I think the issue is quite simple. It is Science's mission to explain the "how" of things, and Religion's mission to explain the "why" of things.

With that in mind, the universe is one of empericals. There can only be one explaination of "why" and one of "how." Regardless, since all can agree humans are fallible, this means that every person must respect one another's "why," while the "how" can still be debated, as we still have empirical evidence lying around to explain that which is.

The real connundrum, however, can be realized when likening Religion to a child's education. If a child errs and believes that two sets of two total five, we correct the child. We do not want the child to believe anything false without reason. To this, it seems natural to respond that since we don't lie to our children (except for the sake of some education, as Socrates would say), we shouldn't allow adults to believe that which is false.

However, since religious evidence is not emperical, and is based largely on testimony, we can always assume there is a possiblity for doubt on the part of the believer, and imperfection as well.

It is, however, interesting to note that amongst humans, for thousands of years, testimony was considered the strongest type of evidence.