"I'm looking for a collection of individual views in terms that allow a rough summary in numbers I can count up.

Ok then... The bet I can never collect on is:There is No supreme creative consciousness that 'ordered' the Universe, therefore - the pure, basic notion of Science will always versus the pure, basic notion of religion.
(I use the adjectives because of all the linguistic, metaphorical definitions of religion noted above)

*end of direct answer*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, I suggest that when folks who use 'Science' most of the time, but admit to a 'religious' feeling/belief/attitude/concept, they are doing the very human thing of harboring an internal logical inconsistency. We are capable of using poetic language to create concepts that we can only explain with more poetic, metaphorical concepts. It's what MAKES us human, and I don't doubt it will always be with us, with the continuity of religious beliefs assured. The real goal, then, should be to get wider recognition OF this dichotomy and to get people to process their 'religious' concepts as purely subjective, and to limit attempts to ***impose*** any of them on others as "truth" which should affect and/or control the laws, morals, etc., of the basic structures of society.

(explication of that condensed bit of philosophy is about 20 pages long...)