The fact that there exists evidence of ethics in "our primate cousins..." is a bit vague to me and i don't understand your point. I'm talking about religious traditions that shaped our society not our individual natural instincts. There is a difference between how we function alone and how we work together (or don't) in a community. My point is that religion has played the role of this adhesive force that brings together people with higher moral objectives. It is easy to argue against this point, but I am referring to people of history who had no science to play this role and so instead came together based on a code of ethics (such as the 10 commandments) or under the bible. Granted, it is possible to misuse the teachings within these traditions (as it is possible to misuse science), but it is my opinion that the structure of religion served to unite cultures and preserve their knowledge more than it did disperse them (in the same way that science does today).

As far as questions science cannot answer, I was not clear. Its not that I believe that there are questions that science will never be able to answer, its that there are questions that science does not yet have an answer to. Ethics are an example of one of these questions, and rattling off a bunch of schools of ethics does no provide a concrete answer as to what is right and what is wrong. I guess a prerequisite for the validity of this argument is that I myself am person who believes that there is such thing as right and wrong, but regardless, this question is one that science is unable to answer today.

As far as a deity, I cannot answer this because I am not sure of my own beliefs on the matter. I am not one to force the belief of a deity on to others, but I believe that one should be able to believe in a God if falls in line with their religious beliefs. This is a difficult topic because as individuals with different perspectives and understandings of religion, it is possible (and indeed the case) that individuals have varying degrees as to what a deity would consist of. I do not however accept that anyone has demonstrated there is no God and if you have the proof of this you will most likely be a very famous scientist in presenting it.

I never said that religion conquers science in terms of hypothesis or reasoning. What I said was that throwing away hundreds of years of religious traditions would work in opposition to science. Religion itself is a hypothesis, and by testing hypotheses we are able to come to new questions. The very example of why so many people believe in religion is a good question which forms under the hypothesis that religion is in fact useful to humanity. To disregard all people who believe in religion (alot of people) is to be untrue to the scientific method which attempts to test hypotheses based on the what we initially observe or believe.

I'm sure I have not addressed all of the points you made, but i would like to conclude by mentioning that your idea of what it is to "think critically" is also not the same as everyone else. I would propose that it may in fact be possible to think critically using religious tradition as your inspiration as opposed to science because as i mentioned, neither religion nor science is perfect. In your reading and or response to this post please try to consider that the worst results of religion do not necessarily stem from the religion itself just as the worst uses of science do not stem from the scientific knowledge derived.