That was all joke, of course, but as profound as it is I'm not really sure that the double slit experiment proves anything about the existence of a supernatural deity. Certainly it's strange science but (unlike supernatural phenomena) its foundations lie in the natural realm, the experiment is eminently repeatable, and far from requiring blind faith - the scientists who performed it
invited required scrutiny...
Let's go back and expand in microprint on the suggestion that was made earlier that when speaking of understanding, the scientific concept of belief is of equivalent validity to that of the religious concept of belief. I don't think I explained myself very well regarding this particular notion and it relates in a way to the implied next step you're making when you speak of the double slit experiment. Hopefully this will be clearer than it was.
I think it's pretty clear that the only way the two "beliefs" can be considered equivalently valid is if one is to disregard an objective reality. Reality is the ultimate test of a theory and if you have no way to test your theory via reality then you are trivializing the single nexus between the two lines of argument. Granted if a religious person consciously dodges reality then he can speak of whatever he wishes, but most religious people I have encountered seem to strongly support the idea that objective reality is in alignment with their theories although they equally strongly discourage means to test it. Is the idea that scrutiny can mar objective reality? Is there a shred of evidence supporting this? I know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has become the darling of the pseudoscience crowd, but what does it really bring us to? Like the Double Slit experiment it brings us to the edge of what we as humans can understand through our limited experience of nature. To at this point make an about face and decide based on no evidence that the only natural events possible are those which we have personally experienced and that this must ipso facto be proof of supernature is singularly absurd. Maybe I'm making an argument that would lead to the natural classification of what we call supernatural. So be it. In that case, there is no way to have any degree of certainty in these non-experiential realities since we cannot perform tests. So what does it boil down to? The scientist will ask that you accept all facts supported by repeatable experience and to reject or hold in question those that are unsupported. The pious will ask you to accept the words of another human with no greater insight than you and to accept that his untestable theories are correct even when they conflict with your testable/tested ones. Even if the suggestion is made that the original source of the untestable theories is some divinity, the problem boils down to the reliability of the first human claiming to have been originally contacted. Given what we know about human nature, what we know about aboriginal drug-induced religions, what we know about the nature of oral tradition, what we know about the historical changes to the canons central to each religion and the fact that no two independently arising religions agree on all points, doesn't it feel a bit naive to rest our belief on this first prophet? Doesn't it feel as though it multiplies matters a bit beyond necessity?
EDIT: microing for the TLDR crowd.