Religion, as I see it, came about in evolutionary terms. Early humans who, through their limited perception of a vague reality, thought they were being judged by a higher power were less likely to betray each other, thus more likely to survive. Forcing painful or repetitive rituals weeded out those who were unfaithful (and thus liable to take advantage of the pious). It also served to explain what cannot be explained.
In modern times, however, even atheists show moral and ethical values (while, conversely, bible-thumpers have a tendency to be the greatest bigots) and science is, to a greater and greater extent, filling in the gaps of knowledge (from sources of illness and the position of the planets to the source of diversity of life) that used to be attributed to supernatural causes.
In an infinitely large universe, the seemingly impossible chance of a planet that can harbor life like ours becomes an inevitability. Once a conscious creature comes about on such a planet, it will observe this and revere it. Evolution and naturalistic origins do not change the beauty of the world. They provide knowledge of the ways it can come about of its own accord. Is there not beauty in that?
I agree, however, that it is a fallacy to assume that science will be triumphant and wholly correct in the scope of history, and things like the origins of the universe itself and the first replicating cells may not have any naturalistic explanations, at least not available from our perspective in time.
I identify as an agnostic atheist.
Poll