On rejoint ce qu'écrivait Daniel Dennet: la science n'a pas besoin de la caution de la religion, alors que la religion cherche toujours une caution de la science ...
"Science, like religion, has its orthodoxies and heresies, doesn't it? Isn't the belief in the power of the scientific method a creed, on all fours with religious creeds in the sense that it is ultimately a matter of faith, no more capable of independent confirmation or rational support than any other religious creed? Notice that the question threatens to undermine itself: by contrasting faith with independent confirmation and rational support, and denying that science as a whole can use its own methods to secure its own triumph, it pays homage to those very methods. There seems to be a curious asymmetry: scientists do not appeal to the authority of any religious leaders when their results are challenged, but many religions today would love to be able to secure the endorsement of science. A few have names that proclaim that desire: Christian Scientists, and Scientologists, for instance. (Faith in the truth, Amnesty lecture, 1997)."
Et on recoupe le débat ouvert par Gould sur les "magistères" qui ne sont pas censés se recouvrir: la science n'est pas censée se prononcer sur les "mystères" de la religion, mais la religion (ou les patamédecines) se réserve en tous temps le droit d'interférer dans les magistères de la science et surtout d'en exiger la caution.