David, > what constitutes "reason" and "evidence" is always subject to interpretation, and many arguments among scientists include arguments about how to interpret evidence <Yes and no. There is pretty broad agreement among scientists and philosophers about what constitutes reason and evidence in general. Yes, scientists may disagree in specific circumstances, but that’s a strength not a weakness: our best approximation to the truth emerges from reasoned disagreement. More importantly: there is nothing like that on the side of religion.> logic is deductive process, but science is an inductive process—and inference does not provide any kind of "proof". <Science is not about proof, but about likelihood. Logic is both deductive and inductive, we are not limited to classical Aristotelian logic. Also, religion has nothing better to offer.> all that science does (and this is not trivial) is develop mathematical models which both account for, and predict, to a high degree of numerical accuracy, phenomena that can be accurately quantified. There are many phenomena that aren't easily quantifiable. <Agreed, but not all science works in the way physics does. Much of biology and the social sciences are non-mathematical, though they often use statistical tools. And, again, religion has nothing better to offer.> religious people are not stupid <Nobody ever said they are. But even very smart people can be profoundly wrong.> Newton, Galileo, and many others were religious, and knew how to reason from evidence <Yes, and that was several hundred years ago. Research shows that over 90% of contemporary top scientists (i.e., those who are member of the National Academy, for instance) are atheists.> all logical systems depend on axioms, and all reasoning ( brain process) depends on tacit assumptions about the world <Sure, and that, in part, is how science makes progress. No such progress to be seen on the side of religion.> it's not "reason and evidence" that religion is incompatible with, but modernity <Religions are still doing remarkably well in modern times, with literally billions of believers. So I think your statement is incorrect based on the evidence.> a pragmatic stance that all beliefs and commitments are valid to the degree that they work for me coping with life, and cease to be valid when they cease to work <At a personal level that may work. But science is a social enterprise, its interest is in what’s true (to the extent that we can tell), not just what works. The placebo effect “works,” to a limited degree, but you would be unwise to mistake it for a cure.