My article isn't about the general relation between science and religion. It's about why Tim Andersen fails to show that the two are compatible. That's what the headline says and that's what I show by going through his arguments. The article's last section does address the larger question, by pointing to differences between the two cultures and sets of values.

Sure, if science and religion address different legitimate questions, they might be compatible. But if they address them by relying on cultures that are opposed to each other, they might be incompatible after all. For instance, if science is skeptical whereas religion promotes gullibility, there's going to be a problem in being a religious scientist.

Also, if religious questions turn out to be illegitimate and if religious problems are pseudo-problems, their compatibility with science would be a matter of psychology and emotion. In the same way, you can say a poem is compatible with a scientific theory, but that might mean just that the poem makes you feel good about the scientific facts.