I think it's more complex than that. Religion and science are incompatible if you define religion as a set of beliefs about the natural world. Most people accept this definition, but some would argue that religion is a system of moral beliefs. I disagree with this definition, and so would most of the world.
Still, some people who identify as religious are actually just vaguely spiritual. For them, religion and science are compatible. Moreover, a lot of people discard the truth claims of religion and only embrace its moral precepts. I'm not saying this is right, but a lot of people have managed a kind of broad deism which is consistent with scientific rationality.
I agree that organized religion, as an institution, is inimical to science. But individual spiritualism is far too various and complex to package into simple incompatibility. Lots of secular buddhists and pantheists and deistic humanists have spiritual beliefs that do not conflict with our knowledge of the natural world.
I am a materialist atheist, so don't accuse me of accommodationism. I'm just tired of people who simplistically lump every incarnation of spiritual belief with organized religion. Such an attitude discourages thought, which is ironic as it comes from self-proclaimed free thinkers. Spiritualism is a biological phenomenon, and people should respect it as a legitimate aspect of human existence.