I apologize for not being more clear. I&#x27;m speaking specifically of scientific skepticism [1]. Without practicing scientific skepticism, Galileo would not have been motivated to grind lenses in the first place.<p>I also failed to differentiate &quot;belief&quot; from its use in common vernacular, so I&#x27;ll rephrase my previous statement:<p>A scientist practices scientific skepticism. Accepting an unsubstantiated hypothesis without empirical evidence is contrary to scientific skepticism. Belief in a higher power is accepting an unsubstantiated hypothesis without empirical evidence. Thus, belief in a higher power is contrary to scientific skepticism. Therefore, belief in a higher power is contrary to being a scientist.<p>Of course it&#x27;s human nature to become emotionally attached to a hypothesis of one&#x27;s own design. And perhaps scientists would not so rigorously pursue empirical evidence to support their claims if they didn&#x27;t &quot;believe&quot; them. But the difference between a scientist and a theist is that a scientist will back off their hypothesis when evidence to the contrary is presented, whereas a theist will not.<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Scientific_skepticism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Scientific_skepticism</a>