plnelson, you said: "The basic premises of the world's major religions have not changed in centuries.   The idea that some test or experiment might disprove some basic religious truth fills them with horror because religions think of truth with a capital "t" - not subject to change or disproof.   If a Christian believes that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected a few days later and will return again, this is NOT subject to debate or experimentation.

A scientist can convince the rest of the scientific community that he's right if he has good data and a solid theory.   But put a Christian, a Muslim, and Jew together in a room and there's nothing any of them can say or do to convince the others."

You are absolutely correct IF you are referring to fundamentalist and dogmatic individuals IN the various major religions. However, not everyone in the major religions is of that mindset. A great many are not...and they ARE willing to debate all of the above assumptions and beliefs you mentioned, and they do have the humility of the scientist, and they ARE open to new ideas.

So your objection to religious thought is based primarily on an objection to the most hidebound and rigid forms of religious thought...and I object to it also...but not to religious thought as a general subject.

Then there are the millions of free thinkers who do NOT belong to any specific religion and yet they do believe in something spiritual. They also do not fit your definition regarding a dichotomy between religion/spirituality and science.

It would again be convenient for the purposes of your argument if everyone who was religious fit your expectations of what "religious" people are supposedly like, but they do not. Many of them are just as willing to embrace change as are the scientifically minded. In fact, THAT is why religions change over the centuries...the reformers in the religions insist upon change, and part of the reason they do insist on it is that they believe it ought to be in accord with known science, known evidence, and reason.

This is not (in my opinion) a debate in which to secure victory for one side or the other, plnelson. It's a discussion. So let's see what we can discover together through discussion rather than fighting a battle for exclusive supremacy here. What say to that?