Not sure what you meant by this, but there's a huge difference between critically accepting expert scientist's opinion, and believing in religion. I hear this all the time - 'you are a fanatic science believer, it's your religion!'. Well, that doesn't describe it at all.
The problem is that, as you said, many don't want to make the effort to do their own research. When one just takes what any expert says as the truth without looking into it it then becomes no different, imo, to one blindly accepting religious dogma.
I explained why there's a huge difference in those cases, right after the bit you decided to quote only.
Here it is again, just in case you missed it somehow.
"Well, that doesn't describe it at all. The whole premise of the scientific method is that you scrutinise every bit of theory to poke holes in it, even assume it's wrong, and if after other expert peers in the field couldn't poke holes in it, and after some time with no rebuttals or refutes, it might be right. Religion is the opposite - it assumes it's right from the get-go, allows no critical thinking, and people worship it as the absolute truth. The two aren't even remotely the same, and someone who believes in science doesn't act like a fanatic believer. There is such a thing as critical thinking, you know."
it's clear people expect answers quickly and conveniently from experts, but what is baffling to I think many people, is how easily distorted 'facts' by politicans/people in power are taken as valid whereas scientists are looked down upon because 'buddy buddy peer review' and some other nonsense. Need I mention the recent example of a world leader basically repeating chloroquine is a cure, and some guy tragically and needlessly dying because of that misguided piece of info.
I don't think ANYONE should take most info without using common sense and checking/verifying what is said in it with other sources/people first.....that includes from politicians.
There you go again, assuming that
a) people have common sense
b) there is such a well-established concept such as common sense
c) people have the time and ability to verify/check the science behind the claim
I'm saying all of those things are wrong, for most people. Which is why it's perfectly ok to defer to experts in complex matters, if you just do a tiny bit of source critique initially and consider who the source is.
Guy who looks at a solar eclipse with a naked eye? <----------- don't take medical advice from this man