"The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own." - Edmund Burke : British statesman (1729 - 1797), Source: A Vindication of Natural Society. Preface, vol. i, p. 7.
Examples would be the infamous Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
It's really thought-provoking though. I know for one that many atheists say Science is the only way forward; Science is the one universal truth (Arguable. I find the one of the only universal truths is Mathematics.); Science is great and religion is not. Sadly, these people hardly know and care to hear the religious side of the argument, or if they are willing to listen, they'd enter the argument with biased minds anyway. Moreover, these claims that "Science OWNZORZ Religion" usually have the underlying thoughts of "Religion is anti-science".
Before I embark on any long anecdotes or analysis, let me say that being religious does not automatically condemn one to the ghetto of the anti-science. I'm currently a JC1 Science student and have a great appreciation for the sciences (especially Chemistry) and what they have done for me today. Science is good, yes.
However, the point in which many of you would probably disagree with me is that I feel that Science is a tool. Yes, you read that right, a tool. It's the sharp machete that helps us cut through the overgrown vegetation of the unknown. It's the box of candles that lights up an endless room and removes crushing black oblivion of what we do not know and cannot see. Notice I only mention tools that can clear a limited area. What we've cleared is only a small area, and to make it worse, what we've cleared before might grow back. This is similar to how certain long-accepted theories are reexamined and found to be false. Science, sadly, is not perfect, because it is a human by-product.
On the other hand religion would probably be the human gut instinct which tells us what to cut down with the machete and what to leave standing. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes what we thought was dangerous turned out to be fine after all, like how the Church dismissed Copernicus' claim of a heliocentric Solar System. But let's say we choose to ignore this feeling. We might end up cutting a poisonous plant and kill ourselves in the process. We might chop (ok, use your imagination here) down a tree, only to crush ourselves later. We might destroy a valuable plant, of which its value would only be found out when it is left in small numbers.Organized religion, sadly, is also a human by-product, and is thus unreliable at times. (Note that I didn't say God is unreliable. Don't get into semantics.)
So you see, to destroy that gut feeling isn't exactly a wise thing to do. Things don't always turn out as we expect them to in reality. One might think, "If I cut down that tree at this angle, it would miss me. So let's get chopping!". But the guy might end up as strawberry jam anyway, because he ignored the gut feeling that told him there might be vines and branches of other trees that might shift the angle of the tree.
Finding a balance should be key. Best yet, have the two consult each other. Sure, the process may be slow, but this way, you will end up satisfying both, and what is better than having the best of both worlds?
One thing to ponder: Does the system exist because there is no other system that can fulfill its role? Does the system exist because the other systems are unsatisfactory? Or does the system exist because people want it to exist? Think about it.
Peace.