Sorry, I know I swore off this thread but this is irritatingly silly.
Carl's concatenation of science and religion works only on the level of rhetorical phrasing, but rapidly descends into meaninglessness once the terms are taken seriously.
Because 'science' and 'religion' are two words, they appear to be interchangeable to Carl, which of course in language they are. But to swap them is to lose what is distinctive about them.
At the core of religion is faith. Faith is an important mode of thinking, which deserves to be considered in its own right. But science is the opposite of faith, so the statement 'bottomless faith in the infallibility of science' only looks like a statement but has no real meaning, anymore than the phrase 'the King of France' does.
When Carl uses the term science, he doesn't know that this is merely a compacted way of saying 'to question everything, taking only the objective as warrant for knowledge'. (By contrast faith founds knowledge on belief.) So, 'faith in science' isn't really faith. It means faith in the evidence of the sense, which is to say, that every proposition should be tested.
Carl's jibe is parasitic on the authority of the rationalist critique of
religion, taking its power from the rhetorical argument against faith.
But in collapsing scientifically arrived at understanding with faith
itself, his statement is in fact an argument against critical thinking,
and a defence of faith.
>
>Perhaps your devotion to science marks you not as a priest so much as a more
>compelling figure, the Harold Wilson of our times, suffused with "the white
>heat of technology" and incandescent with mindless optimism.
I am happy to plead guilty to optimism which I know puts me beyond the pale as far as Carl is concerned. Optimism, to me, seems the principle emotional basis of any positive ambition for social change. Furthermore, there is more than enough empirical grounds for optimism - just as there is enough evidence of the squandering of human possibilities to make one shake with indignation.
As to mindless, well, you must be the judge of that. But to my mind it seems that Carl's lazy elision of faith and reason is stupid. -- James Heartfield