[ As to your implication that I wish to highlight the good ethics of religion, that is certainly not my intention. It seemed your original premise was to highlight the bad morals, and I was only responding to that. You still seem to have made no definitive statement about secular moral codes as being superior to religous other than the claim that theocracies are a disaster. And that is a pretty limited frame which probably has more to do with a seperation of church and state as it does to any innate immoral tendency of the general religous code
What enigmas specifically? You're right, science can't answer questions of the meaning of life. But neither can religion. Science can debunk false pattern seeking such as you find in all manner of superstition and magical thinking, of course. I don't think there is evidence of purpose or meaning in the universe - it is indifferent to us, to our wants and desires. (By saying it's indifferent, I don't mean to imply the universe has "consciousness" though.) Any meaning or purpose to our individual lives is created by us, by our actions and relationships with other people, by how we live.
Free will, the resolution of the finite and the infinite, etc. On what basis do you make the claim of no evidence of purpose? What type of facts support or refute the claim. Also I do not really understand the "it is indifferent to us." Is that something like determinism?
I don't think most scientifically minded folks put much stock in the "tinker toy universe", as you put it. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics have pretty much demolished any hope we had of that. Uncertainty appears to be a fundamental aspect of reality, or at least of our ability to describe reality. But I'm comfortable with not knowing. I'd rather honestly admit ignorance than make up stories and pretend to knowledge.
This sounds good, but we are going to get stuck on "not knowing" versus I am making a positive affirmation that there is nothing to know.