Religions exist because people seek understanding, inspiration, freedom from fear and suffering, a sense of connectedness to the world and deeper meaning. These are very important human needs.
As mentioned in the God discussion, to talk about God as a designer is an anthropomorphic
view. The traditional Christian, Muslim and Hebrew presentations of God are anthropomorphic. God is presented as a human-like being who created things from afar and watches over his creations. My family and ancestors are Jewish. The actions of Hitler were indeed so cruel that all Jews have had to reconsider their beliefs about God, the data did not mesh with views of a Loving God who cares about "his" people.
But the history of our Universe involves the creation of stars and billions of galaxies. Death and suffering arose along with sentient life, a very fragile creation. Without pain, an organism's reaction, there is no suffering. Why suffering exists is indeed a mystery and if God were an allpowerful being we'd expect "he" could have configured the Universe differently. Or maybe there was just no other way for compassion, wisdom and kindness to come into being, without that suffering... Without sentience there would be no love, no joy, as well as no hatred and cruelty. Without suffering, perhaps there are things we could not learn.
The Universe is quite paradoxical, at times, and extremely mysterious.
Also there exists in most religions less anthropomorphic mystical teachings and views, where God is conceptualized more as a mystery, a creative power or "source" without a single conscious awareness or center. This is God as more like the Tao, like a Mysterious Cosmic Presence or Spirit (as taught in Kabbalah). In that view, the Universe is moving towards an awakening of sorts, of a spiritual consciousness, and pain is part of the process... The Buddha's teachings on dharma are in line with that, imo. There is no God behind the suffering, and there is a way to rise beyond it. Buddha's teachings fit the data better then the anthropomorphic views, i think...
Anyway, as Wright is saying, as long as we conceptualize God as presented in ancient texts, in anthropomorphic terms, we are dealing with a conception which doesn't match with what science presents.
This is where literal religious conceptions have limitations. But there are schools of thought in science, such as the Deep Ecology movement, and these efforts by scientists to tell "The Great Story" of Cosmic Evolution which fits nicely with these less anthropomorphic conceptions, with the more mystical teachings.
Religions, like everything else in our Universe, will need to adapt and evolve, to survive.
A related article:
by John Seed; from THINKING LIKE A MOUNTAIN - TOWARDS A COUNCIL OF ALL BEINGS by John Seed, Joanna Macy, Arne Naess & Pat Fleming, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1988