The underlying concept here is that religious-like faith/belief has a utilitarian value regardless of the actual truth or verifiability of religious claims, and that this utilitarian value can be ported over the non-religious secular society by introducing 'faith in science' and in particular 'awe of science'.

I think this a profoundly misguided notion that is highly detrimental to the actual practice of scientific investigation and discovery, and it's a bit telling that none of the promoters of this concept, characteristic of the 'New Atheism' are working scientists in any active field.

The problem is that our scientific understanding of the world is continually evolving and developing as new discoveries are made and old concepts are overturned. Clearly, developing a sense of faith in some scientific paradigm as the basis of some utilitarian 'psychological benefits of belief' project will lead to grief if that scientific view is upset by new data. The notion that one's cherished views of reality may be overturned by new knowledge (particularly if that leads to things like a loss of funding in some field) is already hard enough for working scientists to come to grips with (e.g. plate tectonics etc.) without adding in the fact that psychological despair may be induced by such new revelations.

Furthermore, science has very little to say about morality or justice, other than providing factual forensic data which people may use in a legal context. For example, all science has to say about cannibalism is that eating brain tissue from one's own species may lead to degenerative prion diseases. Genocide of human populations, well, scientifically there's nothing wrong with that, it's just natural selection and competition for resources. Religion, regardless of the factual reality of it or not, is probably a somewhat better guide to the kinds of moral behavior, although in modern society it's all codified in legal structures.

I suppose the secular view is that science and law are the twin pillars of modern civilization, but the notion that 'faith' in such structures has some necessary psychological benefit smells of a manipulative controlling approach to human relations. If people really want something supportive to believe in, they're better off sticking to their favorite literary/religious texts, even if they're just products of human imagination.