Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between
religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion
once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of
historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God.
During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy
created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were
supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world.
Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means
of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present
is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character
is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being
in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
According to anthropologists John Monaghan and Peter Just, "Many of the great world religions appear to have begun as revitalization movements of some sort, as the vision of a charismatic prophet fires the imaginations of people seeking a more comprehensive answer to their problems than they feel is provided by everyday beliefs. Charismatic individuals have emerged at many times and places in the world. It seems that the key to long-term success – and many movements come and go with little long-term effect – has relatively little to do with the prophets, who appear with surprising regularity, but more to do with the development of a group of supporters who are able to institutionalize the movement." 
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the . and the ., should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war. It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: what can we do to bring about a peaceful coexistence and even loyal cooperation of the nations? The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary. Such renunciation, however, can be effective only if at the same time a supranational judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a restricted world government would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.