Amos, I think to establish your case you will have to prove it scientifically. Otherwise
it's just speculation. "Insight" is up for grabs these days. Everyone claims it including our former president that thought with his gut.

There is no reasonable "third way" at this point. The polarity between religion and science is too vast. One dictionary definition describes religion as a cult, church or denomination.
You might want to try to redefine it but I don't think it will be an agent for clarity.

"Religious" could be loosely defined as an adherence to a principle on "faith". I tend to think of that faith as being misty. I think there is a historical precedence for the idea that if mankind matures, the preservation of the species could take place through a kind of enlightenment but I wouldn't characterize that in any way as religion.

I have heard the phenomenological argument many times and it is circular. You can't prove it because it can't be seen. It's a concept only. Therefore who is to say it exists?
The only verification can come through one's personal experience which may be counted or discounted depending on how reasonable you think it is. Back to the drawing board,
you have to prove it exists.

Richard Dawkins may be the natural heir to Charles Darwin.

I think there might be a trend toward moral evolution through evolutionary psychology but
I can't prove it. I can only speculate. The fact that we as a species have not yet destroyed each other I offer as some kind of proof but it seems as though countries, politicans,
authoritarians (including preachers et. al.) are working hard to disprove this.

What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan? (Fanning the flames of Jihad,
which once again shows the futility of religion.)

Frank