THE VARIETIES OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERIENCE --- A PERSONAL VIEW OF THE SEARCH
FOR GOD by Carl Sagan, with an Introduction by editor, Ann Druyan, and Illustrations edited
by Scientific Consultant Steven Soter. Penguin, 2006
GIFFORD LECTURES IN NATURAL THEOLOGY
Published on the 10th anniversary of Carl Sagan's death (December 20, 1996), including his views on Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Listen to a recent interview with Carl Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan, on National Public Radio (NPR) at www.npr.org.
Carl is quoted as saying that Christian Theology is "too small" to incorporate the magnificent reality of life on earth and the wonderful workings of the universe!
The popular scientist died December 20, 1996 (1934-1996). But ten years later his work and legacy are a powerful advocacy of science and technology in a continuously evolving world. The lectures are introduced by his widow who is currently promoting the book because of its relevance to the major issue of our time, which is the conflict between fundamentalist religious thinking and scientific thought.
1) Nature and wonder --- a Reconnaisance of heaven (p1-31)
2) The retreat from Copernicus ---a Modern loss of nerve (p33-61)
3) The organic universe (p63-102)
4) Extraterrestrial intelligence (p103-123)
5) Extraterrestrial folklore --- Implications for the evolution of religion (p125-145)
6) The God hypothesis (p147-168)
7) The religious experience (p169-189)
8) Crimes against creation (p191-211)
9) The search (p213-221)
We are "smarter" than all the other animals on earth!
SELECTED QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (p223-260)
1) NATURE AND WONDER --- A reconnaisance of heaven (p1-31)
Questioner #1 --- When will we be likely to make contact with another intelligence? (p223)
Questioner #2 --- Considering the accomplishments of scientists like Newton and Kepler, is it likely that science will one day come upon a demonstration of the existence of God? (p223-226)
Questioner #3 --- Do you think humans at this time could cope with us finding extraterrestrial intelligence? (p226-227)
2) THE RETREAT FROM COPERNICUS --- A modern loss of nerve (p33-61)
Questioner #4 --- What is your opinion on the nature of the origins of intelligent life in the universe? (p227)
Answer --- "I'm for it!"
4) EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (p103-123)
Questioner #5 --- Why do you bother to use Drake's equation to indicate how much extraterrestrial life there is in the universe, when it seems that all it indicates is whether the user is a pessimist or an optimist? (p227)
Questioner #6 --- Since Drake's formulation only takes into account our galaxy, why don't you multiply it by that particular factor? (p228)
5) EXTRATERRESTRIAL FOLKLORE --- Implications for the evolution of religion (p125-145)
Questioner #7 --- How do you recognize the truth when it is upon us? (p229
Questioner #8 --- Have you any comments to make on the Shroud of Turin? (p230-231)
Questioner #9 --- The religionists proffer ghosts and miracles. The physicists propose equations. What is the fundamental difference between them? (p232-234)
6) (p234-244)
Questioner #10 --- Aren't you making an arrogant assumption that God has not left us statements in the sacred texts that prove His existence, especially knowing that there are apparent cross-correlations between the concealed names of some thirty trees in Hebrew in the Torah? (p234-235)
Questioner #11 --- Uh-huh. (p235)
Answer --- "I believe it is an example of the statistical error of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. The cases seem so highly ambiguous. Why weren't these results submitted to peer review in leading scientific journals such as Nature or Science? Why is your proof of God argument obscure tree names instead of the detailed structure of a thousand amino acid proteins for example?" (paraphrased, p235-236)
"On the first part of your question, about whether there might be clues to God's existence waiting for us but we are not smart enough to recognize them yet. You can never exclude that possibility, but it is only a slim reed upon which to base a religious faith." (paraphrased, p235-236)
Questioner #12 --- In reality, He is there. God is love. (p236)
Answer --- "Well, if we say that the definition of God is 'REALITY,' or the definition of God is 'LOVE,' I have no quarrel with the existence of reality or the existence of love. In fact, I'm in favor of both of them. However, it does not follow that God defined in that way has anything to do with the creation of the world or of any events in human history." (paraphrased, p236)
"It does not follow that there is anything that is omnipotent or omniscient and so on about God defined in such a manner. So, all I am saying is that we must look at the logical consistency of the various definitions of God." (paraphrased, p236)
"If we muddle up all the definitions of God, then it is very confusing what is being talked about. There is a great opportunity for error in that case. So my proposal is that we call reality 'REALITY,' that we call love 'LOVE,' and not call either of them 'GOD,' which has, while an enormous number of other meanings, not exactly those two meanings." (paraphrased, p236)
Questioner #13 --- In the context of what you said about Trotsky being written out of history by the Soviet Russians, how do you view the corollary that perhaps people can be written into history, such as Jesus Christ? (paraphrased, p237)
Answer --- "It's certainly possible. I find the accounts in the four Gospels reasonably internally consistent, and don't see any particular problem about Jesus being a historical figure in the same sense of Mohammed and Moses and Buddha, who all might have been real people, genuine historical figures, great men, the details of whose lives and missions have been, of course, distorted by both subsequent advocates and enemies. It is inevitable. It is the way humans go about things." (paraphrased, p237)
Questioner #14 --- Why do you think any omnipotent being would want to leave evidence for us? (p237)
Answer --- "I agree with you since there is no reason I should expect an omnipotent being to leave evidence of His existence. I hope it is clear that the fact that I don't see evidence of such a God's existence does not mean that I then derive from that fact that I know that God does not exist." (paraphrased, p237)
"That is quite a different remark. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But neither is it evidence of presence. And this is again a situation where our tolerance for ambiguity is required. If a god existed who gave us free will or merely noted that we had free will, and wished to let our free will operate, then he or she or it might very well give us no evidence of his , her, or its existence for just that reason. (paraphrased, p237-238)
Questioner #15 --- The religionists proffer ghosts and miracles. The physicists propose equations. What is the fundamental difference between them? (p232-234)
7) (p244-249)
8) (p249-251)
9) (p251-260)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (p261-263)
FIGURE CAPTIONS (p265-273)
INDEX (p275-282)
Return to Essay-Set #5: Focus on Your Brainpower Change Strategy
Go to the Brainpower Index: Interactive Index of Factual Ideas