Ok, it's not that bad, but it's close for practical purposes.
And there's absolutely no slam intended there to anyone---in my usage here, it's an assessment of the difficultly to communicate on the matter and reflects one way in how our brains can literally work differently in cognition on some matters.
The fundamental purpose to a large majority of such dialogue in these cases (which is to say it is not true in all cases of this kind of dialogue) is one where each party simply continues a long practice of self-affirmation in the matter.
A secondary goal can be to influence some observer of the dialogue who may be swayed, but that is also serving the fundamental drive mentioned. These conversations are more about maintaining (often at any “cost“) perceived solidity in self-identity at some of its foundational manifestations more than being about a "search for the truth." To many, the truth is already “known.”
But then that touches on one of the major differences between the way most religion and science is practiced and their fundamental tenets. As brilliant as people like Newton, Mendel, or Darwin etc. were, science had, has, and will always have, much to refine, correct, and sometimes change dramatically, even fundamentally. Though in such cases the knowledge is always built upon what was done before, still making all that preceded useful, and doesn't indicate what had occurred was "a waste" in some way.
Christianity for example, however, CANNOT allow itself to be in any position where some of its main contentions (or even most “minor” ones) are to be revised from having found to have been erroneous. It any important challenging fact or concept cannot be “spun” or argued in mentally/emotionally palatable manner to the believer (and there is inexhaustible cleverness in man for such cognition) to maintain support belief in its key propositions, then an absolute rejection is still required.
What happens in science, for all the human behaviors it is also subject to of course, is considerably different in its basic design.
I often have said (and still think) 5000 years from now the level of “sophistication”* (if you will) in how man frames his spiritual nature will be as different as now is from 5000 years ago. That's a rough or crude comparative form, but I’ll use it.
Unless we start teaching creationism in science classes, then we will be behind the rest of the world in that development.
I will add in closing, that even in seriously exploring these matters in my earliest teens, I saw no reason a Christian (or follower of Islam or Judaism) couldn’t believe in a god at least somewhat like they already conceive and be perfectly accepting of good science, though believing in much of what their religion has claimed to be true may become increasingly challenging.
*Just like a reboot of the ways the OT had usually been considered (and was taught) as literal, and the story of Jesus enabled a "re-branding the OT God", was necessary for Christianity to persevere over the centuries in being as widely accepted a form of worship in its home nations. The use of "story" there is not to be taken as implying Jesus wasn't a real being, though I'm not one who believes the claimed Christian Son of God/Trinity/deity status.