Not all religions are in conflict with science. Pagans believe in a creator but believe the laws of Nature were set up by the creator. We don’t have any conflict with biological evolution because god has no exact image. God is “an entity “

The problem with religion is that its followers believe it is 100% truth and anything else is a lie even when there is direct evidence to the contrary. They are not open minded to the possibility that they could be wrong and any challenge to their way of thinking is simply "The devil tempting their faith".

I concur with the sentiments espoused by 'The Great Agnostic,' Robert Green Ingersoll:
"There is an "irrepressible conflict" between religion and science, and they cannot peaceably occupy the same brain nor the same world."
The Gods, 1872

"Every new religion has a little less superstition than the old, so that the religion of Science is but a question of time."
Individuality, 1873

That may be so in the minds of the Faithfools BUT we, the Atheists, Agnostics, etc, etc, did NOT start this imaginary 'War,' the advent of Christianity, and in some part Islam as well, started the whole thing.
The Sciences, Logic, Reasoning and the like are, imo, Polar Opposites to Religions and Religious Beliefs.
Religion not ONLY expects blind obedience, blind Faith, unwavering loyalty, etc, etc, from its followers but, imo, also demands it to some extent be it large or small.
Whereas, imo, the Sciences, etc, say " Here it is, we can prove it be correct, take it or leave it."
As the free-thinkers we Atheists etc, think/trust that we are, we do NOT adhere to nor have unwavering Faith and Belief in all things Scientific, etc, etc, instead we merely trust in them to either be correct or possibly correct UNTIL proven to be so.
But I have never heard of this "Crew of Scientists" being either "responsible for our existence" nor "having a ball watching us."

While logic exists, some clearly don’t understand it, or respect it. Some misuse it, whether intentionally or not, trying to make or win an argument, particularly the religious minded.

Religion is at war with reason and logic.

Logic exists because we have the mental capacity to define and to use logic.

Many people use logic because they find it beneficial to their lives.

What "crew of scientists" is it that is responsible for our existence?

My existence is due to my parents having an effective fuck.

Don’t mistake Jerry Coyne’s defense of scientific tribalism for an objective perspective.

Coyne makes the same ironic mistake that most atheists make in that he uses religious (fundamentalist) definitions of religion as his strawman instead of using a scientific definition. Apples against oranges.

A fair comparison would be to judge scientific descriptions against scientific descriptions, and religious descriptions against religious descriptions.

He even admits his definition is cherry-picked to fit his argument:
“And I’ll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett:“Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Of course many religions don’t fit that definition...”

That’s right, they don’t. But don’t let that stop you.

“...but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often – the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – fill the bill.”

No. They don’t. Unless of course you use their own self-definition instead of using scientific ones like you do for your own belief system.

“Next, realize that both religion and science rest on “truth statements” about the universe – claims about reality.”

No. They don’t. At least not the same kind of truth claims. Not literal truth claims.

“The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning...”

Not “additionally”. Mostly.

“...but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims.”

In the eyes of religious literalists. Not in the eyes of all religious practitioners, or any well-informed scientific perspective.

“The most common accommodationist argument is Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis of “non-overlapping magisteria.” Religion and science, he argued, don’t conflict because: “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”

Which is, by and large, correct, from a scientific view of science, compared to a scientific view of religion. Apples to apples.

“This fails on both ends. First, religion certainly makes claims about “the factual character of the universe.”

According to a religious perspective. Oops, which Coyne then acknowledges:

“In fact, the biggest opponents of non-overlapping magisteria are believers and theologians, many of whom reject the idea that Abrahamic religions are empty of any claims to historical or scientific facts.”

Apples to oranges. Allowing religionists to define religion, but using scientific definitions of science. It’s not a contest between tribes. It should be a dispassionate examination of two discreet phenomena from a scientific perspective only.

“Nor is religion the sole bailiwick of “purposes, meanings and values,” which of course differ among faiths. There’s a long and distinguished history of philosophy and ethics – extending from Plato, Hume and Kant up to Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and John Rawls in our day - that relies on reason rather than faith as a fount of morality.”

Logical fallacy. Gould’s statement that religion addresses meaning is not a claim that there is no other source. Additionally, many of today’s scientists take almost as dim a view of philosophy as they do religion.

“All serious ethical philosophy is secular ethical philosophy.”

No True Scotsman much?

Jerry Coyne’s argument relies on scientism, confirmation bias, and logical fallacies galore to promote the superstition of tribalism, all presumably in the name of science, which is clearly his god. Truth be known, his god wouldn’t have him. Science is better than that.

Science can see that people who are blinded by superstition, tribalism, and instinctual urges should not be trusted to define their own motivations in objective terms.

Reason dictates that science should define both science and religion before attempting a comparison.
Apples to apples.

A load of incoherent waffle. There are not two "Truths". There are the "truths" of science and the mythology of religion

"I don't know anything. Ever. It's really quite relaxing"
Dirk Gently

even einstein observed that facts can only get one so far, and that some things just cannot be explained with facts. Fwiw you might note that we call them "believers," and "beliefs," but note how closely they are held as, in fact, Absolute Truths, that cannot be abrogated in the slightest? Whether from a believer or an atheist, for that matter? So i suggest that beliefs are great, and that we basically function on beliefs, and make a great many assumptions in the course of our day, regardless of the funny movie meme viz assumptions. It is likely our Absolute Truths that should be examined, moreso than our "beliefs" test everything, and keep what is good
you kinda lost me @ "That crew of scientists" though? Huh?

Not everywhere.

Science is not at war with religion. Science is about discovering how the universe works. Religion is at war with science, because it challenges their faith and god.

Even the leaders of religion often know the science; they just ignore it, or publicly deny it so as to keep the sheep orderly and throwing in a lot of cash.

Everyone should apply the scientific method to religion, and discover, as I did, that religion is just a scam based on mythology.

Putting it simply.

I will probably never have absolute truth, but if I work really hard at it, and question everything especially my assumptions, perhaps I can get nearer to it. Science.

I have absolute truth given to me, because I am chosen. Religion.