For someone like evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould, the answer would likely have been "yes." He saw science and religion as occupying distinct spheres, or "non-overlapping magisteria." If science is concerned exclusively with facts and religion exclusively with values, for example, then they might avoid direct conflict by explaining different things. For someone like evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, however, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect." He would likely say "no" — that religious explanations are fundamentally incompatible with science. Tania Lombrozo's answer is more complex. For starters, she thinks we need to be clear about whether we're talking about scientific and religious explanations per se, or about explanatory practices in science and religion.