You're more than welcome to view religion with skepticism and I respect your skepticism.
I don't, however, respect your antagonism towards religion and your lack of respect for those who adopt one form or another as part of their belief system.
You've intentionally or otherwise, chosen a negatively loaded definition of "superstition," that reflects as much or more of the person using the term than the one whose beliefs are being addressed.
Superstition's cleanest definition is: A belief in causality that is not limited to
persons or processes perceived in the physical world.
While this may be an aspect of religion, it is hardly all that religion is.
Considering that even the hardest of hard scientists would never suggest that science has provided a precise and concrete explanation of everything we perceive (let alone everything we suspect), it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that you (or someone like you) can pass judgment, with any inkling of finality, on what is sound
and what is unsound
You seem to be of the opinion that that religion requires superstition, and that if there ever comes a time when the existence of God might be scientifically
proven, the religious
would have to find a new unprovable basis for their beliefs.
I don't wish to assume what you do or do not believe, so let me ask you: Where does a scientific theory fall?
Is String Theory superstitous? Are bosons supernatural entities?