And most of than not, nothing that is really worth,... is easy.
When you say "science" you may mean "organized science" controlled by professional practitioners. In that sense, I agree with skowmunk; organized science and organized religion have a lot in common.
Regarding the questioning aspect:
I would say that all religions originated out of questions, they were early attempts at science (that is,.. attempts to answer questions on natural phenomena and the unknown - at that time), but over time they just evolved into ideologies that no longer tried to answer phenomena.
Why I say this?
without going into a monologue - all current religions, monotheistic or polytheistic, were predated by earlier polytheistic versions which were more or less dominated by deity worships. The deities were more often than not the powerful and frightening phenomena that people couldn't explain back then. It wasn't different from culture to culture neither, the Norse had their Thor and Hindus had their Indra, both for thunder, the Egyptians had their Ra(sun god) and so on.
If the ancients had better tools for the analysis of phenomena, I am sure they would have come across better conclusions, just like JJ. Thomson would have come up with a better model than the watermellon model for the atom, if he had better tools for investigation.
True. May I add that; as these attempts at science evolve into ideologies; mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies as well.
Instead of ideology; we may say; tradition. Tradition corrupts science from within. We can see this in modern physics in its insistence that all new discoveries must conform to the existing laws of physics.
"... Thor ... Indra ...Ra ..."
And Zeus; he is another representative of the tradition of thunder gods.
That is true.
Thinking about why this happens.... could it be the vanity of people that causes this? Sticking to ideas or practices because its 'their' ideas/practices/traditions (irrespective of if they have been passed down or been indoctrinated themselves) instead of looking at the logic behind them or their relevance to the present or future or a situation? and then decide if they should be still held on to or not?
What if we define 'ideology' as the thought/belief equivalent of 'tradition' as 'tradition' is to practices/rituals - both being 'holding on to something' irrespective of its relevance? I guess that would make both of our statements mean absolutely the same.