I hope I am not drifting off topic.
I wondered if you thought there was any reason not to simply accept the current scientific explanation of the universe and everything in it? i.e. what would be the motivation for being 'religious', etc.
There are philosophical critiques of science and epistemology. I guess I am most familiar with Richard Rorty. I found Gieryn interesting on science and boundary marking.
I am trying to put my thoughts into words. If, say, we have X explanation of the 'universe'. Then a scientist says, but X has a limit. So there is some unexplained aspect of the universe. To what extents does the unexplained portion undermine theory X? Does it license free speculation (e.g. religious explanations of the universe)? Or, are we still compelled to accept X? If so, on what basis?
I'm not sure if that clear.