[toponaut]

"the discrimination makes factual sense."

I can't figure out what you mean. Examples?

You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate.

Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it.

Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.

[deltaonefour]

I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias.

>Science and religion are both about our "best guesses".

No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true.

Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.