I enjoyed this discussion, and more than usual Krista's questions -- though I thought she left Krauss off the hook. I think science beautiful, but, as a biologist, I am often struck by the limitations of scientific inquiry. It seems there is a rule that the more interesting the question, the less likely we are able to study it--this is simply due to the complexity of what humans tend to find interesting. Physics, of course, as the most reduced science, is driven by the quest for simplicity.
But here is my frustration with this discussion. Science is treated like a toy chest, in which various marvels can be taken out and enjoyed, but all in a very nonscientific context. The context for judging science seems to be a vague nativism or mild hedonism: science is great because it makes us feel good, feels us with awe, etc. I agree with all that, but we should be more explicit that these statements only have no real scientific meaning, and that their context is the stuff of philosophy, and perhaps theology. As Max Weber said, rationalism is a means to an end end. Science cannot supply that end.
More information about text formats