I have never come to know God, to see God, to believe in God through doing science. He's not the conclusion of some sort of process of my personal scientific investigation.

In a very real sense my science does inform my knowledge of God. If you would allow me to say that we never know God, because if I claim that I know God, I know something other than God, because God is not knowable, he is unknowable. So we have to approach it in that sense first, that my knowledge of God is always limited.

Science is and should be seen as "completely neutral" on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results.

I don't use scientific data as a foundation for believing in God - I use it as an enrichment of my knowledge of God.

There are many people who do view scientific research as alienating from religion and from God, and when so many people do, there must be some reason for it.

Scientists in general tend to have what I would call a bit of hubris that the public do not necessarily understand. So scientists some times make claims that are misunderstood by the public.

The knowledge of God, the belief in God, is what I call an a-rational process. It's not rational - it doesn't proceed by scientific investigation - but it's not irrational because it doesn't contradict my reasoning process. It goes beyond it.