Is there a difference between science, religion and philosophy? (North Austin)

We live in a world with many systems to best understand it: religion, science, and philosophy. Which is best? Does comparing them suggest a better approach or is this the wrong question.

Below is a brief description of the disciplines:

Philosophy: a consistent approach to dealing with the human condition of little knowledge and little control

Science: A philosophy based in that we should start only with what we know and use that to try to gain more knowledge and then to apply that knowledge to gain more control
Religion: A philosophy based of appealing to beings/forces that have more knowledge or control to do what we can not
Mysticism: A philosophy based on the idea that we are far more capable than we realize and we should seek to develop and utilize those far more effective capacities (in addition to the very limited of physical form)

Do science, religion, mysticism, and philosophy describe different layers of reality or are there similarities between them.

Is science only limited to only observable reality? Does that make science restrictive to its domain? When neuroscience scans a meditator, is cannot explain a mystical state does science give the final word or is science misjudging?

If a religion reports a miracle and is discovered to be public testable is that now considered a new realm of science or an unexplained phenomenon.

Does philosophy server as umpire or mediator between religion and science. Should there be a bridge between the two?
What should we teach children: how to test, how to question, how to revere, how to attend? Can one heart hold skepticism and wonder, reverence and critique? If these pursuits sometimes clash, might their tension be the very engine of human understanding?

Come and examine where their boundaries lie, and whether those boundaries ought to be crossed.