Carl Sagan was certainly a great leader in the effort to promote science
education, and for that I applaud him and revere his memory. Besides his life's
work, he seemed from interviews and his writing to have been a genuinely nice
and fun guy as well. His Cosmos series had an immense influence. He began it
with the words
The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will
be.
Now whatever we may think about that statement, this much I think can
safely be said: it isn't a scientific statement, it is a philosophical one. It
may be true, of course. But I don't think it is obviously true. I don't think it
is demonstrably true.
When Sagan addressed a CSICOP conference in 1987 he made this statement
that again had me shaking my head:
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.
They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or
religion.
If one were to take this statement literally rather than as the piece of
rhetoric it truly is, one would have to assume Sagan was uniformed. And Carl
Sagan was not an uniformed human being.
Actually, in politics there is a phenomenon known as "flip-flopping" -
sometimes exaggerated, but nevertheless quite real - where a politicians was
"for [this or that] before he was against it." They come out quite often
announcing that they have switched positions and then explain why. They leave
one party in favor of another. It literally happens all the time.
In religious matters one who is familiar with the development of dogma see
lots of evidence that religion evolves. In fact, I cannot for a moment think
that Sagan was ignorant of the stir the publishing of Darwin's groundbreaking
work on evolution made upon the religious minded of his day. And I'm sure he
knew there were many religious leaders who painlessly embraced "Darwinism" and
incorporated it into their theology.
When the Big Bang became established as the leading scientific model for
the birth of the cosmos theologians rushed to embrace it as "proof" of God's
creative fiat over the primitive mythology of yesteryear. (Interestingly this
model was first proposed by the Catholic priest and astronomer Georges
Lemaître).
Fundamentalism doesn't define religion. It is but a small and very negative
aspect of it.
Now I could belabor this point that political and religious thinking are in
a more or less constant flux, but I don't feel it is necessary. If you have
studied history - heck, if you are paying attention to the trends of the day
- you know this.
So I believe the case is exactly the opposite of the way Sagan stated it
above. In fact, the very evidence driven nature of science seems to preclude any
such scenario as Sagan painted: "You know that's a really good argument; my
position is mistaken."
Okay, that may be the case in philosophy, but not, I believe, likely among
scientists.
As a pantheist (or maybe panentheist) I embrace both science and theology
(politics is peripheral for me). As I'm getting older and having had so many
opportunities to explore, I feel a personal need to clarify my life
philosophy. This blog has been a running attempt to do that.
Some of my friends think I should do more living and less thinking. I
understand their point. But for me, living is thinking. I think they don't fully
understand me. The world and its creatures fascinate me.
Is the cosmos really "all that is or ever was or ever will be"? I cannot
help myself from wondering. At the same time I can't help doubting that any of
us have the truth all nailed down. Speaking for myself, embracing both science
and religion makes more sense and gives me what I think is a fuller
picture.
All of us have some beliefs that are not beyond reasonable dispute.
Shouldn't be more sympathetic to those with whom we disagree? Shouldn't we try
to erect the biggest tent possible?
6 comments:
To use your tent analogy (which I love), a lot of people are uncomfortable being under a tent. People like solid and safe structures, like a church. It gives a feeling of stability in a chaotic universe. It's human to yearn for that, which is why I don't believe religious institutions will ever completely disappear, nor do I want them to vanish.
"As a pantheist (or maybe panentheist)..."
This was my favorite line. I believe it expresses the spirit of being a groper/traveler/explorer of our universe (even if we find we exist inside a zit on an old woman's nose). And that desire of discovery and exploration is what I believe we all share under this big tent (which is also portable too).
I'm sorry Doug. Not being willing to concede how much scientists have been willing to change their models based upon new and improved information strikes me as dogmatic as the dogmatism you want to criticize.
Sagan also said, "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."
http://carlsagan.com/
I thought that sounded a lot like you!
@ Eruesso,
I'm really trying. I really am. I want to welcome all the insight I can gain from the various sources and try to piece it together into something that makes sense to me. Of course, others have grander minds than I do - it pains me not at all to admit - and so they may land at a different place. But I appreciate everyone who makes an honest attempt to makes sense of this thing called life. And lets us always be willing to change if new light becomes available.
@ Exrelayman,
Of course I am always happy to hear from the materialist/atheist corner of the tent. I'm sorry you feel I'm being inconsistent on this. I have a problem with the way Sagan stated the matter in the quote I gave (as I said, I am a fan of Sagan, but of course that doesn't mean I wave my right to disagree with him here and there).
He said he couldn't recall the last time that politicians or religionists changed their opinions, and I think that is just silly and gave some reasons why.
On the other hand, science by it's very nature could hardly be changeable in a "that's a good argument, my theory must be wrong" way. Philosophy, yes. Science, no, as evidenced recently when a group of physicists reported neutrinos allegedly traveling faster than the speed of light. That alleged finding threatened to upend current theories and right off the bat met with strong resistance (but apparently has been disproved since). I don't think scientific theories are overthrown easily or that new theories are met with open arms and minds. It took decades for Big Bang cosmology to finally defeat the steady state theory, and even now plasma cosmology seems to be no more than a fringe theory at best. Then of course there is the usual appeal to continental drift and that controversy.
So yes, I think Sagan was indulging in a bit of rhetoric there. And I suspect had he been addressing a group of theologians about the relationship between religion and science, I think he would have made that argument differently if at all.
And yes, I like that Sagan quote you gave, and I always enjoy reading Sagan. I hope my clarification eases your concerns about my thinking on this.
"Living is thinking". Yep. It SO is!!!! Great post, Doug!
& it's true that "accepted ideas" take decades to change. In science, and in other fields as well. A lot of people have a lot invested in the "status quo".
My brother was telling me just recently about a scientist friend of his, who has done research that challenges some currrent models of climate change. The research is good, the data is in, and it is apparently quite ground-breaking, however the "peer review" process (which ought to be a good thing) is currently standing in the way of publication. Apparently his research was reviewed by two scientists - one recommended publication, and the other (whose work stood to be challenged by the findings) did not. In an unheard of move, the work was reviewed a second time, this time with a panel of three (including the first two). Two out of three recommended publication, but the third refused to shift his position.
In the words of my brother's scientist friend "it will take about 30 years for these ideas to be accepted". He is probably right.
@ Kerry Miller,
Hey, good to see you back! The science geeks I know personally are for the most part as hard-headed and inflexible as religious fundamentalists. So it is, I suppose, with anyone who has "the truth."
Post a Comment