I am and have been a man of science, reason and fact-based life.
Unlike some, I do not care if you yourself hold religious views.
I used to. I used to rail against religion the way some people rail against smoking cigarettes or eating red meat. I've given up on it, having realized that religion is one of those things you can't argue people out of. So, I don't bother. If you wish to continue believing I can't stop you. But you can still hold religious views, express religious faith and worship in the manner that suits you without eschewing science and reason. While the two are not wholly compatible, they can and do co-exist without friction. Some consider there to be non-overlapping magisteria, that is to say, the two things each have their own provinces which they do well in just so long as they stay within their realm -- keep to their own lane, so to speak. A prime example of what happens when religion attempts to speak to a question of science is when religious zealots attempt to define the fundamental nature of our home planet. For anyone who has studied science it's a settled issue - - the earth is a very slightly oblate spheroid some 12742 km in diameter, that turns on it's N-S Axis once every 24.025 hours, and orbits it's primary star at a distance of some 151.42 million km once every 365.25 days. These facts are not conjecture, or suppositions, they are known. They are observations, made using instruments from the primitive -- a pole of known length -- to the incredible -- a ring laser gyro, or focused light prism gyroscope. The first attempt to divine the circumference of the earth was done by Eratosthenes in 245 BC; see Wikipedia's explanation of how, here : Wikipedia on Eratosthenes
