I see both science and religion as two tools that try to set aside the subjective experience with a more objective observation.
I choose to place my views with examples. I like examples.
If a religion preaches that attending a worship session is good for you, (medical) science preaches that aspirin is good for your heart. Both tend to apply an observed phenomenon on a small sample to the masses. Just as aspirin may be good for your heart, attending a sunday mass could be good for your emotions. In both the cases, there are side effects. Not attending a mass can induce guilty conciousness; aspirin is known to have side effects. Note that I'm not referring to the act of attending the mass or taking aspirin, but am just referring to the preaching's impact.
Rarely do we see priests paying true attention to the individual. Doctors are slightly better. But considering the healthcare in most populous countries, I doubt whether doctors take individuals seriously. Instead they try to interpret the situation with what they have learnt, in a scripture or a book.
Science gets an approval from the rationalists because it clearly has its fine prints and disclaimers. Unfortunately, the religions I know of do not have such caveats. Instead they warn of terrible consequences if you don't follow.
Religion during Galileo's period disapproved of science that wasn't in line with the scriptures. In a way, we see the same tendency within the scientific community of today, towards religion and spirituality.
Is there a serious study on religion or spirituality and its impact in the human well being? If there were any, I doubt whether those researchers are respected within the research community.