I disagree with your view on this topic.
“I know that atheists will always have their issues with religion and vice versa. But would it be hard to accept elements from both if it helps you become a better and wiser person?”
“Better person” is subjective, first of all. This sentence holds the assumption that one cannot live a fulfilling, informed, or meaningful existence without incorporating religious elements into one’s life. This is a subjective experience you are expressing as this is not the case for me. There is nothing so exclusively valuable in religious teachings that it cannot be found objectively anywhere else.
• “Despite being raised Anglican Christian, I grew more and more interested in science's way f explaining everything. Yet, however naïve it may be of me, I still have a bit of religious believe in me, for various reasons I won't bore you with.”
Again, that is a subjective experience. Though this observation may be something that resonates with you, it’s not a universal experience for those with an atheistic disposition.
“And there are countless examples of famous scientists who believed in religion. Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler and Galileo just to name a few.”
First of all, you are failing to consider the historical and cultural context with which many of these early scientists lived; many of these early scientists would be tortured and burned as heretic for providing any sort of evidence against the conventional teachings of the Catholic church which, then, held a lot of state government power. Galileo’s insistence that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around as was taught by the Church, actually caused Galileo to be convicted for heresy. Even if any of these early scientists were atheistic, they sure as heck wouldn’t have been open about it.
Not to mention the basic principals of evolution didn’t start solidifying until 1859, which is 132 years after the death of the chronologically lattermost scientist you mentioned, Isaac Newton.
Secondly, to quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.”
• “Science makes us wise, religion gives us empathy. Rather than ostracise one over the other, would it not seem better to take elements from both to create ideals to live by?”
This is a subjective feeling you are having. I was raised 17 years of my life within a theistic religious structure and did not acquire a fully developed sense of true empathy until after I left my religious teachings behind; the empathy I learned was through normal human interaction. Because that is literally all it takes. Again, there is nothing so exclusively valuable in religious teachings that it cannot objectively be found elsewhere. The practices, of religious teachings are social constructs and social constructs can be created outside of religious disciplines.
In fact, my religious upbringing allowed for me to “other” outsiders and restrain empathy for them and their behaviors that conflicted with my religious teachings.
So in final summation, sure, co-existence is possible because people already co-exist in these conditions as it is. If you are asking if we, as Asgardians, should attempt to hybridize scientific understanding with theistic religious teachings in order to become “whole,” the answer is no because it is too subjective and would be a great imposition to people like me whom feel just fine and complete without religious teachings, thank you very much.