To the OP, maybe a better way to frame the issue is to say that it is unscientific to be dogmatic about things which can neither be proved nor disproved.
And yet, there remains this truth: There is no good reason to believe things about which there exists no evidence.
Consider what Bertrand Russell opined on the subject:
There can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true! …
Either a thing is true or it isn't. If it is true you should believe it,
and if it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's
true or whether it isn't you should suspend judgment.
It seems to me
a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual
integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because
you think it's true.
Bertrand Russell Interview