It depends on how you define religion. Wikipedia says "There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion."
Karen Armstrong says the common thread of all major world religions is compassion, and she literally wrote the book on the history of god. There is nothing about compassion that is incompatible with science.

Galileo certainly thought so.

No, that's not a snarky back handed slap up against the church. Back in his day, if you wanted to pursue science, you went the way of the church. In fact, his day, and his input, were part of the turning point of this. Renee D'escartes, Tycho Brahe, and a bunch of others were, if not devout, trained in the church schools. None were academic slouches. The church, in fact, embraced "natural science" (physics, which included astronomy) up until that time.

According to a book, Infinitessimals, the concept of being able to cut things into smaller and smaller pieces is what tipped the balance as it implied things divine, to some clergy. They asked Galileo to weigh in on it. Galileo saw nothing extraordinary about the concepts and much to explore. He thought it should be embraced. The Jesuits opposed it and they won the day. What happened to Galileo you know (this is not directly related to his excommunication but it is a nail in that coffin).

From that time forward, the Italian churches and schools (almost one and the same) were not allowed to study or access this information and... Italy has not been a mover or shaker in the science scene since. Up until then, they were the center of the science scene.

Said scene moved North and soon thereafter a young philosopher by the name of Newton took this idea to the limit (pun intended) and designed the Calculus... 20 years later, Leibnitz was to publish his works which were entirely the same (no one stole from anyone, it's just another interesting story of the times and kind of implies that new ideas happen holistically when the right information is available to ponder).

Long and short of my long winded post is that science and theology worked hand in hand for a long time prior to this. It was the clergy that made a fateful, and egocentric, decision about the center of our universe and the implication that certain things are not to be known... which stalled the Italians for 700+ years... on the science scene.

Edit: just cleaned up some of the text as, upon reread, it was a bit confusing and fixed a grammar error. Note that this is gelled from recollections of the book Infintessimals (Amir Alexander [play.google.com], and my reading of history for many years. It's been a while since I read the book I am directly speaking too and the Jesuits were by no means the only actors in opposition to this idea, or to Galileo, but I recall they played a key role, according to Infinitessimals.

Asking a question is often seeking to collaborate ones answer. You may be thinking that Christians cannot be scientific to which I would mostly agree but there are many religions. Some are more open to science for example Deism is very compatible to the scientific method.

There have been a lot of scientists with religious convictions. This wiki list [en.wikipedia.org]
shows many. Some may be able to separate faith from scientific method. In the end they may attribute their findings to some mystical power but their methods are scientific.

Science and religion can totally exist in the same way bacon and sausage do. Science explains natural phenomenon, religion explains the motivating impulse behind it all and outlines a system of social behavior to foster the continued survival of a culture thousands of years ago. Some of it is outdated and needs revision, but as long as you let science have its sphere of influence and religion its, they can coexist quite fine. It's when religion tries to do something science has already proven reliably and repeatedly simply by merit of anecdotal evidence from eyewitnesses 1700 years ago regarding events 2000 years and 4 language translations ago that the two start to conflict.

@atheists

They have secular Kabbalah texts, which would fall under the topic of "philosophy of science".

The answer is resoundingly yes, if your question concerns a person’s subjective state of mind. It’s well known that some scientists are religious. But they occupy different spaces in the mind, sort of the manic and depressive states of a manic-depressive person manifest themselves alternatively instead of simultaneously. But if your question concerns whether religion and science are in and of themselves incompatible, without regard to anyone’s state of mind, answer this: if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there, does it make a noise as it falls?

Yes, absolutely. One standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the material world can't exist without conscious observers. That's pretty much what George Berkeley, Bishop of Coyne contended in the early 18th century, and it is amazing to me that Bishop Berkeley's theory is still viable three centuries later. Perhaps that explains why Berkeley college at Yale and Berkeley California were both named after him.

I've a few highly educated friends who are 7th day adventists. Most are surgeons. The common thread through their rationalization of the two is something like: "Science (medicine) is like a maintenance manual" but we cannot create a human.

Science is compatible with religion only to the degree that the religious person is willing to admit that much of the dogma and scripture are nothing more than cultural myth.

I say no, absolutely not. Faith is suspension of understanding, and science is the search for the truth... With Christianity, from the very first chapter of the Bible, one must deny science. We know that Genesis is flat out wrong; but the faithful "know" that the sciences are all wrong. They're at odds with one another from scene one.

I've always said yes. For those who have only faith, they can always see science as Man's way to explain the work of God; it is provable - so it must not (cannot) go against God. This is no more than an updated way to explain the nature of things, since we have learned so much more than man could comprehend to write down two millenia ago.

NO

Nope

As Christopher Hitchens once said: They are not only incompatible, but irreconcilable.

I think the question you're really asking is "Are science and fundamentalism/literalism compatible?" and the answer to that is so obvious as to not need asking. But the way you have worded your question makes it sound like you are asking "Are science and art compatible?" which is an equally unnecessary question for the opposite reason.

Religion is not compatible with science. And yes it is a fraud like psychics and mediums.

They are as compatible as the differing questions they try to answer. How and why.

Ultimately, by the standard definition of religion - no.

They often are compatable, but for true believers... no.

Those who 'believe' in something don't do so because of fact or evidence - it is for a need to accept a 'truth'. Science searches for truth through evidence.

Nope

Depends on what your definition of science and scientists. There are many with little understanding of science who have a faith in scientists that borders on religiosity. And on the other hand, there are some "scientist" who are religious. Recent research revealed that the largest proportion of members of all professions who attended church were doctors. Perhaps it is because they suffer with cognitive dissonance with respect to the poor medical science they have been indoctrinated with. Or maybe just seeking absolution for the deaths they have caused by following the big Pharma ethos.

Absolutely not.

Science is compatible with anything that’s demonstrably true and incompatible with anything that’s demonstrably false. Science does not speak directly to the existence of god(s) one way or the other; it makes no attacks on any of them, but if it attacks the foundations they were built on, then those foundations ARE demonstrably false and it stands to reason that at least THOSE gods who stand upon shoddy premises don’t exist.
THOSE religions are incompatible with science because they attempted explanations that turned out to be misguided. They claimed objective truth, but objective truth doesn’t falter under increased scrutiny and doesn’t wilt under brighter light.
Science is a remarkably simply test; if true, you pass and if not, then not. Anyone that claims that science attacks their religion is just complaining that the test is too hard and admitting that they (the authors of said religion) didn’t study for it.

Not compatible. At all.