The thing about religion is it almost always has to do with what happens to us after death, at the moment, we cannot prove one way or the other, so one must choose to believe something exists after death(in some cases something specific), that nothing exists after death, or to believe neither, acknowledge both as possibilities, and take whichever you get. I don't see how choosing any of these would compromise one's ability to interpret scientific results or to use scientific method for research. Therefore I just don't see how the two are not compatible. I apologize for replying late, got busy. I also apologize if I don't reply immediately to any reply you may make to this post, as I'm going to try to sleep.

Again, the scientific method isn't the same as science. It's a method, that much is clear. If science doesn't find an answer to a question, it doesn't violate the field to substitute the unknown with whatever you want. Granted believing in a deity doesn't abide by the scientific method, it still doesn't make it incompatible with science. For a long time people used to thing the atom was the smallest unit of matter, then came the electron, neutron, and proton. And then quarks. And then there was a point in chemistry in which people assumed an atom was real but had no proof (or technology) to determine that notion. What makes their leap of faith in atoms any different from anyone else's faith?