I think science has certain imposed limits, especially in the field of psychology, that I believe can be transcended.
Do you mean the (Freudian) idea's of ego/superego and such, or notions of the subconcious, unconcious mind? The idea that each mind contains a hierarchical structure of levels of awareness? I've always felt this is purely speculative; there's no evidence that the ego or superego really exist. It can be damaging to relegate functions of the mind to pathology or believe one is consumed by hidden motives.
In my experience, most modern psychology is theoretically interesting but perhaps not entirely complete.
Anyway, I'd be curious for you to flesh that statement out a bit more. I actually agree, that is if my assessment of your statement is accurate.
You could argue it's impossible to fully support science without being an atheist.
I don't actually agree with that though. Science doesn't need to have anything to do with spirituality. One doesn't need to negate the other.
For me, the more I learn and comprehend regarding science, the deeper my sense of stoned awe becomes.
For me, the 'true' functioning of the universe is more awe-inspiring and 'divine' then any of the mainstream religious ideas. The universe is utterly weirder and more incredible then anything rumoured to have been done by Jesus or Buddha or John Lennon even.
So, for me, science doesn't lead to, or require, atheism. It walks right past both theism and atheism and occaisionally turns back to wonder why it is being pursued by such ideas.
I imagine that one could actually worship the functioning of the universe, as a divine creator. After all, it is what it is, and it is here.