The John Templeton Foundation hosts a debate between leading philosphers, scientists and theologians called Does Science Make Belief in God Obselete? Dr. Steven Pinker starts it off with the following idea:
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?
Yet over the millennia, there has been an inexorable trend: the deeper we probe these questions, and the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less reason there is to believe in God.
This assumes that the observable defines the whole of reality, an argument made by Friedrich Schleiermacher and is currently reflected in the notion of "philosophical naturalism." Cardinal Christof Schönborn parries thus:
In our innermost being, we moderns remain unsatisfied. Sooner or later we face an existential crisis, and recognize in our lives something broken, disordered, in need of redemption. The fact that we can recognize disorder, brokenness, and sin means that they occur within a larger framework of order, beauty, and goodness, or else in principle we could not recognize them as such. Yet brokenness and disorder are painfully present, and the human soul by its nature seeks something more, a deeper happiness, a lasting good. Consideration of the order and beauty in nature can lead us to a Something, the "god of the philosophers," but consideration of our incompleteness leads us beyond, in search of a Someone who is the Good of us all. Science will never make that quest obsolete.
There are many more editorials, including those of Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and Kenneth Miller. Read 'em all!