Science Is a Good Substitute for God
Like pregnancy, science is an either/or proposition, not a belief. Yes, there are times we might not know something, but it is best then to keep ones powder dry, and wait till we do. Otherwise, you will look as stupid as the US federal government hopping from belief in the food pyramid, to belief that eating eggs increase blood cholesterol levels, etc.
Science worth its salt is testable, provable, and falsifiable. It is not belief.
The real problem with a belief in science is that unreformed religions are extremely dangerous. The unreformed science of Marxism caused the deaths of over 100 million. This seems like a bad outcome especially once you realize that science failed in every incarnation. Any scientific position which morphs into a belief will soon be controlled by the belief, while the actual sciency stuff falls by the wayside. This is what has happened in climate science. While it was once a science it is now a belief.
Let's just hope that climate science does not need to murder 100 million before winking out of existence like the Marxist science did.
I have always found the idea of atheism to be inane. To mean anything, atheism must stand for the proposition that "there is no God/god." Fine, but by making that statement one must bear the burden to prove there is no God. I will wait right here, let me know when you are done.
The problem is the believer of this position cannot prove there is no God. In fact, the believer cannot even prove that he, himself exists. Nor can he prove any other thing exists. In this environment, what is science, and what does that concept even mean? Ultimately, without this fundamental proof everything becomes belief, or faith. So, exactly what is the difference between faith in a God, and anything else? This fundamental misunderstanding leads intelligent men to argue for the position of atheism when it is a position which cannot be supported.
However, the obverse position, that there is a God, if relying on faith, is fully supportable.
The argument that science, and faith are antagonists is incorrect. At their most fundamental level there is only faith. Science only exists, if you accept on faith that it exists.
Ultimately, our author is correct that science is a substitute for God, if you need to replace a tried and true reformed faith with an untried, unreformed belief. The again the last time this was tried in a large scale experiment 100 million people lost their lives. Choose wisely.
Agnosticism is another matter entirely.
The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Hackett Publishing) by Richard A. Watson
Watson's book is brilliant, and is a must-read book to understand the interplay between religion, and faith.