Answer me this, though. Is it logical for the sum of intelligence located on a virtual dust speck among one of many hundreds of billions of galaxies to defiantly limit its collective belief on human wisdom alone? Sounds a bit pompous and defiant to me.
It is preeminently logical to draw that conclusion.
Logic and science yielded the knowledge of "many hundreds of billions of galaxies."
To consider the millennia of failed religious claims--and the failure of religion to reveal anything true about the natural world--and to then conclude supernatural explanations are empty ones, is not an example of bias: it is a logical, evidence-based conclusion.
It is far more pompous to believe without one shred of evidence that an omnipotent being created and monitors this "dust speck" of ours because we're so special. What could be more smug than that?
I conclude that only our own intelligence can explore and explain the universe; you conclude our intelligence should be supplanted by beliefs derived from ancient texts that recommend blood sacrifice, slavery and infanticide.
To support your conclusion, you essentially make the creationist argument that science is a faith like any other faith, its adherents and practitioners blinded by a priori beliefs.
Do you truly believe that?
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."