Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s wife, wrote a beautiful piece for the Skeptical Inquirer back in 2003. It’s about science and religion, from a naturalist point of view, expressed in graceful and uplifting prose. An excerpt was shared around on Facebook recently by Michelle Agnellini Yaney, and is worthy of wider distribution. It’s a personal note at the end of the piece — as good a summary of how naturalists view the preciousness of life as you’ll find anywhere.
When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and 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. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and itās much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.
I can’t resist tacking on the previous paragraph, worthy of contemplation for its own sake:
And there were other instances of Carlās remarkable persuasiveness. One was a great story of a so-called ācreation scientistā who watched Carl testify at a hearing about creationism in schools. Carl testified for about four hours. It was somewhere in the South, I can’t remember where. And six months later a letter came from the ācreation scientistā expert who had also testified that day, saying that he had given up his daytime job and realized the error of what he was doing. It was only because Carl was so patient and so willing to hear the other person out. He did it with such kindness and then, very gently but without compromising, laid out all of the things that were wrong with what this guy thought was true. That is a lesson that I wish that all of us in our effort to promote skepticism could learn, because I know that very often the anger I feel when confronting this kind of thinking makes me want to start cutting off the other person. But to do so is to abandon all hope of changing minds.
It’s hard to live up to Carl Sagan’s example.
Actually I don’t know most things. š I was responding to your comment that we should not disillusion people from believing in ‘traditional fairytale god’ because we deem that they are too weak to handle (what we see as) the truth. I think that it is condescending to deem this on their behalf.
It is a very common thing to say, that we should allow these ‘weak people’ to live in ignorance, because the truth is more than they can handle. I grant you that. But I don’t think that makes it more acceptable. I think it’s condescending.
Notice that I’m not suggesting that we should aggressively seek people out and attempt to show them the error of their fairytale ways. Of course not. But we also shouldn’t decide on their behalf that they are too weak, and therefore refrain from expressing to them the truth as we see it. That would be condescending.
Off topic, but many will want to know more about Prof. Paul Frampton, who Unbelievably has been busted for coke possession in Argentina ! Most vile is that UNC is saying & doing little to nothing to support him. Finally, the drugwar has dragged a physicist down with it:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/20/decorated-north-carolina-physics-professor-in-argentine-jail-on-drug-charges/.
More links on Peter Woit’s website:http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4495#comments
Hopefully, many will come to his aid financially, & with letters of support sent to him, the UNC Chancellor, & UNC Physics Dept. ! Personal info:
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~frampton/home.html
Tyle, if you are a scientist, it is not up to you to allow/not allow what people believe. If you want to convert them to “your religion” then you are just like any religious nut. Remember when the church was trying to convert Galileo because they were right and he was wrong?
Considering that, as you say, you don’t know most things, why would you think that John Doe’s life would be better under your beliefs?
Progressive utopianism has actually killed many more people than religion.
I prefer “charity” even though it might not be part of official science.
I think, and hope, that Sagan did too. And you, too.
Nowhere have I spoken in support of the “evangelism of disbelief in fairytales” that you accuse me of supporting. Indeed, if I did, my motivations would be the same as those of the religious who are moved to convert others. (But this is separate from our beliefs being on equal footing… they aren’t.) And of course you’re also right that I can’t know for sure whether abandoning fairytales would improve a generic person’s life. Surely sometimes it would, sometimes it wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t be that good at predicting which cases are which.
But as you know, none of that is what I was talking about. Of *course* it’s not up to me to decide what other people believe. But it’s not up to *you* either. You argued that certain people are “too weak to have their fairytale god pushed off her cloud” (paraphrase of end of 10). I have therefore merely pointed out that this is very condescending. You are deciding that these people are too weak for what you see as the truth, and therefore discouraging me from attempting to enlighten them. But who are *you* to decide that they are too weak, and that we should be complicit in their continued ignorance (by our lights)?
Of course, we should be tolerant, and should not go around tactlessly attempting to convert people to “reason” (as so many religious people do). There are social costs incurred by such behavior, for both parties. But nor should we deign certain people too weak to be exposed to our perspective of the world, and therefore conspire to protect them from it. That, as I have simply been pointing out, would be condescending.
You also raised two separate issues which I think are worth addressing:
1. Charity: I say, yay for charity! š
2. You claim that progressive utopianism has killed many more people than religion. I don’t know enough about history to challenge you on that, so I’ll assume you’re right.
However, I will point out that evils have been committed which would not have been possible without religion (uncontroversial), but that the reverse is not true. Of course secular people have committed crimes, but these have always been crimes that a religious person could have committed also (and probably has, at some point).
Opposition of Catholic church to contraception? Only possible with religion. Arab-Israeli conflict still going on after decades and decades? Only possible with religion. If it were merely a territorial dispute, it would long since have ended. Ministers in Africa knowingly fueling the flames of AID, by preaching that if you use a condom you will be tortured for eternity after you die? Only possible with religion. I submit that I need not go on.
On the other hand, can you think of an example on the other side? There might be some, but I can’t think of any.
Here’s an example of what’s *not* an example: Hitler. He killed lots of people, but it’s not because he didn’t believe in God. It’s because was a hateful right-wing dictator. He was certainly fueled by ideologies, not by his lack of belief in one particular ideology.
Remember what I am NOT saying. We both agree that religion has been used towards hateful ends, as have ideologies which are not a traditional religion. But notice that this isn’t the argument I made above – instead, what I argued is that evils have been committed which could not have been committed without religion, but not the reverse. So, perhaps the crusades could have happened without religion. But certain other evils could not have happened without religion. But I can’t think of any examples of evils that couldn’t have happened WITHOUT a LACK of religious belief. So now I’m giving some examples (like Hitler) that maybe one could have thought would be an example of such, but which I think are clearly not. (In Hitler’s case, as I said, it was only incidental that he did not believe in god. It was not secular critical reasoning that fueled his hatred, but hateful dogmatic ideologies.)
Another obvious example would be the Soviet Union. Lenin was not able to claim power in virtue of the secular critical thinking of the people of Russia. Rather, it was some combination of circumstances (socioeconomic, etc.) which I’m not qualified to speak to. I’ll note that imminent historians have argued that Lenin was able to piggyback his status as Supreme Leader on the religious tendencies of the Russian people, which tendencies had been developed through religious institutions. But that’s somewhat irrelevant.
North Korea, of course, is among the most religious countries on the planet. Constant praying to the supreme leader (who is dead, his son is now in power, also considered divine). It is said that when he took power, all of the birds sang in Korean in their joy. Pre-WWII Japan, the Emperor was literally considered a god. Etc. This is all somewhat irrelevant; my point is only that clearly none of these is an example of an evil that could not have been perpetrated without a lack of belief in god.
But really, it’s a silly thing to argue over. Hopefully we can all agree that the world would be better off if people were less dogmatic, and critically examined their beliefs. We should not discourage people from critically examining their beliefs because we don’t think they could handle it, nor should we refrain from critically examining the beliefs of others. Most people are strong and independent. Not only can they withstand the examination, but they’ll probably be the better for it. And nor should we refrain from challenging the beliefs of others for fear that we will plunge the world into war and anarchy. Quite to the contrary, it is by forcing beliefs to be defended that we can avoid the scourges of dogmatism. These are the important points, and I expect that we agree on these.
Tyle, I never said people are too weak, I said some people find strength in God, just like you find in ?science. I think your view of history is quite biased. I have studied history since I was 8 (over sixty years now) and I can appreciated the changing biases over the years and along political lines. Progressive eugenic utopia (you forget Mao) kills as a matter of policy. Religions (most are based on charity) kill on the basis of failure to mitigate human viciousness. As it is, more religion would solve the problem: the christian model for example is to be like a lamb, forever loving everyone. The aforementioned great leaders instead intentionally eliminate those deemed unsuitable for utopia (for example people of religion).
Enough preaching:)
I insist that it is condescending to say that we need to protect others from our perspective on the world. I would not deny that some people find strength in God, of course, but this is no reason to withhold from critical examination of their beliefs. People are strong and independent, and will be the better for such examination.
I don’t believe that I made any controversial claims about history. People have killed in the name of ‘divine religions’ (christianity, etc.) and they have killed in the name of ‘state religions’ (nazism, maoism, etc.) but they have never killed in the name of athiesm. Not believing in Thor, for example, is no reason for killing. Perhaps you are right that a better, more peaceful brand of religion could help stop violence, but this is a completely separate claim and I don’t think it would be fruitful to argue about it. For one, I don’t know enough about history or psychology to have a well-grounded opinion on the plausibility of such a scenario! However, my suspicion remains that critical examination of beliefs is the best antidote to the scourges of dogmatism.
In any case, I have made my initial point as clear as I think that I will be able to. So, thanks for the discussion!
Pingback: Links (25/March/2012)
more than any of this stuff, can anyone in the world tell me how you can be happy and live your life and not become insane by “knowing” the simple fact that you are going to die?
i don’t believe in religion, or an afterlife. but i don’t see how being entertained by science is more rewarding than a wonderful, promising afterlife where we will all be reunited with our loved ones, forever.
to me that sounds an awful lot better than being together for awhile, forming a strong love, and then being ripped away from eachother forever.
i just don’t understand how scientific people like this can still be happy. i could understand if they said “i am very scientific and don’t believe in an afterlife, and the terminal nature of my own existence and the existence of my loved ones is very tragic and disturbing to me.”
^that would make a lot more sense to me. instead of “i don’t believe in an afterlife, but hey, the universe and science is really interesting so i guess that somehow makes up for it.”
i’m having some trouble with this, i gotta say.
sorry if i bummed anybody out, feel free to yell at me.
I agree with what The Cosmist wrote up until the very last phrase of the last sentence:
“Iām not against canonizing Sagan as a prophet of science, but please realize that he was fundamentally a *spiritual leader* ā his religion being a faith in science and rationality which is not much more difficult to deconstruct than, say, Christianity.”
How is faith in science and rationality “not much more difficult to deconstruct than Christianity”? Does faith in science and rationality include a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes, walking on water, and other nonsensical stories? I consider myself to be an average human, and the average human has to make decisions about who he’s going to believe. He has to have faith in that decision because the average human doesn’t have the time or resources to back up the claims of science & religion. At least my faith in science and rationality is grounded in evidence and scientific consensus (which, btw, is what all existing human knowledge is based on, contrary to what conservative talk radio and Fox News want you to believe).
Please, if you don’t mind, guide me for how I may deconstruct my faith in science and rationality, because I currently don’t know of a more honest and sincere way to live my life.
Quick note to megan: do you think it’s healthy for humans to create delusions in order to be happy? I don’t. Do you think that just because there is no afterlife that the here and now don’t matter? Of course they matter! There are many ways to achieve happiness in this life, but it’s not always easy, and all of us need to find a reason to get out of bed every morning. Read or reread any one of Carl’s excellent books. Go listen to Sam Harris talk about why there should be no need for the word atheism. Engage others in discussions about the nature of the universe. Knowing that everything around you will all eventually come to an end (including the earth!), all of that stuff is the only stuff that actually matters and I contend is the stuff that makes life worth living.
Actually it is healthy, I think! Doesn’t happiness kindof indicate that? I think studies have shown that people who partake in religious communities are often happy and fulfilled… that certainly sounds better than agonizing over everything.
Ideally I would like to not have to delude myself AND be happy, but for me (and a lot of other people) that just doesn’t seem to be possible. I find it hard to look at life as a series of losses one after another, trying to feel okay in between them, grieving the loss of loved ones again and again while trying to maintain composure until the day I die.
I used to be happy just doing whatever, back when I believed in “something”. I never believed in God exactly, but I always just had a sense that somehow everything would “work out” eternally, just because I was naive and viewed the world (or at least my world) as a generally good place. But it isn’t.
I can get out of bed in the morning and read books and marvel at interesting scientific facts, but it doesn’t ease my mind about the agony I feel over loss. It simply doesn’t. I wish it did.