Computers made it abundantly clear. Computers can mimic every sort of "logic" but cannot create anything. This can be especially noticeable when computers try to play music. Computers have not written any chart topping music, not even the most modern computers. Computers cannot even play music that is already written as well as humans can. The sheet music notation doesn't really have all the subtleties humans are able to sense when they play music "with feeling."
One bold musician decided to conduct an orchestra to perform Beethoven's Ninth Symphony "as written" in the sheet music. (Roger Norrington conducting the "London Classical Players") Some people might notice how "vapid" it sounds, almost as if a computer were playing it, although it's people. It's reasonable to assume there are some people who like it that way. However there are no computer written songs or performances on most radio stations. The internet has almost anything no matter how obscure and there might be something there, perhaps better than Norrington's exercise.
And yet lately there are so many people who think of "logic" as the be all and end all. Some of them even believe religion should be eliminated because it isn't "logical." They believe religion must have "failed" science.
To help those people to see reason beyond the if-this-then-that paradigm of "logic" I devised the "birdhouse" illustration. If everyone agrees they want to buy a birdhouse, then logic and science can help them. If people fail to agree they want a birdhouse or a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court, neither logic nor any "science" can help. Most issues in society, especially politics, only become issues because people failed to agree what the problem is. Therefore expecting to solve public issues through science is ridiculous.
Of course the pandemic complicates the timing of clearing up those misconceptions about religion. For example you might have noticed that some people are adamant that the reason people disregard recommended guidelines for containing the virus is their belief in religion. It's implied on television and stated out loud on the internet. They even have anecdotal evidence of "religious" people or organizations flouting recommendations.
While there might indeed be some rather undisciplined denominations like the people who follow Trump, it really isn't characteristic of "religion." Why would people who fear a god they cannot see suddenly throw caution to the wind over something they can see, however from afar? Is it logical to assume they would? The correct answer is no, that is not logical and religious people can use logic among their other talents. It should be obvious that at least a few Trump followers fear no god, don't expect anyone else to fear one, and prefer that they themselves be feared. That is also true of some of the lower ranking soldiers in the war "for" science.
Truly "religious" people are better represented by those many memes about Isaiah 26:20. And while no religious person seems to have mentioned in public the possibility the pandemic is punishment from God for the purpose of defeating Trump, the notion probably at least crossed their minds in private.
This is an unusual case where science can help even where people disagree. Science will. Science can put fear of a god into people by depriving them of their delusions about the wonders of science. The term "fear of god" might better be replaced with "caution" or "prudence" since no one is able to make the "intelligent designer" for example do their biding. Or so it appears anyway. No one has access to the intelligent designer's thunderbolts.
Actually science has helped in the past. Psychologist Roger Sperry decades ago addressed the differences between creativity and logic with his left brain / right brain dialectic used by many communicators since, although lately the unrealistic expectations for logic alone have squelched some of that conversation. Sperry had postulated a biological basis for the dialectic that has never been very clearly established, however the dialectic has proved useful anyway. In this world ruled by some crazy be all and end all logic there can be a fear that admitting creativity is prone to abuse, that some people will try to pass "wrong" off as "creative." No, there are not likely any buyers for anything that has no obvious merits. Yet because of those undisciplined people who imagine themselves to be "religious" it might be best to wait for the vaccine to reduce the necessity of unusual guidelines. That is, perhaps in major media anyway since the truth has to come out one day and preparations are probably best somewhere beforehand.
Some atheists in their attempts to describe the universe without any creative principle have asked why even believe in a first cause? Why can't the if-this-then-that paradigm be extended back "infinitely"? The notion is sometimes called "infinite regression." The problem of course is that if you allow construction 'C1' to have "just existed always" that opens the door to constructions 'C2' and 'C3' as well as any others to have "just existed always." In fact it defeats the purpose of the if-this-then-that paradigm. It makes evolution irrelevant if for example humans "just always existed." A complaint by atheists is that the god of religion also defeats the purpose of the if-this-then-that paradigm. That fails to recognize revelation ("because it is" or perceived "directly"). Through revelation the rules of the road can be passed on from that "first cause" to humanity, Religion is a well developed system of rules. Construction 'Cx' has no such developed system.
For a fascinating "deer in headlights" expression on the faces of atheists try asking them whether creativity is logical. I did. You wouldn't believe the fun.