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.”
– Carl Sagan
Add to:
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I think that religionists are going to take that as a slap in the face. Of course it is a well deserved slap in the face for the most part.
But how do we win this struggle for reason? I think that the war for reason was deemed to be won through the U.S. Constitution… but here come the re-interpreters who have been biding their time. Ignorance is indeed great force/source of evil.
Look what a fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. The mind-boggling truth is that we’re gonna need some kind of supernatural power to get us out… and it’s just not there.
Is there any hope at all, or, are we just a mob of ‘Cassandras’ running in circles pointing out the living hell that we are making of our home?
The appeal of a God (in Christianity, Islam to be particular) isn’t meant because he is grand, or subtle, or elegant. It is because he is “your” God.
For that reason, religion will always be opposed to the progress Science makes in expanding the known universe. A little personal God is preferable to a magnificent God, to whom you are but the tiniest speck in his plan.
It is unfortunate, but close-mindedness is a direct corollary to religious belief.
This is a grossly limited interpretation of religion, typical of the thoughtless atheist out to run it down, unable to see the difference between a human made mess and a deeper truth one may aspire to. Carl Sagan was never a deep thinker and this quote encapsulates his limitations. One smug quote does not a philosophy make.
Tim: you’ll note that you’re not really saying anything of your own, including about why Sagan was wrong, other than insulting the man…
Religion is the human attempt to make meaning out of the human being’s perceived reality; the struggle to get one’s head around the question of who it is that perceives; and the struggle to accept one’s ultimate failure to grasp that which one cannot step outside of, namely consciousness itself.
Science delivers explanation and a particular kind of understanding, but it doesn’t deliver awe. Awe springs from the constant astonishment that comes from what consciousness brings and also from the kind of understanding that science brings.
The two, science and religion, are both important and those who say otherwise are half asleep. However, science is a method of enquiry whilst religion is largely a rationalisation. As observed above, neither one brings awe. Awe springs from within.
[quote comment="12406"]Science delivers explanation and a particular kind of understanding, but it doesn’t deliver awe.[/quote]
Sorry, but I do not know what science you know, but every time science finds out something new we did not know before, or offers glimpses of the deepest space, or provides for medical breakthroughs… I am awed.
Sure, the awe may com from within, but it does not change the fact that it was science that gave the chance to feel that. Of course, I am only speaking for myself.
About the awe of religion and science: new post here.
If we don’t rid the world of religion, religion will rid the world of us.
[quote comment="12458"][quote comment="12406"]Science delivers explanation and a particular kind of understanding, but it doesn’t deliver awe.[/quote]
Sorry, but I do not know what science you know, but every time science finds out something new we did not know before, or offers glimpses of the deepest space, or provides for medical breakthroughs… I am awed.
Sure, the awe may com from within, but it does not change the fact that it was science that gave the chance to feel that. Of course, I am only speaking for myself.[/quote]
Are you not awed when you awake in the morning and apprehend the whole of reality as your consciousness surveys all that is present?
Does not the preciousness of your own experience lead you to preserve it, to the utmost of your powers?
Obviously, one can also experience awe as a result of the appreciation of the laws that govern reality, but the laws that describe reality do not equal the experience of reality. Therefore the awe that you speak of is not as great as that which comes imediately from the experience of reality itself.
[quote comment="12812"]If we don’t rid the world of religion, religion will rid the world of us.[/quote]
Religion could easilly rid the world of us, but unless you understand why people are religious then you ain’t going to know how to be effective in removing religion.
Unless you understand why religion is so powerfull that individuals will martyr themselves and unless you can replace that power of religion, then you can’t overturn it.
I dunno. I think most of the people in my church would completely agree with Carl Sagan. The more we learn from science, the more awesome God’s work is revealed, at least to my feeble little mind. But then, we’re an Episcopal church right next to the University of Arizona, and astronomy is a huge part of Tucson’s life anyway.
When you view the Bible as we do, that it’s a great collection of books written by men, in a vain struggle to explain what they see in God, science blends quite nicely with religion. When you believe “God” wrote the King James Bible, right there in English, and every contradictory letter is the “infallible word of God”, then that same awe inspiring universe can get pretty small I guess.
PS - it also helps when our church is staffed by various and sundry levels of clergy who happen to have PhD’s and master’s degrees in real science first, THEN go to seminary as a sideline to answer a calling. It seems to bring a bit more balance, at least in our case.
One thing concern me that Religion, which is little god, can do great harm on environment and gobal warming.
They still have ineffecient building, single glazed window, poor insulation. The people drive to church or place
to performs religion activity inspired by the religion community. All of these add sinful CO2. Because religion encourage
marriage, birth of children and so on, which resulted increased population which lead to further harm….
The regligion must adapt to prevent harm towards environment, or they become meaningless in serving and protecting the
comminity from natural harm.
I tend to agreed with Carl:- let put other way… we just little god trying to be big god.
R.
[quote comment="13933"]I dunno. I think most of the people in my church would completely agree with Carl Sagan. The more we learn from science, the more awesome God’s work is revealed, at least to my feeble little mind. [/quote]
God’s work may be awesome, but if you examine your state of awe when you really are in a state of awe, then you will find that it is immediate and therefore not informed by the Church or by Carl Sagan, but by one’s own apprehension of reality.
[quote comment="14012"]One thing concern me that Religion, which is little god, can do great harm on environment and gobal warming.
[/quote]
The harm done by the society of which you are a part is grave. You should come clean about the fact that you are part of the problem.
[quote]God’s work may be awesome, but if you examine your state of awe when you really are in a state of awe, then you will find that it is immediate and therefore not informed by the Church or by Carl Sagan, but by one’s own apprehension of reality.[/quote]
I’d quite agree!
You all seem to be missing the big picture yourselves. Religion is not a bad thing, some people need a purpose in life. It is fair to say that religion has caused wars but what really caused all the wars is people. However the church does need to modernise and possibly amalgamise if it is to survive.
This is the classic battle between science and religion. Not so much what is said, but the mindset of the two camps. One demands evidence and rigor, the other appealing to our humanity. In this respect Carl is right - our humanity and imagination are so limited in comparison to the vastness of nature and science. If we only look at the world through a religious looking-glass, we miss out on so much of the wider truth.
I do however disagree that the religious God is necessarily small. It is often defined as bigger and more wonderful than we could ever conceive. (This of course does not help us understand anything). I think it is the religious mind which is small, and is only capable of imagining small things. It is only through science that we can understand the extent of the universe - the idea of ghosts, spirits and other supernatural phenomena (extending all the way up to God) have yielded nothing but ignorance. A lot of other quackery (not necessarily religious) gives the quacks a feeling of smugness, but contributes nothing but confusion.
The final slap in the face for science is the idea that the earth is only 12000 years old. A typical illustration of the differing mindsets and perspectives of the two camps.
A typical counter is that science excludes humanity too much, and scientists are arrogant in believing that they can understand and master the universe. Whatever lies beyond science, is God. I would say that learning of “God’s” work is a good use of our effort, particularly if it can make the world a better place. But whatever lies beyond nature, religion and quackery are a red herring and don’t lead to any kind of truth except the one in people’s heads. As methodologies they are proven failures.
Religion fears science because science explains what used to be the domain of religion. For example morality can now be totally understood in terms of evolutionary psychology. And by science exposing blatant mistruths in the Bible (for example statements to do with a flat earth, ordering and timings of creation, miracles, the geocentric view), it also casts serious doubt on the validity of the religious method in reaching truth.
[quote comment="14269"][quote]God’s work may be awesome, but if you examine your state of awe when you really are in a state of awe, then you will find that it is immediate and therefore not informed by the Church or by Carl Sagan, but by one’s own apprehension of reality.[/quote]
I’d quite agree![/quote]
In that case you are your own man. I salute you as a realised person!
God is neither little nor big, but eternal and inmeasurable. The Quran never says the universe is small and even more contrary to Sagan’s quote, the Quran specifically mentions the heavens are always expanding, most similar to the Big Bang Theory. And how can a religious person like myself not love science? I believe science is a magnificent creation from god and by learning science you are learning about god in a way. The Quran made many scientific claims before they were discovered as well help guide Muslims to scientific discoveries back when it was revealed by the prophet, peace be upon him. Not only this, but the Quran encourages rational thinking. Asalamu alaikum, peace be upon you all.
The biggest mistake of all religions and Carl’s is that faith has nothing to do with science. I do not think that one can truly integrate/relate a faith based view of the world which requires one’s belief in an absolute without proof; with science which tries to impartially prove and see the world. Thus in my opinion it is better for science and religion to stay apart. And neither try to comment on each other.
ex-muslim: the problem is that science deals with reality.
Saying that religion / faith / God is “beyond logic” is like saying they’re “outside reality”… which, in the end, is nothing more than saying “I know this can’t possibly be true, but I want to believe it anyway.”
In other words, wishful thinking. Something we’re supposed to outgrow in late childhood, when we understand that wishing doesn’t make it so, and that our parents can’t change reality, no matter how big our temper tantrum is.
The claim that “god” is “beyond logic” or outside of reality is actually even worse Pedro, for it is saying that necessarily “god” CANNOT exist…
I only recently became interested in Sagan while reading “The Varieties of Scientific Experience”, which is interesting to me to see how many correlations there are in it to C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”, although the two could hardly be more polarly opposed.
What I find interesting about this quote/thread is the way everyone talks of religious gods as ’small’. I can’t even calculate the number of references in the Bible to how big God is - Abraham being told the stars are ‘uncountable’; references to people being like ‘grains of sand’ in the desert by comparison; etc.
Whatever anyone believes, you should ALWAYS respect and even consider the possibility of someone else’s beliefs, because you might one day change your mind. People do it literally everyday.
Sagan in his last interview said something to the effect “I wish it were so” when asked if he believed in life after death. He just could not accept such a belief without evidence which is virtually the antidefinition of a believer. The two views cannot reach common ground. Why try? Why not agree to be one of the other without all the animosity?
No, saying God is “beyond logic” is just a simple way of saying our brains, yes even your brain, is not capable of understanding Him. Just because you don’t understand it does not mean it does not exist.
Also, “The problem is that science deals with reality”. Now, that is the utmost pompousness any Christian has ever been accused of. Are you saying that you know reality, that science knows reality? Are you claiming omniscience on the part of science? Sorry, just can’t be.