Sagan was basically a Humanist, and I reckon my beliefs are fairly close to his, but as for the question here of 'who can speak for science" I reckon that is not the way science works. Science teaches people to think for themselves, and abhors the concept of indoctrination from above, as seen in organised religions. So, it is not who Sagan was that is important, it is what he was saying. Science convinces by two way exchange of views and discussion of evidence, it does not dictate.

Dave L



"He did not attack traditional religions, but he did chide them for having made a fatal mistake in continuing to assert truth claims about the nature of the cosmos and about the origins and destiny of humankind: claims that are the business of science. He thought that religion could make a positive contribution to modern society only if it forsook myth and mysticism and concentrated on activities having to do with reverence for life, awe at the wonders of nature, ethics and morality, community, the celebration of life's passages and striving for social justice.

Sagan distinguished clearly between mysticism and spirituality. While mysticism is concerned with matters of magic, the occult, the supersensual and "essentially unknowable', spirit is something quite different, he maintained. "It comes from the Latin word 'to breathe'. What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spirituality' that we are talking about anything other than matter (including the realm of matter of which the brain is made) or anything outside the realm of science...Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a profound disservice to both."