This universe exists by nature or by decision. Nature can create a universe. Nature could have created this universe and others. Something could have decided to apply nature to create this universe and others, so this nature decision dilemna will not be resolved until something appears before us or we tire of this debate.
Science can, and likely will, someday explain everything about the nature of this universe. That accomplishment will not exclude the possibility that something decided to apply the nature we, then, will know. Until science does explain everything, religion can say that science does not yet know. Until something appears before us, science can say that religion cannot yet know.
Philosophy, acting as a referee in this debate, can say that we are not compelled to resolve the nature decision dilemna. A demand, by something, that we make a decision regarding it without having sufficient knowledge of it would be unethical, immoral and unjust.
Humans, generally, conduct decision affairs in an ethical, moral and just manner. We do not want to punish a person without having sufficient knowledge of guilt or liability. We do not want drugs on the market without having sufficient knowledge of safety and efficacy. We do not want food on the market without having sufficient knowledge of safety, quality and contents. We acknowledge the usually negative consequences of making a decision without the support of sufficient knowledge. We punish those who withold knowledge or give false knowledge to conduct a confidence scheme to garner favorable decisions from others.
Science uses a meticulous method to discover and record and share and question knowledge. Religion leverages the yet unknowable to substitute belief for knowledge. Philosopy applies rhetoric and logic and skepticism and dialectic and argument to examine questions, problems in known, not yet known and yet unknowable realms. Philosophy can act as a referee for religion debates and for science debates and for religion science debates bit philosophy is self driven by its own wonder, its own curiosity of this universe and its residents.
We hold beliefs in philosophy, science and religion. Some beliefs can be tested, some we are not yet able to test and some we ever cannot test. Beliefs are useful. Beliefs can help us build a hypothesis or a theory. Beliefs can help us design tests to falsify or verify hypotheses and theories. Beliefs can help us define a problem or pose a question for philosophy, science or religion to resolve or answer.
Beliefs can be formed with bits of existing knowledge and or with intuition from experience and or with imagination alone. However formed, the value of a belief is in its usefulness; especially its applicability to the hypothesis, theory, problem, question or decision at hand. Given applicability, belief can augment existing knowledge to build sufficient support for a decision.
The one condition in which belief has negative value is when belief is used to supplant knowledge. Faith is the active substitution of belief for knowledge. A faith based decision is one that is supported entirely by belief alone. A faith based decision is not sufficiently supported by knowledge. Beliefs can help us build knowledge. Beliefs can augment knowledge. Beliefs cannot be used instead of knowledge. Ethics, morality and justice require knowledge. A faith based decision cannot be ethical; cannot produce moral and just outcomes but by accident.
So long as belief is not used to supplant knowledge, philosophy, science and religion can inform each other and drive and guide the human quest for knowledge of this universe and contribute to the advancement of species human. Perhaps, as we study this living artifact within which our species resides, the cooperative work of the three magestaria can give us some insight or clues to what a sentient universe creator might want to acquire or accomplish by creating this one.