that we owe everything we have to science, and by implication, we owe veneration and worship to the science-talker. It's very astonishing and incredible to him that there should exist people who laugh at this and refuse to play along. He who talketh science bringeth us the words of enlightenment, howbeit we prostrate not and adore him? The science-talker is deprived of his rightful glory! Realizing that this is unlikely to ever change, a fuse in the science-talker's head blows, resulting in years spent posting anti-God and anti-Bible diatribes in whatever forum where there may be Christians hanging around.