The wind, the sun, mountains, trees, everything was once imbued with its own spirit according to the reasoning of the time, because that was the best explanation we could come up with for how these things rose, swayed, and moved as if by some inner will. In 200,000 or 100,000 or 10,000 B.C., nobody was thinking about gravity.
I respect peoples diverse spiritual beliefs, I think they are natural and part of being human, and have become part of the glue that holds civilizations together. I don't think spirituality or religion is going away. I suspect that even when humans evolve further and become vastly more intelligent (if that is where evolution takes us), we will still have supernatural beliefs in some form. You can quote me in case I'm wrong about that later, although you'll have a long wait.
It is often hard for people with religious or spiritual beliefs not to insert their ideas into conversations about science. I can completely understand why. Spiritualism was the first science. Our first attempt to make sense of the world, not just of our immediate environment but of the unseen processes that make the world behave the way it does. What is wind? What are trees? How do mountains rise? What makes the sky grow dark? Modern science gives Humanity a well-lit room full of explanations for things and safe from monsters. By comparison, the early world must have been a terrifying place, and I can see why people might have sought to identify the spirits running the place, most likely wanting to figure out how to keep them appeased. We now know about geothermal processes, plate tectonics and the laws of physics. Few people are left who worship the wind or the Sun, but there are hangars-on.
It's become popular to say that "God is in the details", which is itself an evolution from the older belief that "gods were in the details". Neither of these phrases were usually necessary before we discovered those details, however. Science is usually the reason religious or spiritual people feel the need to say these things, which is an evolution from religious or spiritual people a mere 200 or so years ago, at least for those who made no excuses for scientific evidence but simply handled the culprits with a good lynching. This does not mean I disbelieve entirely the possibility of higher powers, but that I think humankind's limited sphere of awareness has made its assumptions suspect, pretty much since the dawn of human history.
When I'm not arguing, I enjoy hearing about different peoples beliefs. This often misleads people when they talk to me, because I listen and ask a lot of questions (instead of interjecting and arguing my own ideas), and I might give the mistaken impression that I'm easily convinced. It does make conversations more enjoyable though. Generally speaking, I don't like having faith and science come up in the same conversation, if the conversation is more of a debate. It makes me uncomfortable because these conversations lose merit as soon as they become clashes of beliefs or personalities, which is often the case. And what do our personalities have to do with the facts? People who can lighten up or at least wear a thick skin are better off, probably because a resolution to the argument is rarely possible.
I respect religious and spiritual beliefs, but this doesn't mean I throw a blanket over historical or scientific knowledge whenever there's a mixed room. We can all respect each other and be diplomatic with one another, but this doesn't have to mean lying to each other about our positions or about facts. I would never walk into a church or similar setting in order to argue evolution or cosmology, but when you bring your faith to a scientific discussion, you ought to be prepared to be reasoned with. If you won't listen to reason on account of your faith, or if "reason" seems like an awful subjective thing, that's fine. I don't think it's any better when a "scientifically minded" person gets bent out of shape, who angrily "defends" physics or gravity with the strength of their ego or way with words. If the facts aren't enough to sway someone, or if the spiritual convictions aren't enough to sway someone, then the size of the impasse ought to be respected, the same way you must respect some other impassable boundary.
