TIA, at 4:18 PM above makes essentially the point I would make.

I would add a few things though.

It seems that there are different emotional/psychological responses to 'new information', whether the new stuff is cultural, scientific, linguistic, philosophical...etc.

When Copernicus said that movement of the 'heavenly bodies' could be explained without having the Earth at the center of everything, it took many years for that idea to gain any foothold, as it was clearly against church doctrine. Even when Galileo showed how it all made sense, he was roundly condemned and subjected to house arrest by church heirarchy.
   We can only guess at the reasoning (or lack therof) applied by the various individuals IN the authority. Some may have been totally unable to comprehend Galileo's points, and just assumed he was contradicting God's word for some nefarious purpose. Others may have seen exactly what it all meant and perceived a simple but serious challenge to their power. Gradually, the evidence grew too strong to ignore, and all but a few learned to adjust their Theological principles to make the new ideas 'fit'.

   This basic pattern continued...right thru ideas like Darwin presented and continuing to today with the complex theories of advanced physics.
    All thru history we have those (both scientists & theologians) who retain a basic principle that there was a "First Cause" for the Universe, and that this first cause was, in some way, sentient and controlled the process. Others were bothered by apparent contradictions and/or awkwardness in reconciling certain aspects of science & religion, and opted for a 'finer filter' for what they would accept as fact or truth....and usually, they also defined fact & truth as something that would be forever changing & evolving.

Religion, by its own basic nature, cannot allow certain basic precepts to change...else it becomes merely some odd brance of Philosophy.

So....as I said, TIA's point is about the only answer one can easily make to Susan's concern about "...if, instead of being anti-Anything, science had simply arisen without that need to first discard something else..."

Carl Sagan makes a strong point about " a response to the corrupt, state-mandated spirituality of the time."

What we...at least here in the USA... are dealing with is a situation in which Science is largely free to go about its 'business', without direct interference by some church authority, and churches which are largely free to pursue religious freedom without State interference.

(you note the term largely in both clauses? OBVIOUSLY, it is still the case that various forces in each camp try, with varying success, to affect the processes of the other!)

There are several points to be made:

It is certainly possible, with no flawed logic that I am aware of, for those of religious persuasion to say: "All these advances in science are wonderful...but I still can't wrap my head around the idea of 'existence' at all without assuming God as a 1st cause for it all."

It is also possible for those who have moved, emotionally & psychologically, away from 'needing' a religious explanation to say: "Just because there was at one time a " ... corrupt, state-mandated spirituality....", and that part of the world has now moved away from that, it does NOT follow that non-corrupt, non state-mandated religion is correct and free from errors of fact & logic."

   I totally understand the lure and power of thousands of years of Spiritual concerns as we finite and fallible humans try to fathom our existence by positing a relationship to something INfinite an INfallible.
I also understand those who wish to totally reject what they see as superstition and misguided foolishness and rely on personal and subjective 'rules' coupled with scientific explanations for existence.

   BECAUSE I understand the driving forces of BOTH camps, I keep writing, talking and suggesting that we MUST find a practical solution for the controversies that will allow everyone to proceed...within a defined set of rules.... in ways that (mostly) satisfy their needs.

Now....with that ambitious theory, what are the flaws? Well...it is still the case that it is essentially impossible to elect mnay major public officials who do not...at least formally.... subscribe to some religious doctrine, and usually a form of mainstream Christianity. Since adherents of such doctrine differ widely in their views and their tendency to insert their views into their political lives, we simply do NOT have any 'real' separation of Church & State....which means that we do not even have a separation of Science & Religion. No matter what 'science' advocates about certain issues...(you know many of them)... there are and will be politicians disputing them based on their desire to keep various religious concerns embedded in the regulations & statutes.

   and here we stand.... religion, if it follows its own beliefs & demands developed for thousands of years, must strive to influence various aspects of society, with some working harder at this then others....while Science, with its "follow where testable facts & hypotheses lead us" mandate tries to ....I have to say it....'discard' some things which it feels do not help.

I posted, on another thread, a picture of a squirrel trying to 'straddle' a fence, a very difficult thing to do. I guess one even has to make up his/her own interpretation of what the metaphor means...if anything...