The aspect the soul that gives rise to science does not raise the question of God as savior. Metaphysics or reflective empirical science show us God as the cause of being (simply or in some way) or God the intelligence, and either of these can be developed far more than they have yet been developed to this point, but no such development leads to raising the question of God the savior. The failure to raise a question is not the same as giving a negative answer to it (pace to the unreflective pseudo-axiom “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”) and these sciences can see some true things about God’s governance and care for the world, but this is not the same thing as raising the question of God the savior, or as calling out to God the savior.
On the other hand, other aspects of the soul by nature relate to God first of all as savior. Human beings naturally cry out to something above themselves when they are in distress; and at other times they question something above themselves when they are sullen, depressed, or in the face of suffering, and all such actions see God as a savior (the argument from evil presupposes this account of God as protector and savior from evils). Again, the ancient people would take on the Gods of those who conquered them, which again makes perfect sense if one relates to the gods as the ones who will protect you and save you from evil. In this existential- social experience of the divine (which myth simultaneously corrupts and preserves), the divine nature seems to be first of all a savior and protector from evils.
The question of God the savior thus divides two aspects our experience against each other. The experience that we cultivate into science is set against the existential-social experience of the divine as the one we must call out to in distress, or the one that has abandoned us or been disproven by those evils that we were neither saved nor protected from. No facile division of “logos” from “mythos” or “reason” from “religious experience” does justice to the two aspects of the soul that are split by the question of God the savior. The division is in the soul itself, which is unable to integrate different aspects of experience. Plato’s genius is very much manifest in the way he tried to integrate both of these aspects of experience, for he saw the divine as both an “Absolute” and “Goodness itself” while at the same time integrating into his philosophy the experience of the gods personally preserving Socrates from evils. Nevertheless, the integration is certainly not complete – it is not “Being Itself” that speaks to Socrates, or tells him to avoid such-and-such, though there are hints throughout his works that Plato wanted to move in a direction like this (the Symposium comes to mind).
But even the existential-social experience of God as savior is warped and radically incomplete of itself. We might call out to God or question him in the face of suffering, but this call rarely penetrates beyond the merely physical level. In times of comfort, ease, and luxurious city living few call out to be saved, even though the interior world of human beings is just as dark, superficial, gloomy, and twisted in times of comfort as in times of want. We are content when we are preserved from merely animal evils, which is a silent testimony that we are content with mere animal goodness. If I’m healthy, well-fed, roomed, and clothed, with some chance to express my own talents and follow my interests, what could possibly be missing?
And so the experience we cultivate into science never raises the question of God the savior, and our social-existential experience that gives rise to natural religion never quite manages to see exactly what we need to be saved from.