‘Is Paganism more natural than Abrahamic monotheism?’ (short 300-word response)
‘What did Muhammad say about entering paradise?’ (short 300-word response)
_______________________________________________

There is a well-known quote from the French scholar Laplace (1749–1827) that when asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical work, Laplace replied: “Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis”.

The sciences operate according to methodological naturalism (MN). The sciences seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena in the universe via observation, testing, replication, and verification methods. They do not pursue supernatural answers which are typically provided by most religions. Scientists are not studying natural law to prove which of the many gods is the most powerful among them. Alternatively, the devout perceive the cosmos and praise how great their God/gods is/are.

The problem is that you have conflated methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism (PN). PN rejects supernatural realities affirmed by religions and typically understands the universe as a closed system of cause and effect. The former MN, however, is purely a scientific method. Science says nothing about the supernatural and remains mute, so it does not follow that science is necessarily incompatible with religious claims or beliefs, such as in God’s existence. PN, however, attempts to answer philosophical questions, which makes it distinct from the MN of the sciences.

You should not assume that logic and science equal atheism. Over half of US scientists are religious in some sense as are 80% of scientists in India. Religious acceptance or rejection by scientists is not necessarily a result of science itself but other social factors. In the US, this includes age, marital status, and presence of children in the household. In the Indian case, Hindu nationalist trends in society are strong and almost everyone is a Hindu, which explains the 80% figure.

Unfortunately, there are some movements trying to force “intelligence/designer” (basically, God) into scientific hypothesis as the best explanation for natural phenomena. This would undermine MN because the attribution of natural laws and phenomena to a Designer becomes unverifiable and dogmatic.