This is the essence of my dissatisfaction with this discussion: a lack of definition of terms.  Religion is not the opposite of science.  Science is not something to BELIEVE in: it is a method for understanding and describing the objective universe.  Mathematics is a language we use to quantify and understand the data we objectively collect.  Mathematical and scientific theories are systems for understanding the objective universe, and they are fundamentally not static or immutable.
Religion is many things, and it is different from society to society, but it is certainly not spirituality, although that may be a component of the greater framework.n
Nor is religion the opposite of atheism.  If atheism is the denial of god, then it is at least as irrational as faith.  The proof of a negative proposition is a logical impossibility.  Faith in an objectively unprovable proposition (god and soul)may be un-logical, but it is not necessarily illogical.
Most religions include a dogma as a more or less arbitrary set of game rules for human behavior and a mythology to explain and justify the legitimacy of those rules.  This is not spiritual faith.  Dogma is more about defining the membership and purpose of a club than about ones subjective spiritual understanding of the self and ones purpose within creation.
It's hard to have a coherent discussion about a subject as diverse as "religion" when the word invokes so many thoughts and emotions.  I hope I haven't added too much mud to the water.