ولكن النقص ليس في الذكاء المتوفر بكثرة، ولكنه في التدريب المنظم على التفكير النقدي الذي هو سلعة نادرة. - Carl Sagan

The methods and ethos of science and religion are profoundly different. Religion frequently asks us to believe without question, even (or especially) in the absence of hard evidence. Indeed, this is the central meaning of faith. Science asks us to take nothing on faith, to be wary of our penchant for self-deception, to reject anecdotal evidence. Science considers deep skepticism a prime virtue. Religion often sees it as a barrier to enlightenment. So, for centuries, there has been a conflict between the two fields—the discoveries of science challenging religious dogmas, and religion attempting to ignore or suppress the disquieting findings.

Alone in the observatory late one night, I heard the telephone ring persistently. When I answered, a voice, betraying a well-advanced state of inebriation, said, “Lemme talk to a shtrominer.” “Can I help you?” “Well, see, we’re havin’ this garden party out here in Wilmette, and there’s somethin’ in the sky. The funny part is, though, if you look straight at it, it goes away. But if you don’t look at it, there it is.” The most sensitive part of the retina is not at the center of the field of view. You can see faint stars and other objects by averting your vision slightly. I knew that, barely visible in the sky at this time, was a newly discovered comet called Arend-Roland. So I told him that he was probably looking at a comet. There was a long pause, followed by the query: “Wash’ a comet?” “A comet,” I replied, “is a snowball one mile across.” There was a longer pause, after which the caller requested, “Lemme talk to a real shtrominer.

Why does Alexander the Great never tell us about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his Last Theorem, John Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, Hermann Göring about the Reichstag fire? Why don’t Sophocles, Democritus, and Aristarchus dictate their lost books?