This is another dubious conclusion. You think that being in awe of the complexity and majesty of the Universe would automatically lead someone to conclude there's a God?

Moreover, that's the exact kind of "confidence" you describe with the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You're taking an area in which you are ignorant (cosmology and existence itself) and confidently claiming it somehow supports your belief in God.

It's also the EXACT SAME argument atheists make against theists. Attributing things to a divine entity dispels the awe and mystery by forcing an explanation on all things (one that isn't provable or evidentiary at that). Why does there need to be an explanation? Why can't you appreciate the mystery? Why can't we admit that we don't know what the answers are and keep looking?

The idea that religion and science are somehow compatible because religion will take complexity (as revealed by science) and claim that's somehow proof of God's existence is fundamentally (no pun!) flawed, and I can think of four reasons to back that up:

1) Its circular logic - a la the watch and watchmaker argument. "The Universe is complex, so it must have a creator. There must be a creator because complexity demands it."

2) It seems like little more than an attempt to salvage religion after it has been so thoroughly-discredit by science.

3) The argument that "science can't explain everything" only shows that religion thrives on ignorance. As knowledge grows, ignorance is dispelled, suggesting religion is just a "perimeter of ignorance."

4) Claiming they need each other only shows that people still need a belief to lean on. Quoting scientists to that effect doesn't justify your argument, it only shows they were capable of being unscientific.

It is hardly a bad time to be an atheist, pal. Not for the reasons you stated. The truth is, your entire argument inevitably backfires because the very certainty and dismissal you speak of is precisely what religiously-minded people have been doing since the beginning of time.