The Varieties of Scientific Experience, by Carl Sagan
Subtitled A Personal View of the Search for God, this book was edited by Ann Druyan some 10 years after Sagan's death, using the talks he gave as part of the Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow in 1985. I am so glad Druyan did this altho it has given me yet another reason to mourn Sagan's death -- he was such a good representative of atheism, so much kinder, patient and more understanding of human needs than the spokesmen we have now.
from the lecture titled The Search: We kill each other, or threaten to kill each other, in part, I think because we are afraid we might not ourselves know the truth, that someone else with a different doctrine might have a closer approximation to the truth. Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths. If I can't convince you, I must kill you. That will change your mind. You are a threat to my version of the truth, especially the truth about who I am and what my nature is. The thought that I may have dedicated my life to a lie, that I might have accepted a conventional wisdom that no longer, if it ever did, corresponds to the external reality, that is a very painful realization. I will tend to resist it to the last. I will go to almost any lengths to prevent myself from seeing that the worldview that I have dedicated my life to is inadequate.
(Sagan explained that he put this in personal terms so as to avoid appearing to accuse anyone in the audience of "an attitude". This is part of what I mean about Sagan being kinder and gentler.)
The best part of this book for me turned out to be the questions and answers from each lecture that were included in the back. I enjoyed these so much because so many of them were issues brought up, time and time again, by theist visitors to atheist discussion forums. Such as this old chestnut about life's meaning:
CS: The questioner asks that is not one central goal of religions the idea of a personal god, of a purpose for individuals and for the species as a whole, and is that not one of the reasons for the success on an emotional level (I'm paraphrasing) of many religions? And he then goes on to say that he, himself, does not see much evidence in the astronomical universe for a purpose.
I tend very much to agree with you, but I would say that purpose is not imposed from the outside; it is generated from the inside. We make our purpose. And there is a kind of dereliction of duty of us humans when we say that the purpose is to be imposed on the outside or found in some book written thousands of years ago. We live in a very different world than we lived in thousands of years ago. There is no question that we have many obligations to guarantee our purposes, one of which is to survive. And that we have to work out for ourselves.
Here's a response to a question about the difference between what the religious believe and what scientists know, and why the science appears incomplete:
CS: So I see methodologically a significant difference between how science proceeds and how religion proceeds. Now, an earlier questioner gave a very good example. He said, "Scientists talk about the expanding universe. What began the expansion?" Now, many astrophysicists would say that's not their problem. Their problem is to tell you what the universe is doing but not to tell you why it's doing it. They avoid that "why" question -- and it's not due to modesty, although it's sometimes phrased in a way to suggest that we don't want to mess around with the really big questions. But physicists love to mess around with the really big questions. The reason that questions such as "Why did the universe expand?" are considered off-limits is that there's no experiment you can do to check it out.
And finally, he explains why the burden of proof is with the person making the positive claim:
CS: It is -- and it seems to me quite proper. Because otherwise opinions would be launched very casually if those who proposed them did not have the burden of demonstrating their truth. Here is a set of thirty-one proposals that I make, and good-bye. I mean, you would be left with a chaotic circumstance.
Questioner: Yes, all right. Yes, I see. I see your point. Yes.
CS: The audience is laughing. May I say I think these are . . . some of these are very good points, and this sense of dialogue I welcome and find delightful.
This last was the end of a very long discussion and I only included the summing up. I also liked that it's another demonstration of Sagan's kindness to theists. Altho honesty kept him from saying all the points were good, he gave his questioner some of the points and the compliment of enjoying the discussion.
from the lecture titled The Search: We kill each other, or threaten to kill each other, in part, I think because we are afraid we might not ourselves know the truth, that someone else with a different doctrine might have a closer approximation to the truth. Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths. If I can't convince you, I must kill you. That will change your mind. You are a threat to my version of the truth, especially the truth about who I am and what my nature is. The thought that I may have dedicated my life to a lie, that I might have accepted a conventional wisdom that no longer, if it ever did, corresponds to the external reality, that is a very painful realization. I will tend to resist it to the last. I will go to almost any lengths to prevent myself from seeing that the worldview that I have dedicated my life to is inadequate.
(Sagan explained that he put this in personal terms so as to avoid appearing to accuse anyone in the audience of "an attitude". This is part of what I mean about Sagan being kinder and gentler.)
The best part of this book for me turned out to be the questions and answers from each lecture that were included in the back. I enjoyed these so much because so many of them were issues brought up, time and time again, by theist visitors to atheist discussion forums. Such as this old chestnut about life's meaning:
CS: The questioner asks that is not one central goal of religions the idea of a personal god, of a purpose for individuals and for the species as a whole, and is that not one of the reasons for the success on an emotional level (I'm paraphrasing) of many religions? And he then goes on to say that he, himself, does not see much evidence in the astronomical universe for a purpose.
I tend very much to agree with you, but I would say that purpose is not imposed from the outside; it is generated from the inside. We make our purpose. And there is a kind of dereliction of duty of us humans when we say that the purpose is to be imposed on the outside or found in some book written thousands of years ago. We live in a very different world than we lived in thousands of years ago. There is no question that we have many obligations to guarantee our purposes, one of which is to survive. And that we have to work out for ourselves.
Here's a response to a question about the difference between what the religious believe and what scientists know, and why the science appears incomplete:
CS: So I see methodologically a significant difference between how science proceeds and how religion proceeds. Now, an earlier questioner gave a very good example. He said, "Scientists talk about the expanding universe. What began the expansion?" Now, many astrophysicists would say that's not their problem. Their problem is to tell you what the universe is doing but not to tell you why it's doing it. They avoid that "why" question -- and it's not due to modesty, although it's sometimes phrased in a way to suggest that we don't want to mess around with the really big questions. But physicists love to mess around with the really big questions. The reason that questions such as "Why did the universe expand?" are considered off-limits is that there's no experiment you can do to check it out.
And finally, he explains why the burden of proof is with the person making the positive claim:
CS: It is -- and it seems to me quite proper. Because otherwise opinions would be launched very casually if those who proposed them did not have the burden of demonstrating their truth. Here is a set of thirty-one proposals that I make, and good-bye. I mean, you would be left with a chaotic circumstance.
Questioner: Yes, all right. Yes, I see. I see your point. Yes.
CS: The audience is laughing. May I say I think these are . . . some of these are very good points, and this sense of dialogue I welcome and find delightful.
This last was the end of a very long discussion and I only included the summing up. I also liked that it's another demonstration of Sagan's kindness to theists. Altho honesty kept him from saying all the points were good, he gave his questioner some of the points and the compliment of enjoying the discussion.