Steven J Gould, an eminent biologist, used to talk about NOMA -Non Overlapping Magisteria- when talking about Religion and Science - that science was the magisteria of the empirical -the fact and theory of what the universe is made of , whereas questions over the meaning of life, moral values etc was the magisteria of religion - and there was no overlap - according to Gould, science could not offer anything meaningful to the debate about morality, or ethics, or the way we live our lives. Nor could the
magisteria of religion contribute anything meaningful to scientific discussion.
It found a lot of favour amongst those who have some sort of religious belief, but it is of course,utter tosh.
The quoted article seems arrive a similar conclusion - but it is a conclusion that is false. So is his assertion that our brains are insufficiently evolved to fully appreciate the majesty and mystery of the universe- Utter rubbish, and pretty insulting too.The whole article smacks of those of faith trying to find a role for "belief in the absence of evidence", and failing miserably to do so.
Science, evidence and the scientific method has lots to contribute to how we live our lives, what constitutes morality etc. Religion on the other hand has nothing at all to offer to science, and is indeed simply a repository of myth, superstition and wishful thinking; a sinkhole of racism, mysogeny and homophobia; an ever- renewing font of mistrust, xenophobia and violence - a massive, stultifying anchor on humanities development.