At Britain’s Telegraph, Joel Kotkin noted yesterday morning that a growing number of scientists believe that there is indeed a mind behind the universe: “As they continue to untangle the complexities of the universe and molecular biology, they see a system that only a higher power could construct. Simple mechanical explanations simply fail to meet the explanatory test.”

That is true, of course. But the big question is, has it really become respectable to admit it? Kotkin notes that the stereotype that scientists are not religious is mainly a Western one:

But in the parts of the world that are poised to become leaders in science – Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India – they are often more religious than the general public. Many view science and religion as overlapping or complementary spheres, not enemies.

These scientists offer a critical counterpoint to the view expounded by some of the best-known science figures of our times that God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins, who famously insisted that the universe is driven by “blind, pitiless indifference”, is of course the star among the so-called “New Atheists”.

But their world-view is being challenged by groups like the Society of Catholic Scientists, which has 2,100 members and 28 regional chapters.

Even the world’s most important innovator, Elon Musk, has recently become more public in his positivity towards Christianity, which he has described as “a religion of curiosity” and “greater enlightenment”.

“Scientists who believe in God are challenging the expert atheist establishment,” July 26, 2026

Kotkin cites a recent conference held at Chapman University in California, where he teaches, which brought together top engineers, mathematicians, and scientists to discuss the “new synergy.”

It may be too soon to tell but…

The collapse of the New Atheist movement may mean that a scientist can at least discuss the concept of a mind behind the universe without being shouted down.

Many people want to hear such a discussion. For example, Kotkin cites Stephen C. Meyer’s appearance on Piers Morgan’s program on May 21 this year, which has netted 1.3 million views. Meyer also appeared on that show May 3, 2024, and netted 2 million views.

Kotkin and colleague Bheki Mahlobo recently released a report on the question of whether a general religious revival is in progress:

The decline of religion remains a fundamental reality in most Western countries, particularly in Europe where over 50 percent of those under age 40 do not identify with any religion. Even in more religious America, according to one expert, there may be as many as 100,000 empty churches over the next few years. Meanwhile the ranks of “Nones”, those outside religious communities, have grown so large that, taken together they as numerous as the Catholics or evangelical Protestants in the US.

Yet surprisingly there are signs that religion is already enjoying more than a nascent revival. This is not to exaggerate — secularism remains deeply entrenched — but there is clearly something afoot. The data emerging from the 2020s suggest not that we are witnessing the burial of a dead God but a complex spiritual restructuring that intersects with economic mobility, demographic resilience, and a profound intellectual realignment.

“Is There a New Religious Revival?,” February 16, 2026

A key finding:

This group is defined as the scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals who shape the boundaries of acceptable discourse. The aggressive New Atheism of the early 2000s is now challenged by a countermovement in the scientific community that views religious tradition not as a delusion to be eradicated but as a sustainable civilization operating system. Bolstered by demographic shifts, this movement may presage an intentional return to faith that could alter with our understanding of what it is to be modern. New Religious Revival?”

Intellectual void

One factor that may be prompting some scientists to think more carefully about these matters is the intellectual void that yawns for the secular atheist. For example, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli recently claimed that there is no Hard Problem of consciousness: “We are all parts of nature, like anything else in this sweet world.” Of course he can wave the problem away but that does not make it go away. Similarly, a team of coma researchers in Belgium has been trying to explain away near-death experiences as a human form of thanatosis — the way opossums play dead. There is really no similarity between the two. But at this point, materialist approaches to challenging phenomena may amount to no more than a squid throwing up a cloud of ink.

If being a scientist means that one must think this way and also refuse to consider any evidence for design, it’s no wonder if many are looking for alternatives.