You just represent different sides of the same waffle.
Condolences if you've been drawn into the ridiculous science/religion incompatibility argument. It's typically an emotional affair fraught with bias and untestable conjecture, so if you're making any contributions to the debate, it's surely not as a scientist.
You do realize, don't you, that you're not just a scientist, but also a spiritual seeker? It's easy to prove:
At your best moments as a scientist, when your mind is clear and relaxed, contemplating the deeper nature of the problem you're trying to solve, and open to intuition; you are asking questions about the nature of things, admitting your ignorance, and more to the point, assuming that said questions have answers that could only be understood in a context that lies beyond everything we know. In simple terms, you accept a reality beyond the one you're able to measure. But for this faith, there'd be no incentive to pursue science. So what is not spiritual about this approach to life?
To pretend to yourself or anyone else that scientific inquiry isn't a transcendent endeavor is to be disingenuous about what you actually practice—a practice absolutely necessary for success in your field. Your conceding this point would help us non-scientists realize that insisting that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive demonstrates an unscientific frame of mind. Help us recognize that we need both the scientist and cleric within us to inquire of ourselves and discover who we are as beings.
I'm grateful for your role in helping us all better understand the mysteries of life. You're an important leader in our effort to comprehend reality—that we may not just stand in awe of it, but wisely participate in its ever present evolution. May you continue to discover more questions than can be answered!
* * *
Condolences to you also if you're involved in the aforementioned dispute. An attack on science in defense of religion surely involves prejudice, intolerance, and harsh judgements that wouldn't be indulged by a sincere holy person.
You do realize that you are also a scientist, don't you? It's easy to prove:
At your best moments as a religious adept, when your mind is receptive, concerned with the origins of the problem you're trying to alleviate, and open to inspiration; you are compassionate about the nature of things, admitting your humility, and more to the point, assuming that your spiritual search has answers that could be systematically applied to the real world—that a clearer observation and understanding of material suffering and absolution is repeatable evidence of a life well lived. In simple terms, you accept physical reality as a necessary venue to conduct religion. But for this objectivity, there'd be no means to test spiritual advancement. So what is not scientific about this approach to life?
To pretend to yourself or anyone else that spiritual aspiration isn't founded on empirical existence would also be to take a hypocritical stance—a stance that does not justify tithing to anyone trying to follow your example as a sentient being. Conceding this point would help us non-clerics realize that insisting that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive reveals a profane attitude. Please, help us recognize that we need both the cleric and scientist within us to inquire of ourselves and discover who we are as souls.
I'm grateful for your role in helping us all better cope with the uncertainties of life. You're an important leader in our effort to further the ascension of consciousness. May you continue to ask the questions that could only be answered from a more evolved point of view!