Before there was EO Wilson's breakthrough success with The Creation, there was Carl Sagan, who was a master at emphasizing the shared values between science and religion.
Consider this example: According to both Sagan biographies, during the late 1980s, in advocating his "nuclear winter" hypothesis, the Cornell astronomer led a delegation of scientists to the Vatican to give a research briefing for Pope John Paul, who subsequently issued a statement against nuclear build-up. Based on the meeting's success, Sagan came away convinced of the need to emphasize the common goals between scientists and religious publics in solving world problems.
Consider this second example: Today, during a meeting with my graduate students working with me on the upcoming AAAS presentation, one particular NY Times article caught my eye as relevant to recent blog discussion.
As we argued in our reply to letters at Science, what Sagan and EO Wilson do so well intuitively, we need to figure out, test, and do systematically as a global community of scientists and secularists.
The New York Times
Sagan Urges Clerics to Join To Save GlobeBy PETER STEINFELS
SECTION: Section C; Page 4, Column 6; Science Desk
CARL SAGAN, a professor of astronomy and director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University, appealed yesterday for religion and science to join hands in preserving the global environment. He was joined in his appeal by 22 well-known scientists.
''Efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred,'' the scientists said. Dr. Sagan made the appeal public in Moscow on the first day of a conference on the environment and economic development sponsored by the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival. The forum is a private organization trying to focus attention on environmental problems. More than a thousand religious, political and scientific leaders from 83 nations are attending the conference.
Last week, before leaving for Moscow, Dr. Sagan said the appeal was significant because of the historic antagonisms between science and religion.
''I am personally skeptical about many aspects of revealed religion,'' Dr. Sagan said. ''But I am sure of the awe and reverence that the meticulously balanced nature of the global environment elicits in me.''
About 100 religious leaders have signed a statement welcoming the appeal as ''a unique moment and opportunity in the relationship of science and religion.'' The Rev. James Parks Morton, Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York and an organizer of the Moscow conference, said in Moscow that scientists and religious leaders would meet immediately to discuss ''practical next steps.''
Those signing the appeal included Hans A. Bethe, the physicist; Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary theorist, and Jerome B. Wiesner, former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The statement listed the dangers of global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, the extinction of plant and animal species, the destruction of rain forests and the threat of nuclear war.
''Problems of such magnitude,'' the scientists said, ''and solutions demanding so broad a perspective, must be recognized from the outset as having a religious as well as a scientific dimension.''
- Log in to post comments
I was watching Cosmos again the other day and I was surprised to find the content was pretty firmly atheistic. I think his tone of voice covers the fact that he's basically calling out the religious on being irrational.
In the two examples above, we have quotes to show that the Catholic Pope and an Episcopal Dean agree with Carl Sagan. This is a "dog bites man" story. For a real "man bites dog" story, you are going to need more drama than that. Examples from the 1980s, before the fundies enjoyed their extensive media and political "noise machine," are not very convincing.
Sharing common values does not mean agreeing with the voices in someones else's head.
''I am personally skeptical about many aspects of revealed religion,'' Dr. Sagan said. ''But I am sure of the awe and reverence that the meticulously balanced nature of the global environment elicits in me.''
While I admire Dawkins and Hitchens for their outspoken attacks on religious fundamentalism, I relate better to Carl Sagan. He viewed the Cosmos with awe and reverence. I cannot help but think we lose something when we lose our sense of wonder and amazement at this world and this universe we inhabit. It is unfortunate that the fundies think their small, petty, tyrannical God is the source of all that wonder.
Matthew, I understand what you, Chris and your fellow framers are attempting to do in uniting moderates to achieve a particular political end - changing policies to prevent the worse excesses of global warming. Unfortunately I think you have overestimated the unanimity that exists amongst both the scientific community and the population in general about the wisdom of this strategy. I don't mean that scientists are refusing to accept the consensus about human influenced global warming, most of us, naturally, do - much more than moderates in the non scientific community I would add. No, what I mean is that many of us don't believe the strategy is politically viable. It would take worldwide efforts involving expensive measures that seriously affect the majority of the world population to have a chance of halting the current slide towards climate change. You may think this is achievable, I for one, do not. Throughout history the driving force of development has been that of short term gain by individuals, it drove industrialization, western democracy and it destroyed communism. What you are suggesting is counter to this force and I really see no evidence that it will be accepted by Americans, never mind by the Chinese, Indians and the developing nations that need to be on board too.
I suggest a different strategy.
Educate people how to cope with the inevitable change, sell property in low lying areas or close to the coast. Invest in flood insurance. Invest in medical research and public health measures to cope with the possibility of new diseases entering northern countries. Global climate change, despite some protestations is a real prospect but is not the end of the world.
"While I admire Dawkins and Hitchens for their outspoken attacks on religious fundamentalism, I relate better to Carl Sagan. He viewed the Cosmos with awe and reverence."
But so does Dawkins, and he has said so over and over again. This is some 'framing' for you - Dawkins is 'framed' as anti-wonder when he isn't, and Sagan is 'framed' as somehow the opposite of Dawkins. But Sagan was highly critical of the truth claims of religion - see his last book, 'The Demon-Haunted World.' That book is in fact a foundational text for a lot of atheists - they cite it as the book that changed their minds. Sagan was as it were the Dawkins of 1995 - that book made much the same kind of stir that 'The God Delusion' has, and for similar reasons.
So I can post on this thread. Did you close comments on the Paul Kurtz thread, Matthew? Or is it just a glitch - on that one thread...
Just a glitch, Matthew tells me; that's a relief. (I tried several times - but that happened to me once before on Scienceblogs, so I know that does happen.)
Ophelia Benson: "But Sagan was highly critical of the truth claims of religion"
Yet isn't that part of the point? He was certainly critical, but this did not mean that he implied that theists were morons or nuts, nor did it keep him from reaching out.
J.J., the difference between Dawkins and Sagan is not all that stark. Have you read The Demon-Haunted World lately? Sagan uses the word 'gullible' a lot, and he's pretty harsh about New Age and pseudoscience and occultism and so on. There is some difference, but I don't think it's so vast or so clear-cut that it makes an obvious political point of no return - Sagan, 'moderate' religious believers join atheists in opposing poverty; Dawkins, they bail. Nope - I can't see it.
I re-read "Contact" lately, and boy, was Sagan concilatory towards religious believers! Went out of his way to paint them as reasonable, informed, intelligent people who would never fill an erbium dowel with explosive materials.
Sagan's position on religion seems to have been compassion for followers, whom he regarded as deceived, and quietly-concealed contempt for the systems.
Ah, that's interesting - I haven't read Contact. I stand partially corrected. But he really was quite forthright in Demon-Haunted, including about religion.
Ophelia,
Keay Davidson's bio of Sagan notes that in the movie adaptation of Contact (which took place after the Vatican collaboration), Sagan adapted the themes of the moving to include even more positive portrayals of religion and the shared values with scientists.
Ophelia Benson: "Have you read The Demon-Haunted World lately?"
Afraid not, and unfortunately, it's checked out at the libraries that have it, so it may be a while before I get around to it. That said, ...
Ophelia Benson: "Sagan uses the word 'gullible' a lot,"
Which doesn't tell me much without any context.
Thing is, all the friendly atheists that I can think of, the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, Greta Christina, and Al from coffeeghost.net, have all been rather blunt about religion, without insulting believers' intelligence or misusing the word "delusion." Offhand, Sagan seems to been the way they are.
Maybe Sagan was a little of both. I taped an interview he did with Ira Flatow about the Demon-Haunted World - Flatow started off by saying something like 'Dr Sagan, you seem to be angry about all this.' Sagan first said 'No, I'm not angry,' then he stopped and said 'well maybe I am a little angry' - then went on to be eloquent about the power of science and reason and what a waste it was that people prefer the other stuff. It was interesting - I think he wanted to do both - express his passion and indignation, and keep people on side.
I think there is a place for passion and even anger. Yes it risks antagonizing potential friends, but it can also rouse, awaken, inspire.
I think you're missing the sarcasm, Ms. Benson.
Oops! Sorry, Caledonian - that would be because I haven't read Contact. I did wonder, especially because I thought I'd heard that Ann Druyan was irritated by how pro-theism the movie was - but I concluded I just hadn't realized that Contact was religion-sympathetic.
Peter Teiman here. Carl Sagan was one of the most religious atheist I have ever read.
Peter Teiman
Siz bana keyif bagisliyosunuz ama yaptiginiz reel olmaz.
D.P. James adlı kişinin avukatı, müvekkilinin 1958 yılının ağustos ayında babasına kesici aletle saldırıp yaraladığı gerekçesiyle gözaltına alındığını, daha sonra akli dengesinin yerinde olup olmadığını anlamak için hastaneye nakledildiğini
İstanbul Terörle Mücadele Şube Müdürlüğü ekipleri tarafından düzenlenen Ergenekon Operasyonu kapsamında gözaltına alınan şahıslardan 13'ü daha adliyeye sevk edildi. Aralarında Hrant Dink cinayetinin azmettiricisi olduğu iddia edilen.
Just as Sagan published many articles in Parada magazine, the Sunday newspaper supplement, he also knew that to explain things to the masses, you went to their sources.
The general public does not read the latest issue of Science and they get most of their science education from
Star Trek.
Druyan said Sagan was an agnostic, and I don't think you
will get a better authority than his soulmate.