[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key factor in this question. I am acquainted with several theology professors in Catholic seminaries who would meet the criteria you gave as many of them were late vocations to the priesthood and had advanced degrees in many of those subjects listed although not physics. However it is obvious that the most intelligent theologians in any religion have often studied each other's competing doctrines and maintain differing views on what is the true religion.

The real problem in studying religion hard is that the major religions were all founded in the distant past and often not really all that much original material exists from that time to be studied, even if one does devote the effort to study them in the original languages. So at best, a probability can only be given based on the evidence that is extant, which really might not be enough upon which to make a sound judgement when a religion's scriptures and oral tradition are not taken on their face to be true, and neither is the personal experiences of believers credited as such can't be proven.

I also believe psychological bias does indeed play a significant part in the opposition of emminent people in certain fields to religion, not just because they might have a pre-existing bias against religion per se, but because so many theoreticians have been seen in the history of science to be wedded to long held views in their own fields when significant new evidence to the contrary emerges but not yet to the degree of 100% certainty through empirical results.