The Atheist Double Standard
sorts with the famous atheistic astronomer, Carl Sagan. In 1988, Sagan made the claim on his television series, Cosmos, that no evidence existed in the entire universe to prove that God exists. Father Catoir wrote an article in response to Mr. Sagan and explained that, while there is no scientific evidence, we can use deductive reasoning to deduce that God exists. Mr. Sagan wrote Father Catoir back, and a correspondence ensued and endured.
Carl Sagan's response to Father Catoir's article was that a first cause was not necessary because the modern cosmology shows that the universe could possibility be infinitely old. Father Catoir responded with a series of questions. How did the universe get to be infinitely old? Was it young once? Ultimately, wouldn't a universe that was young once, and is now old, have to have a birthday? Carl Sagan evaded these questions. Father Catoir asked Mr. Sagan if he could prove that God did not exist, and Mr. Sagan admitted that he could not.
Even though Carl Sagan discounted any rational proof for the existence of God, he applied just such a process to bolster his belief about extraterrestrial life. Carl Sagan needed incontrovertible scientific (or at least objective) proof that God exists, but he did not feel such a need to believe in alien life. Of course, he spent much time looking for that proof based on his belief in their existence. If the book and movie Contact, both written by Carl Sagan, are any indication, he even attributed a religious-like significance to the existence of alien life - "we are not alone." If we are not alone, then our life must have some sort of transcendent meaning.
I am fascinated by the double standard that Sagan employed. Father Catoir offered him some of the most basic arguments for God's existence. The universe had to have a beginning, otherwise it could never have come to be. There is a need for an uncaused primary cause of existence, and the universe itself cannot be it for it is constantly in flux, due to causes acting upon it. Carl Sagan could not even answer such basic rational arguments, except to say that he simply put no stock in them. Then he turns around and employs the exact kind of arguments to illustrate the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Sagan's belief in extraterrestrial life is also something that he accepted on faith. How exactly would the existence of extraterrestrial life add any meaning to our lives than having neighbors on the next continent? My guess is that, once we get back the language and cultural barriers, we would have relations with extraterrestrial life in much the same way we relate to extra-continental life. With some of them we would be friendly, with others we would conflict. "We are not alone" would not mean much.
Why did Carl Sagan put so much significance into the existence of extraterrestrial life, but not in the existence of God? The meaning that he sought in alien life can only really be found in God. God gives our lives transcendent meaning. If Carl Sagan would have been honest with his thought process, he would have encountered the truth that would have filled the void within him.
Labels: Faith
posted by Jeffrey | Tuesday, February 20, 2007
4 comments
comments
visitors since November, 2007
4 Comments:
What a ridiculous ad hominem attack. If you had taken the time to read any of Dr. Sagan's books, you would know that 1) he had the utmost respect for religious people 2) he was not an atheist, but an agnostic.
Sagan's personal philosophy was based upon a scientific view of the universe, and belief is not scientific. It is scientific to theorize and occasionally come to trust certain ideas based on evidence, but a true scientist does not "believe" in anything that cannot be directly proved. After years of studying astronomy Sagan knew just how vast and gigantic the universe is and came to trust that it is really just silly and selfish to think that the universe was created for one single species on a pale blue dot.
Scientists such as Dr. Sagan do not claim to have all the answers; indeed, that would be antithetical to the pursuit of science. He did not know the history of the universe, but, with all the evidence against it, could not trust in a biblical hisory of the universe.
I leave you with a few Sagan quotes:
"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? No other human institution comes close."
"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits? ...For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
"If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote.... Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy."
"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they 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."
"Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods."
"We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering."
I did not intend an ad hominem attack, though sometimes exploring the ideas of a specific person brushes close. To my knowledge, I did not attack his person or character, only his ideas. An argument against an individual is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. I am exploring Sagan’s ideas. I have read Dr. Sagan’s books, but not many of them – I cannot claim to be an expert. However, the quotes that you left at the end of your comment seem to contradict your claim that Sagan respects religion. Indeed these quotes continue to show the errors of his thinking with regard to religion. Some of them are worth a separate blog post. You state that Sagan did not claim to know all the answers, yet his attitude toward religion are in sharp contrast to the attitude of Stephen Hawking, another agnostic scientist. Hawking also had some critical things to say about religion, yet he also admitted that within the few seconds surrounding the Big Bang lies an infinite space for the existence of God.
You’ll have to excuse me for not differentiating between agnosticism and atheism. Both philosophies lead to living as if there is no God. That the latter acknowledges that God may exist adds little to atheism as a life philosophy. Indeed, it is sometimes impossible to see the difference in Sagan’s ideas – even as shown by the quotations that you included in your comment.
Dr. Sagan’s statement, "If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote.... Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy,” reveals the crux of the problem I have with his ideas. Sagan refuses to acknowledge that reality cannot be completely explained by science. Reason can be used to strongly indicate the existence of an afterlife, as Plato and Socrates both demonstrate. Faith is no more a fantasy than science. As with science, there may be some truths that are less clearly known than other, but faith begins in reason and continues in a trusting RELATIONSHIP with the God that we reasonably judge to exist. Sagan ignores both faith and reason in his judgment of what is true. That is not openness in my book.
How is faith even remotely related to reason? How do you know god exists?
The Catholic intellectual life is BASED on the intersection of faith and reason. We believe that reason exists because God is rational and wants Himself to be known by rational creatures.
However, reason cannot stand alone any more than science. Reason can show that belief in God is reasonable. Reason cannot prove God's existence beyond a doubt. I know God exists because . . .
1. Reason tells me that belief in a God is reasonable.
2.I have come to know that God through a relationship of faith (trust) in him.
My point is that faith is not blind - not a fantasy. Faith is a reasonable supposition bolstered by an experienced relationship with God.
If you want to explore the rational reasons for belief in God, look up Saint Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God. These are not "proofs" in the sense that they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are more "proofs" like geometry proofs - reasonable connections between an inference and a conclusion. They are the main starting point for the Catholic belief in the reasonablenss of faith.
Post a Comment
Thank you for entering the discussion! If you are here to complement, please do so generously. If you are here to argue, please do so respectfully.
<< Home