And if truth is hard for humans to find (and I'm not questioning that aspect at all), why do you have so much faith in religion when one of the possibilities is that there never was a god, just a bunch of people guilty of thinking they knew what the truth was? Which is exactly where I think it came from.
Yes, with all faith there is the possibility of error or at least partial misunderstanding.
The faith in science is based on sense perception. It assumes the accuracy of sense perception. It cannot verify that assumption. Now that doesn't mean that science is wrong it just shows that the whole thing hangs on certain premises. Science assumes the physical world is the basis of reality and then proceeds from that starting point. It then places consciousness as some resultant phenomenon.
Religious belief on the other hand (generally) assumes that consciousness is the fundamental and that physical reality is one resultant phenomenon.
[3Sigma, this is not Solipsism - A solipsist claims 'only I exist' and all else is created by my mind]
Now, can either of these two positions claim a moral high ground ? Claim that they take precedence over the other by some basic law of existence ?
A claim that ONLY science and a fundamental physical reality are the default position has no validity. It is simply a choice. For many people it is what they are taught from birth. It is part of the language they use and they cannot imagine anything different.
If the question is raised of whether they are in fact simply dreaming, imagining, being tricked, in a matrix etc then the only defence is 'I don't believe it' - pure faith. Nothing but faith.
Now consider the alternative. That consciousness is the fundamental and that physical experience is a resulting component. Is the situation the same ? No, it is not, for this reason-
If I doubt my own consciousness, then who is doubting? I am! Thus I have proved my own consciousness by doubting it. This applies to consciousness but does not apply to material, physical reality which can always be doubted. What cannot be doubted is the experience, the perception of existing.
This is not of course proof, one way way or the other, but it shows that the religious belief of the primacy of consciousness above and beyond physical reality actually stands up better to the most intense scrutiny.
As soon as physical evidence is called for, that request already assumes the primacy of physical existence. So that demand cannot be used to deny the primacy of consciousness.
Ultimately whatever our beliefs, we are talking about faith and no-one has the moral high-ground regarding those beliefs.