Overdramatic title about Higgs-Boson and how science killed God

With all the hoopla about the discovery of the Higgs-Boson, the unfortunately nicknamed "God particle", the question of the relationship between science and religion is once again brought to the fore.  An interesting and helpful dicussion of the Higgs-Boson in particular can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-clayton-phd/relationship-between-scie_b_1653976.html

But more generally, as someone who grew up atheist/agnostic and who came to faith doing a Masters in Computer Science at MIT of all places, I've often struggled with that interaction between faith and science.  Hopefully, I can put some of my thoughts to words and maybe even put forth a reasonable conclusion.

To start, a quote from the above article which in turn quotes a conversation on the Colbert Report:

The perfect example of this debate was played out in a Colbert interview with Lawrence Krauss recently; it's worth re-watching in the wake of the Higgs. Krauss, the New Atheist, touts his new book, "A Universe from Nothing." There are three kinds of nothing, he insists, and according to the laws of quantum mechanics, each one left to itself will produce the something that we see around us. "It sounds like the ultimate free lunch," Krauss admits, but there you have it; it's just science. "The universe is more remarkable than the fairy tales that were talked about by Bronze Age illiterate peasants."

"Why does it have to be an attack on my God?" Colbert asks. "There's just no evidence for God," replies Krauss, "All I've said is that you don't need Him."

For starters, I actually completely agree about the part about Bronze Age illiterate peasants.  Religious texts in general and the bible in particular were never meant to describe the unimaginably complex and beautifully elegant scientific realities which we have since discovered.  There's a reason that the bible doesn't say "On the first day, God created the quark, the neutrino, the lepton, and finally smashed them all together and made an atom."  It's because the authors of the texts (and to be quite frank, most of us, even with strong scientific backgrounds) couldn't begin to fathom what that meant.  When the bible says, "God said 'let there be light'" it is not speaking in opposition to the idea that "some number of nano-seconds after the big bang, some quantum electro-dynamic wave collapsed to form the first photon."  (Note: I know just enough about this stuff to write sentences like the above which sound like they describe the creation of light, when in fact, I just stuck a bunch of words together.)  Instead, the bible is positing that God is the creator of light.

Now of course, Krauss would argue that we don't need God to create light - that light creates itself out of nothingness (and if I understand correctly, so does matter, which is whole point of the Higgs-Boson) which I think brings us to the crux of the matter:

When a child asks, "Why does a tiger have stripes?" there are many possible answers to this question:

Baby tigers are cute and have stripes

1) The tiger parents have DNA which they passed down, which creates proteins which create pigments in the skin of a baby tiger in a particular pattern.

2) Years of evolution have culled all the tigers that didn't have stripes, leaving only those that do have stripes.

3) So they can effectively hide while stalking prey.

4) Because God made them that way.

Note that these answers do not necessarily preclude each other.  All four of them may or may not be true, somewhat independently of the others.  In particular, the fourth answer addresses a question that none of the other three even approach - "is there a greater purpose or design behind the tiger's stripes?"  Science doesn't need God to answer its questions, but similarly, regardless of the genetic, biological, and evolutionary understandings of  how tiger got its stripes, science doesn't even claim to have insight into a greater purpose or design.  Many scientists (Krauss and Dawkins among them) claim that such a question is meaningless; because it cannot be answered by science, it is not a useful question to ask.  And yet, as human beings, we find ourselves asking that very question, not just about the tiger's stripes, the higgs-boson, or evolution, but about the universe itself.  Is there a greater purpose to quantum mechanics?  To the vast expanse of space?  To whether I rob a bank or give to charity?

For all science's wonderful advances, it has never made me feel less alone in the universe, it has never given me peace in times of anxiety, and it has never assured me that what I do matters.  Perhaps Krauss doesn't need God to answer the questions that he asks, but I certainly need God to answer the questions that I ask.

Postscript:  I have no idea what to do with supernatural miracles in the bible like the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ from a scientific perspective.  It seems pretty important that these things happened or else God has no power in the world, but it also seems highly unlikely that the physical laws of the universe were suspended for brief moments in time 2000 years ago but not since then.