That's not accurate. A great many scientists and engineers are believers, many coming to it later in life as their knowledge and experience in their fields grew, and that is because the facts of our existence is no more explicable by science than it is by faith. In fact, some argue that it is much more far fetched and closed minded to be an atheist than to be a believer because there is more probability that there is some sort of higher power than not. Science says you don't know what you can't prove. Science can not prove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove God.
When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability for scientists. On the other hand, pretending to know things one doesn't know is the life-blood of religion.
When considering questions about the nature of the universe and our place within it, both scientists and atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance, it's intellectual honesty.
The majority of scientists, and 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, do not believe in a 'personal' god. Neuroscience is examining the neuro-physiology of religious belief. Some of our tendency to 'believe', has its origins in the evolution of the neural networks of the brain.
The arguments you are making are the same old tired ones that fundamentalists like to use. They align with people who think the earth is 6000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs were on the earth together, and that creationism should be taught in our schools. They seem to be able to dig up "scientists" that agree with them.
