They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.
Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.
The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is deeply unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific by definition: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I'm immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we're on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how dangerous it is to ignore this basic fact.
Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.
No, it doesn't. (I would argue that that statement betrays a misunderstanding of what science -- or religious belief -- is.)
There's no fundamental conflict between science and religious belief, even in principle. There can be a conflict between science and particular religious beliefs, and a conflict between a quasi-religious scientism and other religious belief, but that's a different thing.
Can you go into more detail about what this means?
Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is.
Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.)
> Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important.
Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).