Review: Carl Sagan’s The Varieties Of Scientific Experience
I recently finished reading Carl Sagan’s new book, The Varieties Of Scientific Experience, and recommend it as an antidote to the lethal venom that has been building up along the epistemological boundary between supernaturalism and naturalism since Sagan’s death.
How, you ask, can Sagan, dead these eleven years, have just come out with a new book? TVOSE is a compilation of Sagan’s 1985 Gifford Lectures On Natural Theology in Scotland, about the relationship between religion and science. Here’s a sample:
“The astronomer Sir William Huggins frightened the world in 1910. He was minding his own business, doing astronomy, but as a result of his astronomy (the work I’m talking about was done in the last third of the nineteenth century) there were national panics in Japan, in Russia, in much of the southern and midwestern United States. A hundred thousand people in their pajamas emerged onto the roofs of Constantinople. The pope issued a statement condemning the hoarding of cylinders of oxygen in Rome. And there were people all over the world who committed suicide. All because of Sir William Huggins’ work. Very few scientists can make similar claims, at least until the invention of nuclear weapons. What exactly did he do? Well, Huggins was one of the first astronomical spectroscopists…. “p. 69
The Gifford Lectures were made famous in 1902 by William James’ classic Varieties Of Religious Experience which gave Sagan the inspiration for his series. Sagan reflects on the history of the long struggle between science and religion, including the painful adaptations each has made to the other over the years. He talked about biochemistry, physics, evolution, astronomy, and scientists’ own religious feelings as they grapple with the natural universe. He outlines the risk to humanity from nuclear weapons (let no one say this is an outdated concern). TVOSE is a deep and very involved series of lectures.
“Does trying to understand the universe betray a lack of humility? I believe it is true that humility is the only just response in a confrontation with the universe, but not a humility that prevents us from seeking the nature of the universe we are admiring…
I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship… the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science; it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.”
Sagan understood the desire to believe. It was no pale theoretical fancy to him; he yearned to reach into the inmost nature of the universe. Even in his dying years he worked tirelessly to build connections with people of faith. Where a religious person expressed wonder at the universe, or opposed violence, or moved to save the natural environment, Sagan agreed and recognized common purpose. He respected the religious desire to frame the universe in some larger meaning, because he had the same desire even if he could not reach the same conclusion.
Today contempt is everywhere between science and religion. We have Richard Dawkins taking advice on American religious culture from PZ Meyers (possibly the worst, most divisive possible choice). We have Sam Harris positing the end of all religions as a solution to mankind’s problems. We have the Discovery institute trying to poison science education with thinly veiled creationism. The opportunity for peace, to say nothing of achieving any common purpose or reaching any constructive compromise, seems more remote than ever.
So let Harris languish on the discount rack; it’s a very good time to read Sagan. TVOSE may seem quaint, 22 years after the lectures were given, but it could hardly be more timely.
I’ve long been disgusted by those on the “religion” side who see science as an enemy to be discredited and defeated. I’ve been profoundly dismayed by those on the “science” side who’ve decided (with or without provocation) to take the same tack toward religion.
I’ll have to put this one on my wish list.
Here is the solution:
JUST LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN LIFE!!!!!!
Stop making it your concern that someone else wants to believe in a God or not believe in a God. Let them have their own opinion and move on.
I think the religious friend of mine said it best, “Do you realize in our office we have an Atheist, a Socialist, and an Evangelical Christian.” It never occurred to me at that moment how diverse we truly are until my co-worker said that.
I responded with a gaze of wonder… because we work nearly flawlessly together, all of us but are very diverse in our beliefs. We get things done in a timely matter, and we have very few, if any, quarrels. We all talk about religion and politics just like any other office.
But we get things done because at the end of the day, we are happy for who the individual is and what they accomplish. Not what deity they believe or do not believe in. I wouldn’t attempt to change my Evangelical co-workers beliefs, because he is happy and successful. Could he be happy and successful without them? Probably, but why change a good thing? If he is happy and successful, that is all that matters to me.
Imagine if the world worked the same way as our coherent group does…
I will give the benefit of the doubt to at least some evangelicals for whom “let people live their own life” is not a fully tenable option. Not only do they feel compelled by their understanding of Jesus’ message (the Great Commission) to “spread the Good News,” but if they actually believe that an unsaved life condemns a person to Hell, and that only their own path provides salvation, they have a *moral obligation* to try to do something about it, just as I’d have a moral obligation if I saw someone about to walk into a live wire or use a stick of dynamite as a candle.
Similarly, some folks of a scientific/rationalist bent see religion as an actual *danger* to society and to individuals and to world peace, etc.
I don’t agree with their premises, or their practices (and I don’t think that all moral busybodies are as pure-hearted in their motivations as all that, either), but I can certainly understand their arguments behind their actions.
Yes, that works fine on an interpersonal level. But around the office, we have never had to answer issues on which religion impinges. On a sociocultural/legal level, however, there are questions that must be answered. If you really believe Jesus is coming back, will invading Iraq fit God’s plan, or would it be something God would have to work around? Should women be allowed to have abortions? Should bad words be censored on television? Should gays be allowed to marry? Would you vote for an atheist candidate for office? A Mormon candidate? Should we teach evolution in schools? Should a Nazarine ever be Attorney General? Or an evangelical Christian ever be in charge of US health education policy? Can the US support family planning initiatives overseas? Should we exclude religiously-inspired cosmologies in science class?
If the answers to these questions seem so obvious as to be hardly worth discussing, remember the same is true for those who disagree. Also the answers to all these questions are implemented by your tax dollars, and the tax dollars of those who disagree.
I wish it were all simple, but it’s not.
Actually all of those questions are answered with my credo. The answer is to let people live their own life. If person X wants to have an abortion that is none of person’s Y concern. It is not up to person Y on whether or not person X can have an abortion, it is up to person X according to my credo. And I can answer every single question using that logic, except with what Dave pointed out.
The problem with my credo is that it impinges on what appears to be a moral obligation to those that step up and say, “Do you need to be saved?” But even that can be answered, by just having a minister, pastor, preacher, what have you, say, “People, shut the heck up and just let people live!” We just need one to interpret the Bible differently.
Well… okay, maybe without using that fervor…
So your credo is to let people live their own lives – good. And (for example) John Ashcroft’s credo is that homosexuality is dangerous to a society and should not be supported in law. He believes that his credo comes directly from God. Now your credo and his, are in direct conflict. Short of forcing him to adopt your credo, (which is antithetical to your credo), the question remains.
Like I said, not simple.
I simply do not see how Ashcroft couldn’t live in harmony while using my credo. He can still think and/or believe that homosexuality is dangerous to a society and should not be supported in law. He just can’t force it down our throats. Hence the idea of separation of church and state, which BTW was somewhat developed with the idea of, let people live their own lives, in mind.
I agree though it isn’t simple. There is no good solution, because both sides aren’t willing to make concessions. Somebody always has to have the bigger penis and be right. No one can just say, “screw it, other things are more important.” And because of this there will always be wars, death, poverty, and suffering. Such is life. I was thinking of an idea of how to change all of that.
So you can act upon your credo, but he can’t act upon his (which is interventionist in nature). Easy enough to say “well tough on him” except interventionist prudes pay taxes and vote, too. Representatives have to decide, they can’t just shrug. When the teacher shows up for class, she has to teach something. When two guys show up at the courthouse wanting to get married, the clerk has to know what to tell them. The teenage girl facing an unexpected pregnancy… “Live and let live” won’t answer any of those questions.
You don’t have to look far to realize even the interpretation of our constitution is not set. We have judges, we have people on all sides pushing in their favorite direction, lobbyists, journalists, bloggers, people with protest signs.
I’m afraid the answer is mutual compromise. And that takes civil relationships with people we disagree with, which is what I’m talking about with the throwers of invective hungrily gobbling up Sam Harris or Bernard Goldberg. As a culture we need to work on listening more than talking, and be prepared to give up some of our ground to the other guy. But compromise has almost passed out of our language.
I think we agree about 60 or 70 percent on this. Not too bad.
I see you’re taking my credo full fledge to all walks of life. I thought we were specifically referring to Science vs. Religion issues.
But I tend to agree on mutual compromise, and that is something I practice daily because understand that most people have more experience in life than I do. And some tend to be a lot smarter.
Having a girlfriend I love very much that is religious, and being that I am not religious, I practice mutual compromise all the time. Hell, being in any relationship is an effort in mutual compromise ;-P
But I, as does she, practice “let people live their own lives.” Because she knows that I don’t need religion to be happy and successful, and I know that she is perfectly happy with her religion. The only time I will ever coax her into changing a lifestyle is when it is hurting someone, including herself.
Congratulations; you are now an interventionist. The difference between you and Ashcroft is a matter of degree :coolsmirk: See the thing is, science vs. religion issues, impinge on every area of life. It isn’t just philosophy, there are practical consequences people have to live with.
By the way, I plan a further discussion of the culture wars later when I review Freethinkers: the history of secularism in America. Let’s pick it up again then.
Anyone have any comments on TVOSE?
That’s pretty evil comparing me to Ashcroft… it hurts :down:
The book sounds interesting, I might have to pick it up when I got some more time. Do you know if any of his presentations are available on a website?
Thanks for the review; I hesitated reading it as it’s next on my reading-for-pleasure list, but I did and I’m glad I did.
I’m really looking forward to it.
As I stand here in shock and realize that actually agree with DOF. I am beginning to understand that I actually don’t have a belief at a 100% level in anything other than the fact that someday I will die. Maybe we are all just trying to figure out why we are here, is it a complex chain of events or just an accident? So I will just go day to day living life the best I can and trying to avoid making any decisions about life and its meaning. I am not sure I want the answer.
Sagan lives. He will not be replaced soon and I do look forward to reading his new book. Whether we need to end religion or not, I do not know. But we do need to end the prevailing attitude that a belief cloaked in religion is above criticism. If you do not seek medical treatment for a sick or injured child because of your religious beliefs, that is stupid and the rest of us need to say so. If you do not want your child to have accurate sex education because of your religious beliefs, that is stupid and the rest of us need to say so. If you do not want your daughter to have the HPV vaccine because of your religious beliefs, that is stupid and the rest of us need to say so. In my view, the most important point that Harris and Dawkins make is that beliefs are not above criticism just because they are cloaked in religion. I love these guys but you are right, Sagan was one of a kind.
Stephen J Gould famously tried to reconcile religion and science with his Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) principle. He says science deals with facts while religion deals with values so they are not mutually exclusive. Sagan does not suggest that. A common error is to put Sagan in one camp and Dawkins, Dennett and Harris in the other. For all practical purposes, they are all atheists in the sense of not believing in a traditional, personal God. While they might differ in their approaches, it is clear that they share the same objective, to advocate a naturalistic worldview. Dawkins and gang might appear more militant and less tolerant while Sagan more understanding and persuasive. But this only reflects a difference in their temperament, social concerns and the times they live in. Sagan does not advocate traditional religion as a way to truth any more than Dawkins does. And Dawkins does not deny the feeling of awe and religious inspiration that one gets from pondering on the wonders and beauty of the world any more than Sagan does. Dawkins states this very clearly in the chapter on Einsteinian religion in his God Delusion. In fact he is himself a fan of Carl Sagan’s writings. To call Dawkins and gang nihilistic and Sagan inspriring is missing the point. Dawkins is as every bit religiously motivated as Sagan is in penetrating the truth of the cosmos. They both share the same view that only science can reveal to them the true wonders of the universe. They both devoted their lives to convince those who think otherwise that they are missing out on the real grandeur of the universe. All other difference are secondary.