 But all of this brings us back to our original question. Do the brain sciences disprove religious beliefs correspondence to actual supernatural realities? Have the various brain sciences prove that religious belief is simply an evolutionary byproduct that can be reduced to patterns of neural activity? Some may say yes, that the evolutionary basis and usefulness of religious belief disproves the reality of God or human interaction with God. They may even suggest that humans have evolved to the point where cognitive God concepts have outlived their usefulness. Many might well conclude that given the evidence that religious belief is natural and evolved, the God hypothesis is made redundant and unnecessary. That is, given a natural explanation for religious belief, we might be scientifically unjustified in supposing that religious belief actually corresponds to a real God. Others, however, argue that the validity of religious belief is not threatened by evolutionary explanations for its development at all. These people would argue that while modern science has been extraordinarily successful in explaining even the evolutionary development of religious belief, there are still limits to scientific explanation. For example, one could argue that even if religious belief is an evolutionary byproduct of useful cognitive mechanisms, this natural predisposition toward religious belief was actually intended by God all along. Perhaps after all, our innate receptivity towards God and our propensity to believe in supernatural beings are products of an evolutionary process that was guided or initiated by God in the first place. Indeed, one might actually conclude that if God does exist and intends to interact with humans, then of course our brains would have developed the cognitive capacity to fulfill God's intentions for human belief. In short, one could conclude that the naturalness of religious belief demonstrates creative forethought in action on God's part. In conclusion then, it seems that neuroscience and the cognitive sciences might not be the type of things that could prove or disprove God or the relationship between humans and spiritual entities. It is true that neuroscience has offered compelling evidence that religious belief and experiences are predictably and reliably correlated with specific neural activation patterns. And it is also true that the cognitive science of religion offers compelling explanations for the evolutionary development of religious belief, even suggesting that religious belief is a cognitive byproduct of more mundane cognitive processes that have aided in human survival. However, these scientific explanations for the phenomenon of religious belief are not the whole story. The scientific method does not seem to be the sort of thing that could address entities or realities outside of the physical material world in the first place. Science might tell us how our brains naturally manifest religious experiences and why religious belief has evolved, but we must look elsewhere for our knowledge of God's existence or non-existence.