Superstition and the belief in science vs. religion

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.