In general the religious Scientists existed longer ago. Once all science came from the Church because all the learning was in the Church, the Church knew Latin and could write it down.

I think that to a massive extent religion comes "through the milk" from our early baby-hood. Never having a religion is a different stance (IMO) to having been brought up in one and rejected it. It is very common for people to reject their religion and then have their children brought up in said religion. Probably because saying "this is the choice i make for my soul" is not the same as saying "this is the choice i make for their soul". Our children are precious, we want to do things right and if our own morality/spirituality/religious feeling came from a church before we rejected the ideas, it's perhaps difficult for us to imagine our children could grow up without that church and still be able to have morality, spirituality and religious feeling. This would not be any different for scientists. Being a scientist doesn't mean you did not once sit on your mothers lap in church, full of wonder and belief. Children believe with far greater ease than adults. So many things seem mysterious to them, religion is but a small leap. Such beliefs, that we held onto during the confusing times of childhood and adolescence, are not easy to throw away without feeling we might be throwing away a part of ourselves.

Children are reverent creatures. They worship. Their parents, their friends, their favourite toys. Children are naturally full of wonder and ready to be inspired. I think so long as that need is met by SOMETHING, it needn't be organised religion.

Bx