Don't forget that a lot of religions also encourage questioning and searching for meaning, which in the past lead to many scientific advances that we now take for granted.

And hindered many others.

There are always fundamentalists of course, but then again, there are scientists that get pretty dogmatic too.

Not in remotely the same way. Dogma as it is defined is anathema to real scientist. Any scientists who are dogmatic to the point of obstructing science (of which there have been some) are considered fringe/"crackpots" by actual scientists.

I'd say that those that profess to be adherents of a particular religion and don't allow for anything outside of their religious tradition to be true are also shittily practicing their religion.

To follow definition here as well -- in many cases what you have described is actually exactly what the acolyte of a religion is supposed to do.

Science and religion certainly aren't opposites. They don't have anything to do with each other and as far as I'm concerned shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence if possible.