I will not say much under this all demanding title. I am (inactive) member of the Finnish Evangelian Lutheran church. This is more or less my religious base. Otherwise, mostly life has taught me some little things.
I comment one point that Lee Smolin has made (with whom I can't compete in clarity and elegance of language):
By his nature of existence, God is outside any scientific description. He is here and evewhere - but hidden. If God were "visible" it would very difficult to claim free will for men. He is the architect of the universe but, in human terms, He is not needed to "explain" the physical universe. Physical theories describe, but do not explain, the material world to the extend they do today. It's our souls that have, or don't have, a connection to Him, this is a matter of faith. It will be verified only on after exitus.
Assuming that the word religious implies God, as it does to great many people, there is no meaning, or truth, in writing (The Life of the Cosmos, p. 198): "... radical atomism ... is is as much a religious as it is a scientific aspiration." What Smolin seems to prefer, is self-organisation or natural selection as fundamental principles of nature, but these theories do not lead out of Smolin's, or many other scientists's, "religious problem". Self-organisation and natural selection are observed phenomena. They occur due to physical interactions between the participating bodies. - The end of the epilogue of this book gets close to a combination of high brow arrogance and ego tripping (wanna comment ... ?).
Many authors write about
the anthropic principle continually both in the news media and in scientific papers. Many leading scientists see something "suspicious" in it, see eg. a New York Times article.