As part of an ongoing series on religion and science, TIME examines how a scientist’s religious science can help him or her discover a new religion. 

 “A lot of these discoveries are quite profound, and they have to do with the way we think about the universe,” said Dr. David Katz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Maryland. 

“We’re really trying to understand the origin of life and the origins of the universe.”

The discovery of God, he said, is “an incredibly complex problem that we’re trying to solve.”

But what if we don’t have a god?

The study of God is a complex and often controversial subject.

Many scientists believe that the very existence of God doesn’t require that God exists.

A common theme is that scientific inquiry must include questions of how we are supposed to make sense of the world.

And it’s a question that has been debated for millennia.

In this article, TIME explores the way in which scientists can use their religious science to discover a religion.

How scientists make a faith out of science is an important topic for scientists, who can then look for evidence for their faith.

Dr. David K. Katz, a professor of biology at the Maryland University College of Science and one of the authors of a recent book on how religion works, says scientists should “not be afraid of asking what the hell we’re doing with all of this data.”

In the United States, about two-thirds of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic.

The number of atheists and agnostics in the United Kingdom is roughly the same, at roughly 6% and 4%, respectively. 

In Europe, about 10% of the population identifies as atheist, and only about 2% identify as religious. 

But Dr. Katz argues that while atheism and agnostic groups in the U.S. are growing, the number of people who identify as atheists is declining. 

That is, as people increasingly identify as agnostic or atheist, more people are identifying as non-religious.

In the UK, for example, there is a 50% decline in the percentage of people identifying as atheist between 2012 and 2016.

“This is a huge phenomenon in the last few years,” Dr. K. says.

For many scientists, a lack of belief in a deity may be a sign that they have become more accepting of their own scientific findings.

In that way, religion can be seen as a kind of “bias,” in that it can make the scientific findings we use to justify our faith more believable.

But even if we have faith in a god, some scientists say we should also be able to understand why it exists. 

Scientists are often surprised by the ways in which the world seems to be organized in ways that have not been expected, such as how the solar system, for instance, is constructed, and how stars and planets form. 

Theories such as the Big Bang Theory and quantum mechanics have long been controversial, but the latest work by Dr. Hartmann and colleagues suggests that some aspects of our universe may be simpler than we have previously thought. 

What we now know about the cosmos as a whole, they found, is that the universe began to exist in a state of relative entropy, the point at which it had little chance of forming anything.

Scientists have long believed that our universe is composed of a huge number of discrete, randomly generated atoms and molecules.

In this new model, they have also found that the smallest units of the matter that form our universe, called protons, are made of a much larger number of particles. 

When the universe cooled, these particles coalesced into what we know as matter, which consists of protons and neutrons.

The idea is that all of these particles, in addition to their smaller counterparts, had a larger and larger probability of interacting with each other, and that the interactions resulted in the creation of a new, higher-energy state of matter. 

Dr. Hartman says this means that the Universe must have had a massive amount of matter at its start, and was in the process of forming its first star at some point.

If this were true, there would be little chance that the initial conditions of the early Universe would be as hospitable to life as they are now. 

Some scientists argue that this “missing heat” theory, which states that the first stars formed by a series of collisions with heavier matter, could explain the early universe.

This is the idea that if the initial, low-energy conditions of early galaxies were similar to those in the present, then the initial evolution of stars, and the subsequent evolution of planets, should have been as simple as the evolution of a protein. 

It’s also the idea proposed by some physicists that dark energy, the invisible force that makes up 99% of matter in the Universe, is responsible for our universe.

Dr. Paul J. Hartmans theoretical