I definitely agree. One can even go deeper to see where the supposed rift between the Science and Religion lies in the first place. My take on it is that it isn't the things we are usually told such as [insert historical anti-scientific or anti-religious controversy of choice here]. To me the issue isn't whether there is a conflict between the two and certainly not how to "reconcile" them.
The question of whether or not science and faith can be reconciled is a loaded question to begin with. It assumes a conflict that was not always the case and addressing it in this way implies a false dichotomy. Often the barrier has been created throughout history by man's errors and people looking to push an agenda of some sort. The first part is on the religious side where no one wants to believe that their beliefs are, in a number of cases, non-falsifiable and thus non scientific and most likely not empirical. This is especially problematic if religious people try to pass off their beliefs as if they were scientific, with predictable results. Either they present pseudoscience to "support" their false scientific premises or they deny science altogether. On the flipside we have the overreaction of secular philosophies such as logical positivism which posits that science and falsifiable theories alone can sufficiently explain the universe and provide universal truth. Even when they admit they cannot it does not concern them, as long as no one tries to propose an answer that they do not approve of. This is especially true if any metaphysical or religious answer is brought to the table, because that cannot possibly be true since it is not empirical (or at least not enough by their standards).
Both views in my opinion are taken on faith, and thus are non-falsifiable views in themselves, though neither side will admit to all of this fully. Both sides have at their core the issue of extreme rationalism, though the religious fanatic won't admit it and the anti-theistic scientist sees no issue with this. In both cases, if deductive reasoning alone can't arrive at the answer, then the answer doesn't exist or is of little concern. It was the unfortunate side effect of the Enlightenment that has only become expounded today. We make our own reasoning ability the end all be all without even acknowledging that the foundations of our ability to reason came from outside sources to begin with, much less a proper understanding of them. Without that understanding, anti-intellectual ways of thinking will inevitably occur.
The first step to resolving this is to realize that religion and science, in addition to other forms of knowledge and understanding, must not overstep their respective domains. The so called "conflict" between the two begins when one attempts to exert influence into the other. It is made worse by the fact that those who do this are seeking to not just bring it into the conversation but destroy the other domain if necessary to assert their "truth". You see this all the time in the more fanatical Young Earth Creationists and in the New Atheist scientists alike.
The second part is the realize what the nature of science and falsifiable theories are in the first place. I had recently seen a few snippets from philosopher of science Karl Popper and his take on falsifiability that may help in this case. There is a lot he wrote on this but so far he came up with a very elaborate exposition of falsifiability as we understand it today. However, Popper also argues that, contrary to logical positivism's claims, meaning and falsifiability are not necesarily linked. Falsifiability is meant to establish criteria for whether or not something is scientific. It is to posit a scientific theory with sufficient explanatory power to describe how the universe works. When presented with observations that could potentially falsify a theory come along, the scientist must make a decision as to whether or not it is sufficient to actually falsify an established theory. The nature of the observation, the frequency of this and other falsifying observations, and the reasonableness of any ad-hoc hypothesis that one could come up with that may provide an alternative explanation for the appearance of these observations factor in to this. The last one is tricky of course because in some ways the existence of one or two observations may not constitute a refutation unless it is fully understood why these phenomena have occurred, so it is not wrong to think that maybe this is mere coincidence or explained in some way that doesn't imply a falsification of the current theories. On the other hand, taking this too far will result in pseudoscience and the negation of any scientific experimentation of any sort. Assuming this last issue is handled well, if there comes a point where there are too many things that can contradict a current theory and cannot be reasonably explained by any other means, then a new set of theories are required with the ability to explain these new phenomena since the old ones are no longer tenable.
The final piece also comes from Popper, with regards to whether or not non-falsifiable statements or theories have any meaning or truth to them. The answer is, contrary to logical positivism, that non-falsifiability does not in itself mean that there is no meaning that can be derived from such things. It also does not mean that such statements are true or false by default. It is merely that they are not scientific by nature and thus are outside of the domain of empirical science. Non-falsifiable statements and theories should not pretend to be as such but that does not assign a value judgment on them by default either. Like scientific statements and theories, non-scientific statements can be just as good, bad, true, or false as well, but must be examined in different ways.
Now remember I haven't had a chance to read all of his stuff yet so if I mess this up I apologize. If I did get this right however, then this is how we ought to view the issue of science and religion, and this holds true whether one is of a religious persuasion or not.
Common examples in history of societies that did not have this issue were Ancient Rome itself, it's later descendant the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Persian Empire of the same time period and later the Islamic Empire. All of them were societies where classical learning was not lost, remained preserved, but advanced. It was thanks to these near and middle eastern empires that the Renaissance was even possible in the first place, yet all we remember are the time periods in Western history where men set up one against the other. We do not remember our ancestors who did harmonize science and religion and who were the ones that even made the sciences possible in the Western World. Rather, we only remember the bad apples sadly.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple