If you try to to yoke science with religion, you may not like some scientific results in the future. I’ll explain what I mean in a second.
Science is DEscriptive, and Religion is PROscriptive.
Science seeks to describe the world AS IT IS, through a system of measuring as it’s basis. Religion, OTOH, seeks to describe the world AS IT “OUGHT” TO BE, through a system using human experience as its basis, “belief” if you will. For example, science may tell you what the distance to a star is . . . Religion can’t do that. OTOH, Religion may provide solace at a funeral . . . Science can’t do THAT. Science can’t “prove” the accuracy of beliefs, and belief’s can’t prove the accuracy of science. The two are totally independent of each other.
Some present Science and Religion as compatible (as the article above does), some present Science and Religion as incompatible (as most Atheists do), and some consider Science and Religion as totally independent of each other (as I believe.) Saying Science and Religion are compatible or incompatible is like saying a rock is compatible or incompatible with the ceiling. Huh? IOW, it’s a non-sequitur . . . one doesn’t follow from the other.
If you say that Science is compatible with Religion, you have two problems. First, you’ll get into an endless UNRESOLVABLE argument of “My guy is smarter than your guy”, “My guy won the Nobel Prize”, “My guy graduated from Oxford”, “My guy interviewed (blah, blah, blah)” etc., and second, and perhaps more importantly, you’ll bind yourself to scientific results.
In the latter, you may run into two more scenarios if the result is something you don’t like . . . for example, some neuroscienctists are very close, via P.E.T. scans, to declaring that there is no such thing as a “soul”. They haven’t got there yet, but they’re close. In that case, you’ll either revert to the “My guy is right and your guy is wrong” arguments, or just flat out say, especially if your guy supports that conclusion, “Hey, maybe I shouldn’t have put so much faith in Science now” and go back and rethink yoking Religion with Science.
Considering Religion and Science as independent avoids that whole dubious intellectual exercise. If science concludes there is no such thing as a “soul”, I can say, “So what?”. I believe there is a soul, and since Science can neither prove or disprove a belief, Science is irrelevant (IOW, independent of Religion and vice-versa) to the issue of whether or not there IS a soul. In that example, suppose the mind and body are a radio, and the soul is the waves that come from the transmitting tower. Just because the radio goes silent does not necessarily mean the tower is no longer transmitting the waves. All you can conclude is that that particular radio is no longer enabling the sound that would be produced by the waves. The “soul” (the transmitting tower and the waves) may still exist, we just can’t measure it. Consequently, Science cannot prove or disprove that. It may say that the reasoning is preposterous, or does not follow the “scientific method” (measurement), but beyond that it is totally impotent.
Finally, on the issue of “My guy” arguments. Einstein supported religion. OTOH, Stephen Hawking does not: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” So, are you going to cite Hawking, the guy that took the understanding of Black Holes beyond where Einstein failed, or Einstein, the guy that came up with relativity? Both are towering intellects, but both are at opposite ends when it comes to Religion. A person who holds that Religion and Science are independent does not have to make a choice, a choice that will be based in bias anyway. Atheists will choose Hawking, Religious folks will choose Einstein, and you’ll get back to that endless unresolvable cycle of “My guy is smarter than your guy.”