Full stop.
I do not believe the first two, Copernicus and Galileo, had any interest in overthrowing religion and God. They were attempting to more fully understand God's amazing creation if I remember correctly.
Roll back the calendar two+ centuries, and many of the great thinkers considered Christianity itself to be reasonable. The stench of modernity has a way of infecting everything, sadly.
Nicolaus Copernicus was a devout Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, serving as a canon in a Polish cathedral. He saw no conflict between his heliocentric theory and his faith, believing that studying the natural, mathematical order of the universe was a way to honor God. He initially feared backlash from the academic community more than from the Church, and dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.
Yes a lot of scientists have seen this for ages:
Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to Him.-Louis Pasteur
Pasteur had a lot of great quotes along these lines: https://www.azquotes.com/author/11366-Louis_Pasteur
Then of course there is Pascal’s wager, a logical argument for having faith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.[2]
I’ve always taken the combination of Pascal and the C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity” (and other works) as the logical arguments for why not just a belief in God is correct, but also that Christianity is the correct religion.