Mathematician and Christian apologist Blaise Pascal famously wrote of those who were so made that they could not believe in God. He developed his ultimately flawed "wager" to address these non-believers.
There are many who simply can not bring themselves to believe in the supernatural. They can not believe in something without evidence. Such people could be referred to as "naturalists." But this is not to say that they necessarily adhere to the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, i.e., the worldview that nothing exists outside the natural elements, physical principles and properties of the universe. The term "naturalist" is simply a useful label for people who "naturally" need some physical evidence to believe something. I have never known anyone who deliberately "chose" to become a naturalist. We don't choose to believe in physical evidence. It is in human nature and that of other animals to navigate the world based on what can be perceived through the senses. We would not be here today if our ancestors had not trusted that what they could see, touch, hear, taste, and smell was probably real. They would have perished had they not trusted their senses to tell them when danger was near or where food and water could be located. A strong trust in physical evidence is necessary for protecting life and limb. It is far more difficult to believe in the supernatural than the natural because the supernatural does not require evidence. The supernaturalist position requires a leap of faith.
The term "faith" probably would not exist if religious doctrinaires had not been acutely aware that people tend to trust in what their senses tell them. The purpose of faith is to bridge the gap between evidence and the absolute lack of it. Faith amounts to trusting in the invisible. It is trusting that something exists on no evidence. In any context outside religion, if an adult were to believe in something invisible, we would call it "delusion." The clergy would have their parishioners believe that this delusion is necessary. But how far does the delusion go?
It seems a kind of dualism exists in the minds of the moderately religious. They have a belief (wish-thinking?) concerning the supernatural, but most moderately religious people will tend to give primacy to the natural world and the senses when it comes to survival, i.e. believing in physical evidence at least long enough to keep one's truck from careering off the road, making sure one is getting a sufficient amount of food and water, wearing a warm coat when it is cold, recognizing that fire is dangerous etc. Most moderately religious people will recognize the need to be practical in everyday affairs. The sincere and complete faith of religious radicals is more disturbing. Religious radicals surrender entirely to the delusion. The consequences of such faith can lead and have led to countless atrocities. But moderate or radical, religious faith is predicated on belief in the invisible with no evidence. One can still argue the merits of faith, but this does not change the fact that it is a form of delusion, or at the very least, the devout wish to believe in a thing that is not demonstrably real.
I am a naturalist, and consequently, an atheist. However, neither my naturalism nor my atheism constitutes an ideology. I felt on an intuitive level that God didn't make sense when I was a child. I wanted to believe, but I just couldn't. I needed to hear, see, or otherwise physically discern a god to believe in it. I was told to have "faith," but this was a confusing and disconcerting idea for me. Much as I tried, I could not believe in a god in the absence of evidence. As such, I have always been an "atheist." I have never believed in Allah, the Jehovah of Judaism, the Hindu gods, the Christian Jehovah/Christ/Holy Ghost collective, or any other supernatural entity. I suppose this is analogous to how some children realize early on that Santa Claus or Father Christmas is fictitious. Atheism is actually quite common. Christians are atheists about Thor, Atlas, Ra, Buddha, etc. Does their absence of belief in those gods amount to an ideology? No, of course not. Absence of belief is not an ideology. Absence of an ideology is not an ideology. But what of the scientific method? Don't many naturalists have faith that the universe is intelligible through science?
The scientific method is a collection of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring and revising knowledge. It is not a closed system of beliefs. It is a methodology, and a highly utilitarian one. It is the best system we have at present for the investigation of phenomena. The scientific method appeals to the naturalist's sensibilities because one need not have "faith" in the scientific method. One need only have evidence.