It should be pointed out, though, that the average person who "believes in" science generally does have something akin to a religious belief in it, because they don't participate in and have no particular need to be familiar with the actual methods used to reach conclusions. Anytime you hear somebody refer to generic "scientists" while making a point is a good tip-off, as is the conflation of scientific results or techniques with the general rules of science (experimentation, falsifiability, whatever you want to use here). That's not true of a lot of people, particularly those arguing in this thread about it, but most people understand science about as well as they understand the religion they follow. Kind of a vague idea, but it's not important enough to their lives to get to a deep understanding.
So while I don't know if I agree with the church/psychiatry thing, there are a lot of people for whom science occupies the same conceptual niche as a religion. There's just not another niche available, because not everybody can be a scientist (that's not even a statement of ability, by the way, because most people would seem to prefer doing something else with their lives), and at that point they have to take a lot of aspects of their worldview on faith.
I know this post kind of sounds like it's making out scientists to be the One True Knowers of the World or something, but I'm not trying to say that. Faith isn't necessarily inferior, and being a scientist really means shifting that faith into certain other areas (like the reliability of your colleagues and such). You can check any fact, but you can't check every fact, after all.