Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so you assign bizarrely negative qualifiers for someone who knows things.
No one on earth worships "SCIENCE". It's a tool we use daily, whether you understand why things work or not.
The problem with ifls and equivalents is that that is actually what they are encouraging. They misrepresent "science" completely.
May be you have some particular religion in mind, but many beliefs coexist happily with science.
There is a domain where atheists and many religious people agree on. Which is the domain that is not covered by the particular religion and that is covered by the scientific method (do an experiment, analyse data, get conclusions, rinse, repeat). Choice of medicine is one such area. True, some religions believe in voodoo or other "alternative medicine" but that is not part of the definition of religion.
The critical question is what to do with things we have no physical evidence of, things which we have no data of, are uncertain of. Things that science has not reached a verdict on. Religions typically have loads of these. The existence of god/gods for example. Having such a belief does not contradict the available science at the time, so we can have a scientist who believes in gods carrying on his research cheerfully. Atheists don't believe in gods unless there is physical proof. That also does not contradict doing some scientific research. The issue comes when you mistake "SCIENCE", the tool we use daily, with "science", the set of propositions, heuristics, conjectures and half-baked theories that will always exist at the frontiers of research. That effectively means you choose to place your trust in the set of current researchers and if they get it wrong, you get it wrong.
In short, science is not and has never been the whole of objective reality. This assigns mythical powers to scientists, which some would certainly call a "religion".
Totally! Perfectly faithful Christians can be Evolutionary Biologists without falling victim to fundamentalist anti-science idiocy.
"The critical question is what to do with things we have no physical evidence of, things which we have no data of, are uncertain of. Things that science has not reached a verdict on. Religions typically have loads of these. The existence of god/gods for example."
That's the realm of social science, not hard science, seeing as there is always going to be zero physical evidence of "God"/gods.
"In short, science is not and has never been the whole of objective reality. This assigns mythical powers to scientists, which some would certainly call a "religion"."
Again, "Science" is reality. Scientists do not have mythical powers. They are human. They are however the best we have to understand objective reality, through our feeble and failing minds. We do quite a good job, and conflating priests with scientists shows how little persons understand what facts and objective evidence versus subjectivity, belief, and perspective. Priests are "infallible". Science is not. And that is a very good thing.
Outside of parapsychology, cold fusion, and free energy devices, how are you stating that this occurs as a regular practice? I criticize scientists from within the framework of poor evidence, biases, systemic issues, but calling it a "religion" misses the point. Personal biases don't make a religion. Watered down pop-science isn't a religion either.
Both of these claims are 100% false.
Religion does have significant evidence; the problematic part of religion is in its interpretation of that evidence, rather than the evidence itself. This ranges from the metaphysical "X exists, therefore God" to the specific incidences of revival tents and miracle workers. This is evidence. Just because you have a different interpretation does not automatically invalidate theirs.
Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". There is and possibly always will be parts of reality that we do not know. We cannot stand outside reality, by definition, and we will always have non-objective biases coloring our perspective. Pretending to be objective is self-delusion. Trying to be objective is worthy and good, but recognize that you can't be.
Faith does not have empirical evidence. It has philosophical arguments backing it. Religion would cease becoming supernatural otherwise. There's a reason why theology is a soft social science and not a physical science (no matter what the Discovery Institute may tell you.)
"Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". "
Science is both a reflection of our current understanding of reality and the method of how we refine our understanding of it.
"Pretending to be objective is self-delusion" We are not objective creatures there is a vast difference between nature and those who ~practice~ science.
Here's a write-up on the problematic nature of the methodology you use:
http://www.wideopenground.com/fundamentalism-and-foundationa...
Can reason an scientific method itself be an Idol? And if you do not cherish those things do you think it's better since you are truly not a believer in anything? Even the method that verifiebly gives humanity models of predictive utility that gave us almost all we enjoy today?