I understand the limits of language in small spaces; and I understand how language choices on complex topics can be made to make or break an argument. The word choices in this small article on what Neil deGrasse Tyson said, starting with the title, are unfortunate. [Re: “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science and Religion Are Not ‘Reconcilable,’ So Stop Trying“]
When it comes to categories, “reconciliation” is a matter of degree, not a statement of absolutes. Reconciliation does not mean one thing becomes the other or that one is subsumed by the other. It means there are harmonies, with each component remaining itself with concessions in tuning. Religion and Science, on the surface of the words, can indeed be reconciled. And Faith and Reason are made polar and mutually exclusive opposites willfully, not necessarily.
I can certainly sympathize with an argument that reconciliation means something like “make align.” I favor the definitions that focus on making “exist or be true at the same time.”
For reason to operate, it requires assertions whose truthfulness is filtered structurally (formally) and substantively (informally). Reason is a faculty, not an operation or machine. Logic is the machine and operation. Reason is not science – science, also, is an operation, an approach. Reason as a faculty is about giving thought to, and due processing and consideration beyond faith in, concepts and perspectives. It is the ability to comprehend and to make comprehensible.
Matters with more faith than science can be approached reasonably.