Thank you for your honest and open reply! :)

If religion on the scale were on the far left and science on the far right, it becomes clear where the center is.

I don't think it's fair to say they are extremes on a scale. My honest opinion is that one of the approaches has a way to uncover actual truths or things that are likely to be correct and the other doesn't.

There is no imbalance in the scientific approach to discovering what is and isn't likely to be true. It means making a hypothesis, gathering evidence and trying to falsify it, and if there and checking it's likelihood of being correct against that evidence. That's not an extreme, that's just practical and prudent. It's the only realiable method we have for gathering knowledge we could have resonable trust in.

On the other hand, religion is all about making claims about the supernatural without providing any testable evidence.

To me, saying they are on the same spectrum is like saying that correct and incorrect are two equally valid extremes of the same thing. They aren't. They are fundamentally different.

My main concern was to acknowledge that I don't have to follow either one or the other extreme, but that my stay in the middle of life causes me less difficulties, especially in interpersonal relationships.

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean here as I'm not sure neither science, nor religion should play any major role in personal relationships. What would the overly-scientific and the overly-religious way of interacting with people be? Generally speaking, none of us disqualifies people for being religious or for having an interest in science as this is only one aspect of who they are.

As far as you question the premise, i. e. whether a confrontation of these two is not coherent for you at all, you are free to do so. However, I have the impression that this premise is generally accepted and that people are interested in and want to debate it.

I'd say people are quite prone to misconceptions and imperfect logic, so something being generally accepted is not testament of it being correct of valuable. I do agree debating this is actually important, but I guess I come from a bit of a different point of view to it. I think it's important for people to see that those two things are not comparable and that they do not deserve to be on equal footing.

I need so say, I'm still unclear about you position on this as I don't understand what is meant by striking a balance in that in your personal life and what area of cooperation you see between the two?