...but then, I think Sagan set a very high standard for scientific "evangelism". He argued hard for science, but it doesn't seem as if he lost sight of the "human element". That quote reflects not so much a determination to destroy religion as an attempt to fit science into the framework of human emotion and passion to synthesize something more powerful than religion. (A religion that actually produces results? What a concept!)
The phrase "religion of science" raises my mental hackles, because it seems like such a paradox. One of the criteria by which I identify scientific extremism is the demand that science should be believed as unthinkingly as religion. But isn't science about valuing skepticism above all else? Is there any place for faith in science?
Off Topic » in reply to Do you want the Red Pill or the Blue Bill?
Yesssss....
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: Does science have a duty to "spread the word?"
- re: A quote from Hubert Reeves:
- A generation of vipers
- Scientific evangelism