As I wrote on my Discussion, for there to be a belief in religion of any kind, there also needs to be a suspension of belief to an extent. I've noticed that within the topics in philosophy we've looked at, a common theme is transitive property; if A is B, then B is C. Logic and reasoning, which would heavily go against the suspension of belief, would it not? Those kinds of set-ups make it very hard for you to argue from a logical perspective, but religion doesn't require logic. I remember during the lecture, there was a philosopher (can't remember the name) who said something like: all people have mothers, so we can assume that humanity as a whole has a mother. I can't remember exactly what he was arguing for, but I remember thinking that this was very odd; if you look at it from a scientific view, you'd see that humans evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and that our only "mother" is the single-cell organism that was able to develop and thrive in the primordial soup.
I guess before I start ranting too much about science, I should stop. In the end, although philosophy and for example, faith, have nothing to do with each other, it shares the same relationship as religion and science: they're trying to argue the same thing from different perspectives. And really, when you get down to it, that's pretty much any kind of study, be it scientific, spiritual, or what have you.