I agree with the broad concept that science must defend its beliefs and compete strongly in the arena of ideas. I also agree with some of the conference participants that there are scientific extremists who in some ways seem to be advocating a "religion of science". I enjoy Richard Dawkins more when he writes about science than when he writes about religion, because he loses the very thing that makes science superior: rationality and objectivity.

People like Dawkins forget that people need the find meaning in their lives. Science rejects meaning in favor of facts, which is great; but it also unrealistically demands that people give up on meaning and not try to fill the vacuum science creates. Science is, in many ways, in conflict with human nature. It's significant that scientists must be trained, and that much of that training consists in overlaying an artificial discipline on the way that the human mind naturally works.

I'm not criticizing--"a man's reach must always exceed his grasp" said the wise man, and we have to always try to rise above ourselves. But seven billion people, and counting, won't advance at the same rate. It's counterproductive to simply berate those who are lagging behind.

I think that science will remain at a disadvantage as long it holds itself remote from common humanity. Science is, for most people, far more remote from their lives than religion. Religion thrives on participation and fellowship, yet most scientific outreach--which is to say, evangelism--consists of a cold authoritarianism. "Here is the Truth. Memorize it. There will be a quiz."

I've been critical of most science outreach, including NASA's space-related outreach, because it's based on that authoritarian model, and scorns actual participation. Or, from another perspective, it's a consumer transaction: "Look at the pretty scientific baubles! Send more money, and we'll make more of them." That's rather unfulfilling, because innate human curiosity is hands-on and explorational. People enjoy discovering things on their own, not just sitting on the couch watching the intellectual travelogues of scientists.

I wouldn't want to see science adopt too many of the tactics of religion. But I think it would be wonderful if science could be "congregational", and extend "fellowship", in acknowledgment of human nature. Science has no hope of ever triumphing over religion if it only demands that people give up religion without offering a substitute that's as satisfying to human nature and, dare I say it, to the human soul.

Humans aren't Vulcans. We have to find a Human way to sustain science for the long run. That doesn't mean we should make a religion of science, but we have to find a way for it to be as real and as meaningful for everyday people as religion. Until then, science will always be the underdog.