This post is a personal testimony. It's not evidence of a God. Given that god possesses all of the physical qualities you ascribe to it, there is no reason whatever to believe that it possesses spiritual, or unworldly qualities.
Let me be clear: I acknowledge "spiritual" as an emotional state. That's not the same thing as acknowledging a "spiritual world."
Even though I acknowledge "spiritual" in the aforementioned sense, I do not like the term, because of the baggage that it carries.
'Even when serious scienctists demonstrated the deadly effect tobacco smoke has on all people who inhale it, the wealthy and powerful heads of the tobacco industry campaigned, with the help of their "scientists", against any ban on smoking. '
Yes, there are entities who abuse science. Thankfully, the entities you mention are mere corporations and not religious agencies. Otherwise, it would have taken far longer to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.
Here's the thing with science: it's not necessarily about "The Truth." That's not to say there isn't any truth in science. That is to say that for much of science, our knowledge is approximate. The central purpose of The Method and The Philosophy of Science is error-recovery. Eventually, the real science won out. And you may say, "BUT IT TOOK DECADES!" to which I reply, "Yes. It ONLY took decades!"
Man is essentially a creative animal. We are pattern-matchers and pattern discoverers and pattern creators. Creativity is an essential part of humanity - and an essential part of science. But it's not the ONLY part of science. We generate theories (and hypotheses) - and then we test them.
"Maybe we should think about this and--using the sciences--take as sharp look at many of the things we do to one another in our search for wealth and power."
With preordained conclusions? One of the things that good scientists need to do is not tint their findings by social concerns. By this I mean, they should not state their findings more powerfully than what is warranted by the evidence. That's not to say that science should ignore social concerns - or that there aren't already scientists who are doing a poor job: creating socially relevant, but essentially incorrect science. It just means that it's going to take us a lot longer to sort things out in the long run.
That is not to say, while I am an atheist, that I think an atheist world is a better one. That is not a question about science, though. I promote a non-theistic science, not an atheist world. In fact, non-theistic science is a redundancy.
