Christians afraid of Carl Sagan? (page 2)

SweetBabyCheezits

One of my favorites...never tire of it...

Great clip. Thanks for sharing.

tec

What gets me is the parent's comment that he or she was"afraid" to read the book for him/herself. This person demonstrates an almost JW-like fear of questioning his or her cherished beliefs. That, to me, is truly scary.

Yes, I do understand that.

Tammy

Shortly after I was disfellowshipped from the Witnesses, in 1980, I happened to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos series on a portable, three inch screen tv. It made a deep impression and it reshaped my worldview.

Later, after I had acquired a first edition of the book Cosmos, I went to a science fair where I heard that Sagan was autographing books. I took the book to the area where he was but there was such a long line that I became discouraged and left. I regret, to this day, having made that decision.

One thing I recall Sagan saying, I forget where, is that science would have to tap into the power religion. Anthropologists realize that religion is a deeply rooted part of the human psyche extending all the way back to prehistoric cave paintings. It is most probably either genetically predisposed or it is an indirect result of having a brain so active, compared to our ancestors, that we have to create a "narrative" or worldview to explain an otherwise incomprehensible world.

As an atheist I find nothing wrong with the 'religious' impulse per se but I do find plenty wrong with virtually every religion in the world throughout historic times. My explanation is that civilizations, throughout history, have been so dysfunctional that they create dysfunctional religions. A scientifically imbued, naturalistic religion ,with pantheistic undertones, is what humanity needs. That, however will require a radically different society/civilization than the one we have.,

Villabolo

Vidiot

Carl Sagan via villabolo - "A scientifically imbued, naturalistic religion, with pantheistic undertones, is what humanity needs. That, however will require a radically different society/civilization than the one we have."

Nice. Sagan was a powerhouse; the world is poorer for his absence.

Do you know if he ever suggested any belief systems that might be decent candidates, or make any suggestions about what that kind of society might look like?

PSacramento

I remember Carl's Tv series "Cosmos", at least I think thtat was the name, it was awhile ago, LOL !
Science should stick to science and allow science to speak for itself.

As Einstien put it, Scientists make poor philosophers ( I am parapharasing).

Giordano

There are any number of people that have a desperate need to believe. To wake up in the morning without an assured expectation that god exists is inconceivable to them. Their defense mechanism is not about proving that god exists it's about defending their state of emotional well being.

For those who become non beliver's it is not about the need to destroy another person's faith it is about a desire to clear up a lifetime of clutter, to open the windows and let some sunshine in.

besty

As Einstien put it, Scientists make poor philosophers ( I am parapharasing).

Religionists - misquoting Einstein for over half a century ;-)

PSacramento

Religionists - misquoting Einstein for over half a century ;-)

Hey, I did say I was paraphrasing !

LOL !

Here is the whole thing for the sake of accuracy:

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poorphilosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

"Physics and Reality" in the Journal of the Franklin Institute Vol. 221, Issue 3 (March 1936)

Philosophers sould stick to philsophy and scientists to science.

besty

Philosophers sould stick to philsophy and scientists to science.

Remind me again what Einstein was?

PSacramento

Remind me again what Einstein was?

Physicst.

Not to take away from some of his very good philosophizing.

But Einstein adopted philsophy to science it seems, not the other way around.

It seems, and I am just expressing MY own view here, that Einstien used philosophy to understand science and nature.

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensible and effective tool of his research.

Christians afraid of Carl Sagan?

Share this