Has Science done away with a need for God?

[BitchinHitchins]

1. In very early history there exists a pattern of belief in the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. Scientific discovery throughout history has started to slowly chip away at society's need for a god to explain where lightning comes from, why there is disease, and so on. Currently, we have enough evidence for the big bang, evolution, and many other mechanisms that brought about our existence to render religion obsolete. Sadly, no matter how much evidence science provides that suggests there is no need for a god, society will still cling to the comfort of a sky buddy.

2. If you truly research the mechanisms of the cosmos and learn more about our natural world you will draw further from believing in a supernatural deity -- assuming you believe in one in the first place. At first, coming from a former christian, you will find ways to place god into science. One might postulate that if evolution and the big bang hold valid, as they do, then god must have been the cause behind the big bang. However, once you truly learn about quantum mechanics, you will dismiss this notion. Eventually, you will find that you do not believe in god. There in lies your answer. Science is about testable observations of the natural world. Religion is nothing of the sort. So no there is no NEED to choose between the two, but I guarantee that the more you learn about science the less you will believe in a god.

I never found this argument very convincing.  We can explain everything there is about an internal combustion engine, but that does mean the mind and person of Henry Ford did not exist (different example of watchmaker argument).  The fact the universe cannot explain it's own existence, to me, necessitates an explanation outside of itself.  Even Hawking's proposal that at the Big Bang in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down shows the universe's existence needs to violate the known laws of nature or is outside the laws of nature, or if you will, "supernatural".  Some call it a creator (Deism), others go further and identify the Deity (monotheism), some simply espouse, "I don't know" (agnostic), and others say, "I don't know, but I know its not a creator" (agnostic atheism).  

Those who espouse a creator, don't believe in a "God of the Gaps".  The creator is responsible for the whole thing, the parts we don't understand and the parts we do.  There are plenty of scientists in this world and throughout history who are infinitely more intelligent than you or I who make your last sentence ridiculous.  But because they believe in a creator, do you write them off as an intellectual?

On your point about the big bang: Quantum mechanics, in and of itself, violates the known laws of nature. There exist electron-positron pairs and top quark-antiquark particles that literally come in and out of existence instantaneously. This is not the act of supernatural beings this is merely the facts of what happens at the plank scale. And yes, I agree the last sentence was only a personal anecdote of what I have observed. 

Also to your point of the belief spectrum, I would say you are a touch off. "I don't know" is a correct representation of agnosticism. However, "I don't know but I know it is not a creator" falls more under Gnostic Atheism. Agnostic atheism asserts "I do not know either way but I think it is not a creator". You see there is a difference between the belief that you know (which neither you nor I can positively know) and the belief in which you think. Just as agnostic theism asserts "Im not sure but I think it is a creator" and as gnostic theism states that "Im absolutely sure it is a creator"