Before going further, yes, let's look at the religious apologist trick of stating that there are many religious scientists. Research reveals that 51% of all members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science are believers (95% of the general public are believers), however, only about 5% those individual scientists in the "Hard" sciences of biology, physics and astronomy are believers.
Getting back to the real issue of religion and science being compatible, the following ways religion and science approach understanding reality and truth are incompatible:
- Religions have sacred histories, narratives, and mythologies which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe (source). They depend on internal authority and revelation, both of which have no way to verify their truth. They tend to be certain and dogmatic in their worldview, even in the face of evidence falsifying their claims.
- Science is dependent upon empirical evidence and testable explanations to understand reality (source). By its very nature, its findings are uncertain and are based on probability, never certainty. If new evidence is found through its methods that make it more probable that the new findings are a clearer picture of reality, they are provisionally/tentatively accepted, with the prior understanding superseded.
This link and this one summarize nicely the areas of conflict between religion and science. However, the recommended role for religion hardly will be accepted by the religious, and that role is not exclusive to religion.
The conclusion from the above: religion and science are not, and cannot be, compatible, in spite of what the John Templeton Foundation says and does.
- - -