Richard Dawkins and “new atheists” are the best example. They often make the claim that science has essentially proved that God does not exist. Of course they also equivocate and backtrack and claim they never claimed that. Then they start talking about low order probabilities that are so low that we can virtually know that God does not exist, which is nonsense, because measuring probability requires quantifiable data.
But these kinds of claims are examples of arguments from ignorance, the fallacy of claiming that because something is not known or not knowable, that it is therefore nonexistent or impossible. This has become a trap for many contemporary scientists. And to me it’s very similar to superstition, because it involves clinging to something that is known and refusing to consider anything that can’t be known with absolute certainty.