The first step is to recognize that we are ALL - without exception - are "scientifically illiterate" in some way. Science is an imperfect understanding of reality based upon models. Those models are arrived at by theory, testing, and general consensus. The common error is to think that because we have built upon the works of others and discarded erroneous theories, we now have penultimate knowledge. We do not.
Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer, stuck to the steady state version of the universe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Newton's "laws" may not hold on a quantum level. Scientific opinion changes.
Second, science is not an object or even any particular theory. It is a METHOD of exploration designed to provide a more accurate understanding of the physical universe and various parts of it. When someone states "this is scientific fact" they are in actuality stating that the statement complies with current scientific models, with a large (often 99.999) percentage of certainty.
The current state of science is not perfect, just as doctors who dismissed germ theory were not perfect. The point of science is to be closer to a perfect understanding of the universe than by guessing, peer pressure, or apocryphal stories. It does so through what is called "scientific rigor."
My personal distrust of "man made global climate change" is that the scientific rigor of the theories and tests behind it are inconsistent and often flawed. From what I have observed, peer pressure and funding have overwhelmed any scientific rigor, and at this point the greater community is not thinking but taking the headlines as a matter of faith. That is a religion of climate change, not science.
To the extent that a person has an internal view of reality that is inconsistent with the actual reality outside of their body, they are at a disadvantage. The gambler who "knows" he can beat the odds consistently will eventually lose. The Jehovah's Witnesses that repeatedly miscalculated the second coming have lost credibility. The Islamist who claimed people live on Mars because of his interpretation of the Qur'an has been discounted by all but a tiny minority.
When an inconsistency between external and internal reality interferes with day-to-day life, it is considered pathological. When a person has to have every single thing proven (Nihilism) and that interferes with day-to-day life, it is also considered pathological. When a religion is outside of the mainstream and has beliefs inconsistent with both external reality and more common religions, it is considered to be a cult and pathological.
When I was working as a district manager, we had a manager of a busy location who was quite competent. In conversation with her one evening, she intimated that her tv talked to her - when it was off. Having worked in a hospital, I was a little startled at her comment, but took it in stride. I let the director of operations know about it the next day. He interviewed her, got the same response, and then we stopped and considered. Her oddity did not directly affect her competence at her job, and the effect of dismissing her would do hardship to the company and her both, so we continued on as normal.
If you look at the various religions of the world, which have significant differences, the very best a person can say, religious or not, is that AT LEAST 2/3 of the world believes in a fantasy or is mentally deranged. That says a lot about humanity in general.
In the past, the Spanish Inquisition and forced conversions or executions took care of that troubling problem on a local level. Frankly, the results were pretty rotten all around, with heavy-handed rulers both in government and religion.
What religion does do, outside of dogma, is provide moral and spiritual guidance, as well as community. The codes of morality taught by the great teachers have value beyond the confines of any faith. The simple command of "don't kill other people", no matter what the reason, is far better than the alternative. Large groups of people living within the restrictions of their tenets of faith allow for leadership to work that isn't constantly fighting internecine battles and no-holds-barred, dog-eat-dog competition.
Most people have little or no need of understanding the more esoteric points of science (or of religion, for that matter). Some don't have the mental capacity even if they did want to. What they do need is moral and spiritual guidance that will turn them away from self-destruction or the destruction of others. If the model used by a religion is outdated and aimed at an uneducated audience of fourth century peasants, that does not negate the greater moral concepts contained within it, except through stridency and misinterpretation.
The wisdom story of the blind men and the elephant explains that we are all limited in our perceptions to something that is much larger and more powerful than any individual. We are imperfect beings on an imperfect globe.
