On the one hand, I respect people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the late Carl Sagan, who have argued respectfully for the confidence one can have in science and the scientific method. This compared to religious faith, with its doctrine and dogma that have been responsible for so much death and destruction, and monstrous—and ignorant—behavior over the centuries.
Science is clear-eyed and logical, and when done right is self-critical, self-correcting. Religion is weighed down by tradition and fear, and no small amount of misunderstanding and selective interpretation.
It makes complete sense to me that, at least in part, religions enjoyed their (long) moment because they were born and gained traction largely in dark times, in the absence of much of the scientific knowledge we have at our disposal today. The God of the gaps enjoyed a much more prominent place in times past—what couldn’t be readily explained was attributed to divine intervention, the Hand of God (for example, the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis).
On the other hand, I am hesitant to dismiss religious faith altogether, if only because I find Tyson’s and Sagan’s and others’ confidence a subtle form of arrogance, maybe even a blind spot. Science does well with the who, what, where, when, and how questions. It’s the existential– not the cause and effect– “Why?” that trips it up.
If we can conceive of such a query, shouldn’t there be a satisfying answer for it, too?