There is nothing rigid about a stance (mine as it happens) that says that the natural world is wonderful in its ordinariness. That the magic of the universe is the fact that it is not magic at all, rather is something worth exploring until the day humanity ceases to exist, with no stultification of the intellect needing to be brought into play in the furtherance of that quest. That your beliefs are (as you say) your business, but, as a scientist, I want to know (if you express or celebrate your beliefs publicly) what evidence you have for them. That I accept the possibility of a God, though, as far as I can make out, the evidence for his existence is not there, and that the probability of his existence, according to the laws of nature, is vanishingly small. You may know of laws that refute this, in which case please apprise us of them. Now everything I've said in this post is unoriginal. I've said it all in dozens of posts, here and elsewhere, many times before. Read it again, Joe. There is equivocation, implicit or explicit, in every sentence. I possess no certainties. The true rigidity comes with belief. A believer can't be convinced by the power of evidence. How much more rigid can one be? One joins one's hands, closes one's eyes and raises one's face to heaven and says, I don't need evidence: I have faith. You absolutely can't be more rigid than that. And I neither fear nor condemn you. I don't know where you got that from.