Actually, I believe you’re missing the point of the article. I’m not talking about science. I’m talking about ultimate explanations. Science works by objectifying, reducing, or naturalizing a phenomenon. That’s precisely why science shouldn’t be expected to supply us with an ultimate, absolutely complete explanation of everything. The very notion is oxymoronic, because scientists explain by positing limits, which themselves would have to be explained and so the “final” explanation wouldn’t be final after all.

Also, when you compare theism to science, you’re judging religion by scientific standards. Why not instead judge science by religious standards? Why not say science fails because scientific explanations aren’t comforting or flattering to our naive self-image?