The question being asked is as important as the answer. The best analogy for this is that recent cancer research has found that they can combat a certain type of marrow (or blood, i can't quite remember) cancer by destroying the proteins the cancer needs to live. Rather than attacking the cancer head on, they have cut its supply lines and so far the results have been good. This is the kind of thinking I want to see in physics, neuroscience and all sciences really. Not pursuing the "Science will prove god doesn't exist" line but approaching from a "how can physics explain the unknown" perspective I am not too worried about it though as a few physicists I've spoken to have a very similar line of thinking to me. It seems to me that the people who deny spirituality work the hardest to validate science. One of the most wonderful things about QM is that we may be able to have our cake and eat it too. Science may one day validate what we presently call spirituality or mysticism. My university (and I'm sure thousands more) has recently changed the way they assess coursework. It used to be based on formative understanding - so the internalisation of content and the ability to reference it to its fullest. The highest grade has since been changed to reflect that the highest level of internalisation is the ability to take multiple theories and combine them to make something entirely new. It's appropriation and progress. It's beautiful. This sort of ethos will trickle down to the general populace, but at the moment we are sitting in more concreted fields. It will change, just give it time. I just hope we are progressing in the right directions. (As I've said again and again) Asking as many questions as we can, not just the same ones over and over again. But how can I know, I'm not a scientist.