I don't know what your point is Filipe. You seem to have lost your point. You are insulting scientists, but you aren't really putting forward any clear arguments.
These are my points, and this is my argument. On some points you and I agree. I assert the following.
1. Understanding is a human trait (perhaps it exists in closely related animals... but it doesn't exist outside of the mind). Each human's understanding is subjective and personal. There is no "objective understanding".
2. Science provides a specific process that is testable and repeatable. In science, the only questions that "matter" are questions that can be answered objectively by experiment and observation. The questions that can't be answered scientifically are outside the realm of science.
3. There are lots of questions that can't be answered by science. These are important questions like what constitutes human rights?
or "when is killing justified?
or should marriage be based on love or economic need?
All of these are important questions, and none of them can be answered by science.
4. Science has nothing to do with "meaning". Rocks orbit suns, comets fly around in elliptical orbits. Volcanoes erupt on uninhabitable moons. None of this has any "meaning" outside of the human mind (or something similar). The universe just goes.
New species appear. Species evolve. Species go extinct. Different species of life come and go (maybe throughout the universe).
The human race thinks that human life is somehow important. Nothing else in the Universe has any reason to care about the human race, or the value of human life or human anything.
Humans evolved with brains to look for patterns... and your brain's pleasure centers fire when you find a pattern. We did this because human evolution favored this. In our environment, we are social creatures who act based on these patterns. We fool ourselves to think that this "understanding" is important.
But this last point (#4) is philosophy. It has nothing to do with science. And that is my point.