General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCarl Sagan on Life... and the "After-Life":
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist and said that he hated the term, saying:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801870_2.html
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People also like to dodge the question by going, "oh, I'm an agnostic". Yeah, I'm agnostic on a LOT of things for which there's no objective evidence; leprechauns, unicorns, the tooth fairy. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out, in a sense. Evidence could come along at some point to tell me that, yes, there is an invisible 500 foot tall orangutan living on my roof.
Even the question, "Do you believe in God", frames a duality pertaining to a singular, objective, mutually agreed upon and at least generally defined entity where none such general consensus exists. Or to put it another way, which "God"? How about you define the friggin' thing before you expect people to say whether they "believe" in it or not?
Is it "very stupid" to say you don't believe in the Greek Gods? The Roman Gods? Quetzlcoatl? Pan? Eris? Ra? Osiris?
I'd like to see the actual Sagan quote, along with context, please.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Sagan is a hero of my wife and I. He was the Steve Jobs of science. He made it accessible for many and 'insanely great.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People get very hung up on definitions, yes- and what I suspect Sagan was addressing was the assertion "I know there isn't a God", which I don't hear made all that often.
However, I don't believe there is a God, there are any Gods, and I see no objective evidence to the contrary- that is pretty much the core of what comprises most Atheistic thought.
I suspect Sagan was arguing to keep an open mind, which is the essence of science. But that goes hand in hand with evidence-based validation.
It's a vast misstatement, I think, to assert that Sagan thought Atheism was "stupid".
Edit: Okay, um, if you follow that Wikipedia quote, via the footnotes, you see no evidence that Sagan actually said that quote.
The quote is referenced to an article in Skeptic, which as near as I can tell, does NOT contain that quote.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-sagan-file/
In the comments to the article;
Lone Primate says:
February 13, 2012 at 4:52 am
Where did Carl Sagan every say this: An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.
You can chase around the net for weeks and you see nothing but people quoting people quoting people quoting people. But no one ever gives a citation, except for the LAST guy who quoted it. So where did he actually say this? Because Im increasingly disinclined to believe he ever actually did. Its beginning to look like a rootless meme.
Reply
Mark Klotz says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Yes, I would ask the same question; Specifically, when, and where did Carl Sagan ever state An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.
I can find no reference to this anywhere, other than the article that was printed in the Washington Post.
Reply
I think wikipedia needs a clean-up on aisle sagan, honestly.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)...who knew him and people who worked with him.
Yeah, I'm not going to delete anything.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I did some more research, there is one blog piece affiliated with the Washington Post (hardly a Washington Post "news story", but whatever) Where someone named Joel Achenbach makes the claim that Sagan made the quote. There is, as said "comments yahoo" notes, apparently no other sourcing other than this blogger's assertion, that he made this quote.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2006/04/the_sagan_file.html
Also on the wikipedia page:
When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to meit still sometimes happensand ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.[52]
So who are you going to believe: Joel Achenbach, or the man's wife?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)He wasn't an Athiest or a Believer, he was a seeker.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"according to some definitions".
It's all dependent upon how the terms are defined. If Atheism is "I know there is no God" (assuming, again, that there is ONE singular concept of "God" sitting objectively "out there" for Atheists to "not believe in" then the dubious quote from Sagan could be considered to apply. If the generally accepted definition of Atheism is accepted, i.e. a lack of belief in any god or gods, it does NOT apply.
What you've done here is taken one dubiously sourced quote from Carl Sagan and used it completely out of context for your own purposes, which seem to be to slam Atheists.
"Seekers", as you put it, are another word for scientists. Yes, we are all- and should all be- interested in finding the truth. But the default position of SCIENCE is to not believe in anything unless there's evidence for it. That applies to Unicorns, That applies to magic gnomes that fix the cobbler's shoes while he's asleep, and, yes, that applies to "God" (however one defines that word).. The trouble most Theists seem to have is that they throw a shit-fit when their special idea (i.e. "God" doesn't get special, different treatment from all other assertions.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)...address them to this gentleman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Achenbach
I'm done in this thread, bye.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)grain of most of Carl Sagan's life, which was devoted to -among other things- arguing FOR evidence-based reasoning and against superstition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
And if your intent wasn't to go "See, Sagan Thot Atheists R Stupid, Hurr!" it sure as shit came across that way.
Look at the totality of the man's life, he was anything but a "God" booster.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Sincerely. The alleged quotation does make no sense, and it's nice to see the demonstration of the lack of credibility on the part of those claiming its existence.
It would make as much sense for him to have said An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid as it would for Gloria Steinem to have said A feminist is someone who hates men. By some definitions feminism is very stupid.
An atheist does not believe (in a god or gods), by the actual definition.
I'm an atheist, and also an agnostic, on the issue -- and I don't see that as a cop-out, just as recognition of the limitations of the data available to me and of my inherent human abilities, and of course the fact that there are gazillions of things I don't know. Being an agnostic doesn't really mean admitting that one thinks that what one believes in this instance might well not be true. But for all I know, there might really be faeries at the bottom of my garden ...
If only theists (those who don't acknowedge it) would acknowledge that they're agnostics too, the world might improve.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Of other gods.
Perhaps in the days of the Parthenon belief in Zeus was considered so self-evident that it was an either-or question... Like, sure you claim to know there's no Zeus...
Obviously the proper scientific position is a form of agnosticism, but the idea of 'god' doesn't get any more special treatment than any other idea or assertion for which there is no evidence.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seriously, man. WTF.
MiddleFingerMom
(25,163 posts).
.
.
"Stop bigoted bashing bashing bigotry bash bash bigot bigot anti" Atheist "bigot"
.
.
.
I'm an Atheist. Why do so many of "us" sound just like so many of them?
.
.
Seriously, man. WTF.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Was somehow one of these false cultural equivalency 'oh, atheists are intolerant too, they're two sides of the same coin' people... It's a massive misrepresentation of what the man stood for, and when it is presented in that form (one out of context misleading quote of dubious authenticity) I HAVE to believe there's an agenda there.
MiddleFingerMom
(25,163 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I suppose either I agree with you, or I don't. Probably one of those two.
Anyway, just in case there was misunderstanding, that post of mine upthread (#27) is in response to onehandle, not your OP. Just FYI.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)saying that we are all atheists as to all of the gods who have existed in the last ten thousand years, and modern atheists take it only one god further.
My thoughts exactly.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)claiming there's any similarity between The One True God and Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Odin, etc. is BIGOTBASHITRUDE!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)If I had to pick one of the gods, I think I'd throw in with Odin. He was a god of his word:
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Apparently this is an untrue meme, or a meme that doesn't have a verifiable source.
My guess is, it's being spread by Jesus people who have a vested interest in discrediting prominent Atheists, the same way every time a well-known one of us dies they try to spread rumours of a "deathbed conversion" (you know, no Atheists in foxholes)
It's a disservice to the man to promote a falsehood, i.e. that he said something he never did.
If you can find the actual quote, of course, none of this applies.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)got root
(425 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)A true genius.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And so was Mr. Sagan.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)All Aboard!
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)But now he'll have experience to go by.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)it may not be possible to experience non-existence, nor to experience anything other than existence.
To put it another way, we may exist because we don't have any other choice.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I treasure each day I have on this magic globe. IF there were an after-conciousness, I would reflect on how lucky I was in my prior existance.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I think he was an agnostic or spiritual. He was not an atheist. As I recall, what he said was that there nothing in human knowledge that disputes the existence of God. He said that science was not at odds with there being God. He MIGHT have even said he personally believes in God, but I'm not sure about that.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Life on earth is full of trial and tribulations and existence is one of trying to overcome problems and unhappiness. True happiness lies in nirvana....after you've been reborn a number of times. Something like that.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Rather than just another insignificant species eating it's way out of existence.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)=)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)I had a near death experience. I died. Dead. No brain activity. Gray complexion, fixed pupils, dead and limp and gone. But when I did and it was so easy, I found myself in an awesome place with my mother. It was beyond my ability to explain how beautiful, peaceful and lovely it was. It was impossible to tell you how real this was. It was in some ways the most real experience I have ever had because the love and protection expressed to me was beyond explanation. Someone once asked me if the hypothesis put forward by scientists would change my views about this considering the strangeness of the brain and the idea that the brain constructs this to comfort people when they die.
I said no. Then I said why if it is a natural process like the flu and cancer and sniffles, why isn't there uniformity of experience? If this isn't something outside of the body we should have uniform reactions in nde's. One might say that each person might respond differently to the process because the content of their memories is different. I disagree. If it is a natural process we would have uniform experiences within neglible differences but we don't. Less than forty percent of the people who have NDE's have the tunnel and white light experience. I didn't. There is only a small portion of everyone having experiences that have similar elements. A natural process would have a certain uniformity like any other process with only some variation on the same theme. Not everyone has all the symptoms of flu but they have symptoms that can be predicted and fall within a range of the norm. Same with cancer, etc. I asked the person who asked me why wasn't there uniformity of experience if this was a natural body generated experience given that it isn't uniform and they never replied back. Someone else said there are two kinds of people, those who had a NDE and those who haven't. I feel like an ambassador to the world about losing your fear of death and embracing the fact that is natural to us all that we will all die someday, the most ego free experience we can have because it comes to the high and low equally.
Flatline means no brain activity. Yet there are so many people discussing their experiences in another realm and so many vary by such wide margins that it cannot be confined to a process of the brain having taken the living part of the body into a gentle place so as not to be frightened by the death process.
How is it that everyone who comes back is massively changed? They don't feel fear either. I don't. It was so easy. I felt myself go and then I heard a pop. All of the world in front of me turned to black and white and I was gone. When I had to come back and it was communicated to me by my wonderous luminous mother by the mind not speech the reverse happened. I was so damned sick when I came back I was sorry. That is common too.
No one knows what's next. We can theorize and deny and fight and hate and call each other out. I don't care myself. I am an island of peace on the issue of the next life or not. I cannot tell you enough how I feel about what I experienced. Thousands, tens of thousands can tell you the same but too many don't because of ridicule. I guess it will be up to us individually to find out ourselves when we die. My belief doesn't come from wishful thinking. It comes from an experience of leaving living and DYING, actually being dead as a doorknob and coming back.
I asked every nurse and doctor, "Do you dream when you die?"
"No. You can't dream. Your brain was dead. Nothing could have occured related to dreaming."
When my mother died we walked to the lounge and sat feeling like we'd been strafed. A tiny elderly nun who attends death to help families sat down next to me and whispered, "Have you seen or heard anything yet?" At that moment, no. She has attended zillions of deaths in her ninety years and she was addressing something she had seen before and hospice workers, coroners and medical examiners have seen and experienced before. They are now talking together as professions about it.
Something wondrous is happening, my dear hearts. Something so pure and loving, so beautiful, soft, gentle and kind is out there. I was given the honor to see a brief glimpse. I wish those who wanted to know could see it but it comes down to one simple fact: You will find out when you die. I can only tell you don't be afraid. Embrace it when it comes. It will embrace you in such deep, deep love you will be changed forever if you don't stay there. Sagan was a scientist but he didn't know any better than anyone else. Today he is a smarter man on the subject than anyone else because he took the trip. If he could whisper to someone about it and tell that his hypothesis was either true or not I guess he would. And I would like to say I ADORE science but science doesn't have all the answers anymore than anyone else. I don't worship science anymore than I worship religious stories about heaven or hell. There is only heaven in my experience. We came here in extreme love and we are welcomed back the same way. That is my experience. Take it for what you will.
Scientists are people with opinions and many try and base it factually in their experiences. Few scientists study this because they are afraid of ridicule but they aren't afraid to fling ridicule themselves. The final test of the afterlife hypothesis will come to us one at a time. All of us will succeed no matter what happens next because we will all successfully die. I wish only peace for everyone on this subject and no fear. I don't have any anymore and I'm not young.
In the end, all of us will find out one at a time. Peace to all tonight. -RV
Here are some intriguing quotes I found on this subject. It should not be taken as face value that all scientists feel the same way on this subject:
Carl Sagan---American Astrophysicist:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Einstein--German physicist, created theory of general relativity:
"Science is...a powerful way, indeed - to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective...in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other."
Dr. Francis Collins--American physician-geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, American astrophysicist:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Max Planck--German physicist, noted for work on quantum theory:
"It was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls."
Earnest Schroedinger--Austrian physicist, awarded Nobel prize in 1933:
"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity."
William Bragg--British physicist, chemist, and mathematician. Awarded Nobel Prize in 1915:
"From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped."
Neville Mott--English physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1977:
"Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions."
Fred Hoyle---English mathematician and astronomer:
"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Walter Kohn--American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998:
"I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influence in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery."
Charles Darwin--English naturalist credited with theory of evolution:
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for
the existence of God."
Not everyone agrees. That is our great genius. have a great night.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I've always been fascinated by near-death experiences, IMHO.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)impressive part of this besides coming back. :-D My dad was PETRIFIED, absolutely PETRIFIED of death before and not after. That seems to be a part of this that is absolutely common. I wish I could tell everyone who wonderful the next part of life is but it is everyone's path to figure it out. If what I can tell you what I know and it gives someone some help then it is all for the good.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Just so everyone is clear.