You seem to have imposed a strange criterion favoring religion over science:
> Where science and 'religion' differ is science
> prefers recognition for their works and
> discoveries, whereas living with them is
> satisfaction alone for believers.
I disagree both with the claimed distinction as well as the usefullness of the criterion.
Virtually all religions expect their members to spread the good news to their family, friends, and others, to recognize and promote the superiority of their dogma. If what you have is true, why wouldn't you want to share it?
If God really existed and each person could have their own personal relationship with Him, I would expect organized religion would be unnecessary. Each individual could learn enough truth from the Ultimate source that they wouldn't have to ask someone else's opinion about it. Wise teachers who had gained more spiritual knowledge than others would probably tend to expect each person to learn these spiritual truths at their own pace from the same pure source.
The social benefits of religion could be satisfied with non-religious organizations. I consider the existence of organized religions teaching contradictory beliefs as evidence against the existence of God.
A better criterion distinguishing religion and science is which works better? Which makes predictions that are reliable?
What has religion done for us lately? In the past it provided a unifying influence in society. Is it necessary today? I don't think nearly as much.
I think some form of agnostic humanism is an adequate moral replacement for current religions. The idea that good in the world would cease if a belief in God and punishment ceased is unfounded, I think.