Are scientists and "religious" people alike both guilty of not recognizing the limitations of their field?

You are assuming that scientists, and religious people are separate. They aren't.

The vast majority of scientists are also religious. I studied science, and worked in a scientific field for 25 years. I then wen back to school for a degree in Theology. Like my other fellow students with science backgrounds, none of us could find any conflicts at all.

Clearly, there are questions that one "realm" can answer that the other has problems with. Science struggles to define life, where religion can do it easily. So, you need the right tool for the right job. There is a fair bit of overlapping, but, it is not complete. But, you are correct - you do need to use the right "tool" to answer a specific question.

If there is a "non-physical realm" then it either has effects in the material world or it does not. If it does, then science can be applied to it. If it does not, then there is no reason to believe that it exists.

Science is just a formal method of gathering information and figuring out how things work. It is not the opposite of religion. Many scientists also happen to be religious.

Science is the best process we have for making determinations about the physical reality.

There is absolutely no evidence or any other reason to presume there is a spiritual realm. There can therefore be no best method to make determinations about it. Whatever book or spiritual system you choose is -- at best -- arbitrary and subjective. So yes, imaginary worlds are best navigated through the imagination. I don't see the wisdom in what you're trying to promote.

The Abrahamic god, by the way, definitely doesn't exist. The creation events described in the Bible were not creation events at all and merely describe the advent and expansion of agricultural civilization. Thus, the Abrahamic god was clearly invented to justify agriculture. The evidence for this is even in the Bible. Genesis 1:28... The Fall of Adam and Eve: http://www.noonespecial.ca/adam-and-eve/ .. Cain and Abel.. etc, etc, etc. It all points to agriculture, not creation.

Scientists know the limitations of the field- it is inherent in the scientific method.

Since science is only the study of the natural world and must be testable, verifiable, and objective- it has nothing to do with the "spiritual realm".

Religious people, on the other hand, seem to think that science somehow supports their claims of the supernatural; in fact, science has nothing to do with the supernatural.

The Bible actually contains information about the vastness of the universe thousands of years before it was established by the Hubbell Deep Field that the hosts of heaven (stars) cannot be numbered (Jeremiah 33:22). It also describes the hydrologic cycle in Job 36:27-28.

Science, true science at least, doesn't try to explain the supernatural world in the least. They stick to reality. People who use the scientific method to prove the existence of the supernatural or not scientist and they don't stick to rational science when it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs for the most part.

Anyone who tries to use science to disprove the supernatural is wasting their time. It's impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that god, bigfoot, or the flying spaghetti monster do not exist.

"Science has disproved religion" and "the Bible disproves Evolution," are both pretty idiotic statements.

But they are not statements you are likely to hear from professional scientists, and, outside of America, not from professional theologians either.

Does this supposed "spiritual realm" have ANY kind of measurable effect on the real, physical realm?

If you are trying to make a distinction between the real and the unreal, then it is fair for science to maintain efforts to explain what is real while religion can continue to explain what is unreal. that is fair and I will accept that. It is wrong to try to use religion to explain anything in reality.

No, I know the creator of the universe. He also created the consistent behaviors we can measure and control through scientific experimentation.