No inconvenience but another opportunity to fork the discussion.
"Newton's ability to leave God entirely out of the first edition of *Principia Mathematica* greatly helped."
I find it somewhat unusual to have that name collision with Russell-Whitehead's work of that same title. Usually Newton's is given either a longer or a shorter moniker (Principia).
There's so much one could say on this topic. Scientific American has a commitment to uphold its end I suppose one could say.
It's not clear to me that we can safely say "religion has disavowed science" even if we have specimen religions that have done so.
Nor am I prepared to argue that "science has disavowed religion" as we would first need a clear definition of religion and that's missing -- so it's not a science question, so there's no science behind advancing such a thesis. Reductio ad something.
I acknowledge a tension between those tending to call themselves scientists and those branding as religious believers. This tension is parochial in the sense of not global, more "western" than "eastern" to use the historians' namespace.
Lets remember that some "atheists" have believed in multiple births, daemonic entities and whatever, just not in some unifying spirit at the center or apex. They're "atheists" too, in many if not all taxonomies. If we were talking about operating systems we might say they don't believe in any monolithic kernel.