Firstly, let me point out that a "superstition" is
simply a belief which has not been backed by the latest scientific findings; so
a superstition can become scientific fact later, it's possible. Secondly, the
term "atheism" is used loosely and often incorrectly. I prefer the
more appropriate term "agnosticism", because whether or not god
exists is quite literally the last question that science could ever hope to
answer, so any belief (true/false) about that subject is a
"superstition" per my definition above. My point here is that you can still be
superstitious about things, just NOT the things which science has clearly
proven true/false. Instead of debating
unverifiable claims, it's better to discuss what we do/don't know, and how to
proceed from there.
Let me also distinguish that science isn't a belief itself, but a
(logical) process of hypothesizing, measuring, observing, verifying, debating and accepting evidence. An appropriate belief
would be that
Using the process of science can give us the answers [to everything].Which I assume is a belief that all modern agnostics intrinsically hold, whether they're aware of it or not.
Also, by definition, people only hold beliefs which they
believe to be true (regardless of whether they are actually true), and seeing two or more conflicting beliefs is very bothersome. It's also difficult to accept that others are
"wrong" when you think you know the "true answer." However, one has to succumb to the idea that
all beliefs are inherently wrong/biased.
Scientific findings are based on simplifications/models and underlying
assumptions about perceptions (that we may not even be aware of). Science also rests upon the shoulders of
philosophy, which still poses many unanswered questions through interesting thought-experiments.
However, a major difference between religion and the
"belief in science" (also known as Scientism) is that scientific "truths" are dynamic,
and allowed to be challenged with more rigorous science, whereas many religions
are static (unless it's one of those pick-and-choose ordeals, in which case the
religion is being diluted/debased and should just be disregarded entirely as a fallible source claiming to be infallible). By our human nature, changing fundamental
beliefs is difficult/painful, which is even more reason that scientists need to
be able to readily alter/adapt their beliefs based on latest findings. This is not easy because people need some stability of perception. What if
tomorrow we discover negative mass particles that behave oppositely to gravity?
Our whole world would be turned upside down (haha, that was a pun).
Nonetheless, I personally choose to believe in something
which has an effective basis for acquiring knowledge and subsequently verifying
it. So if agnostics want to unite for
some common cause, it should be to point out that the process of science is
useful/revealing, teaches us about our origins/universe, can save lives, that
it's fun/interesting, that anyone can do it, and that it DOESN'T have all the
answers, but this is a sandbox for curiosity and exploration. People's trust in science will follow from there.
