Book report: The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan
In The Republic, Plato proposes government by philosopher-kings, benevolent and wise dictators who would rule justly and fairly. I would have nominated Carl Sagan to be a philosopher-king. He wasn't just a smart guy in his own field (planetary astronomy and exobiology). He was erudite in a number of fields, an expert teacher and popularizer of science, and had what I consider wisdom. He also seemed to appreciate people and the human condition. In my experience, this is unusual in scientists. Sagan also had a characteristic and vivid style both in speech and in writing that makes all his books entertaining and illuminating to read.
This particular book is the edited transcript of the Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Lectures) that Sagan delivered in 1985 (the same year he wrote Contact, one of my favorite books and movies). The Gifford Lectures were endowed by a Lord Gifford in Scotland in 1887 to address "natural theology," that is, the study of God based on reason and ordinary human experience, with no reference to sacred writings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology). Selection to deliver the Gifford Lectures is a signal honor, and the list of lecturers is a Who's Who of modern scientists, philosophers, and theologians, including Paul Tillich, Hannah Arendt, Freeman Dyson, William James, Henri Bergson, Arthur Eddington, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Albert Schweitzer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Niels Bohr, Arnold Toynbee, Iris Murdoch, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Dawkins, Werner Heisenberg, Roger Penrose, and Martin Rees. The title of the book is, of course, a play on William James's own famous book, The Varieties of Religious Experience.
In his lectures, Sagan explored themes and aspects of God from the viewpoint of science and the rational. Although he disclaimed the label of atheist, Sagan was extremely doubtful, stating elsewhere that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, Sagan is a congenial and even courtly host who is always respectful to those who do believe in God. This is in marked contrast to others (cough, Dawkins, cough) who regard believers as, at best, dangerous and delusional morons.
One of the delights of this book is how Sagan brings his own field to bear on the topic. For example, in the very first lecture he wonders: given the now-known immensity of the universe, with all the billions upon billions of stars and planets, why would God single out the Earth for special treatment? He invites us to expand whatever our theology is to encompass the entire universe.
In reading this book, his words are more than just printed on the page. We can hear him speaking them in his well-known voice. In fact, he seems to be inviting a dialog. Many times I found myself agreeing with him totally or appreciating a particularly telling expression of an idea. At other times, I felt like saying, "Come on, Carl, you don't really believe that." There are many parts that are very funny, such as his recounting – and demolishing – the main "logical" arguments for the existence of God. He's extremely witty about the guy-with-a-white-beard-in-the-sky vision of God that many people conjure up.
I learned a lot from his research. For example, he points out that belief in God can depend on how you define God. For example, Spinoza and Einstein imagined God as the sum total of all the rules that govern the universe. As long as you believe in the laws of physics (or, at least, that there *are* laws of physics), you believe in God. From this point of view, no one is an atheist. However, this is not the kind of God one would pray to, and differs from most people's conception of God. Everyone has a God they don't believe in.
He brings up plenty of ideas I find myself countering:
* As science advances, the need for God to explain things diminishes.
* Religion exists to pacify people and make them obey authority. "How rare it is that religions take the lead in confronting civilian authorities when monstrous injustice is being done."
* The religious experience may have a molecular basis in brain chemistry, the evolutionary purpose of which would be to pacify people and have them obey authority.
I find these ideas exciting. Good teacher that he is, he gets people to think.
One thing that I found most astonishing is that it doesn't occur to this consummate scientist to perform the experiment and report on his results. What could be simpler than to pray even a blisteringly satirical prayer for a month or two and see what happens?
However, I found his discussion about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, and its impact on theology, to be fascinating. I think that here he has made a unique contribution to the discussion. The idea is this: If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then clearly our vision of God is far too narrow. To mention only one aspect, if there is such intelligent life elsewhere, would they also have their own version of Buddha, Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed? (Ray Bradbury actually wrote a short story on this topic.) If they don't, why did this happen only on Earth? On the other hand, if it turns out that there is no intelligent life anywhere else, then the Earth really is of supreme importance in the scheme of things. It's an amazing fact that future discoveries regarding extraterrestrial life will have immediate implications for theology.
If you have any interest at all in these kinds of topics, you'll find this book illuminating and entertaining. It's a pity that Sagan didn't live to see this published. It's a tribute to his wisdom and his wit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
In The Republic, Plato proposes government by philosopher-kings, benevolent and wise dictators who would rule justly and fairly. I would have nominated Carl Sagan to be a philosopher-king. He wasn't just a smart guy in his own field (planetary astronomy and exobiology). He was erudite in a number of fields, an expert teacher and popularizer of science, and had what I consider wisdom. He also seemed to appreciate people and the human condition. In my experience, this is unusual in scientists. Sagan also had a characteristic and vivid style both in speech and in writing that makes all his books entertaining and illuminating to read.
This particular book is the edited transcript of the Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Lectures) that Sagan delivered in 1985 (the same year he wrote Contact, one of my favorite books and movies). The Gifford Lectures were endowed by a Lord Gifford in Scotland in 1887 to address "natural theology," that is, the study of God based on reason and ordinary human experience, with no reference to sacred writings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology). Selection to deliver the Gifford Lectures is a signal honor, and the list of lecturers is a Who's Who of modern scientists, philosophers, and theologians, including Paul Tillich, Hannah Arendt, Freeman Dyson, William James, Henri Bergson, Arthur Eddington, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Albert Schweitzer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Niels Bohr, Arnold Toynbee, Iris Murdoch, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Dawkins, Werner Heisenberg, Roger Penrose, and Martin Rees. The title of the book is, of course, a play on William James's own famous book, The Varieties of Religious Experience.
In his lectures, Sagan explored themes and aspects of God from the viewpoint of science and the rational. Although he disclaimed the label of atheist, Sagan was extremely doubtful, stating elsewhere that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, Sagan is a congenial and even courtly host who is always respectful to those who do believe in God. This is in marked contrast to others (cough, Dawkins, cough) who regard believers as, at best, dangerous and delusional morons.
One of the delights of this book is how Sagan brings his own field to bear on the topic. For example, in the very first lecture he wonders: given the now-known immensity of the universe, with all the billions upon billions of stars and planets, why would God single out the Earth for special treatment? He invites us to expand whatever our theology is to encompass the entire universe.
In reading this book, his words are more than just printed on the page. We can hear him speaking them in his well-known voice. In fact, he seems to be inviting a dialog. Many times I found myself agreeing with him totally or appreciating a particularly telling expression of an idea. At other times, I felt like saying, "Come on, Carl, you don't really believe that." There are many parts that are very funny, such as his recounting – and demolishing – the main "logical" arguments for the existence of God. He's extremely witty about the guy-with-a-white-beard-in-the-sky vision of God that many people conjure up.
I learned a lot from his research. For example, he points out that belief in God can depend on how you define God. For example, Spinoza and Einstein imagined God as the sum total of all the rules that govern the universe. As long as you believe in the laws of physics (or, at least, that there *are* laws of physics), you believe in God. From this point of view, no one is an atheist. However, this is not the kind of God one would pray to, and differs from most people's conception of God. Everyone has a God they don't believe in.
He brings up plenty of ideas I find myself countering:
* As science advances, the need for God to explain things diminishes.
* Religion exists to pacify people and make them obey authority. "How rare it is that religions take the lead in confronting civilian authorities when monstrous injustice is being done."
* The religious experience may have a molecular basis in brain chemistry, the evolutionary purpose of which would be to pacify people and have them obey authority.
I find these ideas exciting. Good teacher that he is, he gets people to think.
One thing that I found most astonishing is that it doesn't occur to this consummate scientist to perform the experiment and report on his results. What could be simpler than to pray even a blisteringly satirical prayer for a month or two and see what happens?
However, I found his discussion about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, and its impact on theology, to be fascinating. I think that here he has made a unique contribution to the discussion. The idea is this: If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then clearly our vision of God is far too narrow. To mention only one aspect, if there is such intelligent life elsewhere, would they also have their own version of Buddha, Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed? (Ray Bradbury actually wrote a short story on this topic.) If they don't, why did this happen only on Earth? On the other hand, if it turns out that there is no intelligent life anywhere else, then the Earth really is of supreme importance in the scheme of things. It's an amazing fact that future discoveries regarding extraterrestrial life will have immediate implications for theology.
If you have any interest at all in these kinds of topics, you'll find this book illuminating and entertaining. It's a pity that Sagan didn't live to see this published. It's a tribute to his wisdom and his wit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
Comments