Yes but your argument has the logical flaw of false dilemma. Do I walk to school or carry my lunch?
You assume that experiencing life as more than "it just is" means that we don't believe in science. But throughout history, humans, and I might add most mammals, have done just fine navigating the objective world while still maintaining a value system based on an experience that characterizes being as good. To put it in its most simple form imagine a cave man with a rock thrown at his head. What will he do? Answer: Duck. Why? Because he wants to live and because he knows that if that rock strikes his head he will not. You can see both forms of consciousness right there. Evolution has associated being with good in us as well as our ability to think objectively in terms of hypothetical possibilities. Note also that if the rock is aimed at his offspring or his spouse he will try to intervene hence the relation through our sexual cognition of the love of our families. And our communities have projected this upon themselves.
Your argument is against a strawman in which "questioning" about "just is" gets turned into a crude fundamentalist caricature of religion. The issue of wondering at the world vs. insisting that wonder is something we must "get over" has in fact nothing to do with believing in lightning bolts thrown by postulated entities. So called "gods" with a small "g". Those lightning bolt throwing entities, even if they were to exist, could not remotely be considered "God" but would rather be just other existent beings. Your fight is with fundamentalism and you do not see how your own position is advocating what you are trying to reject.
You might also consider that in addition to lightning rods science has also created nuclear weapons and will soon create the more powerful biological weapons. For clarity alone you should be more careful. Our survival is not genuinely threatened by lightning in any meaningful way. It is threatened by those infected by the will to power gaining control of mass extinction and being motivated by existential crisis to that form of despair which overcomes the will to live. The guy on the Texas Book Depository with nukes if you see what I mean. We must not just understand the science of nature. We must also understand the motivations of these men.
There is a relation between your attitude and the attitude of a perpetrator of murder/suicide. I am NOT saying they are the same. I am just saying that the despair that one of them feels has its origins in a kind of sneering rejection of the sacred and the love that is around them. Take a look at the suicide bombers. They are fundamentalist to a man. Find me a non-fundamentalist suicide bomber. They are not the mystics of their religions - or to be more careful - they are controlled by the fundamentalists. I think they themselves are often just confused pawns.
There is a relationship between secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism. They both start with this rejection of the sacred and a belief in objective reality in a way that nihilates their own experience of the wonder of their own existence and the existence of others. And so suicide and murder become a real possibility. Because life itself becomes sickening and unimportant. This is as true of the secular fundamentalist (materialist) murderers like Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin as it is of the religious fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden or the fundamentalist christian soldier who wants to "nuke em till they glow". They cynically manipulate the symbols of care in a kind of mime that convinces others who are often good to kill. But that primate sneer, that threat display is always there.
If you just strip everything from the voice except the tone you can hear the sneer. It is the same in all cases. It is a form of mocking sneer. "Bring it on"
My point, which you missed, is that the experience of being as being good comes at least sometimes and I think at root always from a sense of wonder at its existence instead of a dismissive sneering sense that it "just is" so "get over it". We have to be very careful. We cannot actually afford to take that dismissive attitude to its logical conclusion either personally or as a community.