computer science is not real. computers are not found in nature. they're not a natural object, hence the methodology of study (from a philosophy of science standpoint) cannot be the same.
similarly to how math is not subjected to experimentation; but to intelligibility (a modern math proof is accepted if mathematical "peers" understand it and agree with it). so can't computer be subjected to experimentation as a matter of studying them. they're not found they're made. so the "experimentation" is really end-to-end testings; a philosophically distinct practice from a physics experiment (which is often just measuring something extremely precisely)
maybe I should ponder on the "philosophy of chemistry" which also blurs this line between "making" and "experimenting"???
you jest about making a religion (which funnily RMS also does); but recall that Academia (and RMS is an academic) was started by religions, which means if there's a faculty of computers, then it already IS a church... an academic church 2.0