Yes, I agree. That's the point of my, :https://marcus17043.medium.com/menage-a-trois-between-science-spirituality-and-philosophy-a634f5446364, in which I wrote

"as writers have already married science to spirituality, and I have married spirituality with philosophy, the transitive property would indicate that I could create a committed ménage à trois, with science pleasing spirituality, spirituality pleasing philosophy, and while we’re at it, science and philosophy pleasing each other too. Moving this out of the sexual metaphor, most importantly, so the marriages remain strong, when all the parties can’t always agree, they should still respect their interdependent rights to exist without always having to agree with each other."

What you touch on in your piece about science becoming religiously dogmatic is called Scientism. Douglas Giles PhD and Graham Permberto have written well on that: https://medium.com/inserting-philosophy/philosophys-critique-of-scientism-part-1-539f551408a, https://medium.com/inserting-philosophy/philosophys-critique-of-scientism-part-2-27312607f800, and https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/the-nightmare-of-scientism-d50adf70e4e9