Anti-religion aka the religion of Scienc(TM) is still a religion.

Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is. There is no such thing as "religion of science"

For some people, it is. There is a segment of non-religious people who do treat the current scientific consensus as gospel and moralize adherence with typical religious in-group/out-group dynamics, despite not really understanding or engaging with any of the actual material. I disagree that relying on scientific consensus is inherently religious, though.

	▲	malfist a day ago \| parent [-]
		Tell me, of these people who supposedly practice "Science as Religion," what are their rituals? What's their scripture? Their theology? Their religious doctrines? What exactly makes this a religion rather than people simply behaving dogmatically? You've described people who uncritically accept authority, moralize disagreement, and engage in in-group/out-group behavior. None of those characteristics is unique to religion. You can find them in politics, sports fandom, nationalism, and virtually any ideological community. Treating scientific consensus as authoritative isn't the same as treating it as sacred or infallible. Scientific consensus is provisional, evidence-based, and subject to revision. Someone can misunderstand that process or defer to it uncritically without turning science into a religion. You're conflating dogmatism with religiosity. They're not synonyms. Calling something a religion because some adherents behave dogmatically strips the word "religion" of any meaningful distinction.