Interesting musings 
Still I think the word “religion” is used so selectively as to be not particularly helpful here. A better term would be “dogmatic fanatic”:
Dogma (you could qualify it with the adjective “self-righteous dogma”):
Fanaticism (you could qualify it with the adjective “violent fanaticism”, or other adjectives as appropriate to specify; they are all different flavours of fanaticism):
If “religion” is used to mean “dogmatic fanatic” and in particular “violent dogmatic fanatic”, you’d have a hard time convincing me that many faiths and traditions across a wide range of humans fit that definition, for example Buddhists, Unitarians, Sufis, many people raised in traditions of the Indian subcontinent (the term “Hindu” is often used but that’s a Western term that lumps these diverse groups together), Bahá’ís, many Christian and Muslim friends I have, etc etc. I personally have friends in all these traditions and none of them are dogmatic fanatics.
All to say, saying “we make science into a religion” lumps a whole lot - hundreds, at least - of constructive and highly diverse (and inquiry- and reflection-based) traditions into one pot, and far from deepening your point, it obscures it. The water is so muddy now we can’t see through it. These religions are not all the same in any way, and many of them teach precisely the kind of respect and humility that creates conditions where science flourishes.
Why muddy the water? Why not just say what you’re saying? “We make science into dogma” That’s what you’re saying. It’s an important and sobering question and one that needs careful consideration: how can we foster scientific cultures that resist blind, unthinking, clannish repetition?
