The article seems to assume a few constructs as given (real, absolute).

One is that science is objective. Science is a wonderful model which we should all embrace and one that is better than we had before but it doesn't mean that it has life all figured out.
The problem with Science is humans not the Scientific principle.

Humans create science thus science can only reflect human bias. Thus many things that were considered irrational and false 75 years ago by "Science" are now legitimate. And many things that are now considered magical thinking may prove to be also proven legitimate 75 years from now.

Second we keep referencing religion generically while the understanding and experience of "spirituality" is immensely diverse.

One can believe in God without believing in 99% of what secular society associates with religion: hell, heaven, that one religion is the only way, that someone died for our sin, that whatever happen to us is the will of God, that any book can represents God, or that God judges and punishes.

One can believe in God and end up with more questions and open doors, with more mystery and uncertainty than answers.
God as plug in the gaps is the most baby, infantile understanding of that principle.

Ultimately life is about our experience and what works for us:
do we grow stronger, wiser, more in service to others, more courageous, smarter, with a broader perspective, more self aware, more conscious, happier, more resilient, etc...

It is almost irrelevant wether religion or science helps us achieve the above as long as the orientation we choose actually achieves those results.

Ultimately my notion is that the conflict between religion and science is a false one mostly because we are still so immature.

More Posts