Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The 20th of this month will mark the 9th anniversary of Carl Sagan's entrence into the eternal flames of Hell. And since the Battle Royale on Evolution which Carl Sagan insisted was a fact and not a theory, is going to begin in just a few days I thought it would be appropriate to post the following article I found which describes both Carl Sagan himself and his atheistic/humanistic/scientistic worldview. It's a bit lengthy but quite interesting and will perhaps make for some interesting conversation until the big Battle begins.

The following is found on the net HERE.



Contact: A Eulogy to Carl Sagan

Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin

The Paradox of the Movie Contact

At the very beginning of the movie Contact, you should have noticed in the lower right corner of the screen a little dedication which read, "For Carl." This, of course, is Carl Sagan (1934-1996), the Cornell astronomer and science advocate to the public, whose 1985 novel was the basis for the movie.(1) Sagan passed away in December 1996, before the movie was released, after he struggled for several years with a rare blood disorder.

The movie serves as a fitting eulogy for the most visible member of the scientific community within popular culture. The phrase "billions and billions", attributed to Sagan, has become a part of the public's lexicon of scientific phrases, even though Sagan never actually used the phrase in print or in any of his public broadcasts or appearances. Sagan used it self-effacingly as the title for his final and posthumously published book.

Many of us know of Carl Sagan, but we know very little about him. As a planetary astronomer, Sagan made significant contributions to the fields of chemical evolution, Martian topography, and Venusian meteorology. He also served as an official adviser to NASA on the Mariner, Voyager, and Viking unmanned space missions. Carl Sagan led the charge both to the public and in the Congressional halls of government funding for space research and particularly SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

Sagan was awarded the Peabody Award and an Emmy for his stunningly influential public television series, Cosmos. The accompanying book by the same title is the best-selling science book ever published in the English language.(2) He earned the Pulitzer Prize for his book Dragons of Eden on the evolution of human intelligence, and numerous other awards and honorary degrees. He is the most read scientific author in the world, and upon awarding him their highest honor, the National Science Foundation heralded his gifts to mankind as "infinite."

The main character of Contact, Ellie Arroway, played by Jodie Foster, portrays Sagan's life in miniature. While not sharing Sagan's awards and rapport with the public, Ellie Arroway is a brilliant, driven, self-reliant young astronomer obsessed with SETI. Dr. Arroway endures scorn and ridicule from the public and science for her dedication to discovering signs of extraterrestrial life, just as Sagan has. Arroway, like Sagan, confronted with the demons of superstition, fundamentalism, and scientific jealousy, fought back with reason, sarcastic wit, and sheer perseverance.

Arroway parrots Sagan's views on the need for a rational, non- religious view of reality to solve our problems, his hope for an extraterrestrial savior to save us from our technological adolescence, and the wonder and beauty of the cosmos pointing to our species as a curious, brave, precious accident of the universe. What is paradoxical about Contact is not the conflict between faith and reason, but who is forced to rely on faith and experience instead of evidence. Following Ellie's trip through the galaxy and her conversation with an alien, she returns with no documentation. What was an 18-hour experience for Ellie appeared to be an uneventful few seconds to everyone else. She must ask a Congressional panel to accept her account of events on faith with no evidence. If you were paying close enough attention as the film wound down, however, you could discover that this paradox is only apparent. Ellie's data instruments recorded a full 18 hours--not a few seconds--of static. There was evidence of her experience, but it was withheld from Ellie by apprehensive government officials. The scientific validation once again highlights Sagan's conviction that science is mankind's only reliable tool in the discovery of truth, and that faith only covers up our fears and stifles our search for answers.

Contact is a must-see film for those who wish to comprehend and knowingly confront our culture's hostility towards faith that relies on revelation.
The Paradox of Sagan's Views of Religion

One of the most perplexing aspects of the movie Contact is the seemingly confusing portrayal of religion. The confusion, I believe, is only superficial. If you reflect on how the different traditional religion is discarded as irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst.

Sagan's disdain for traditional religion is clear from the beginning. Events from Ellie's childhood flashback through the early part of the movie and lay the groundwork for her rational rejection of traditional Christianity. In the novel, Ellie's father is portrayed as a skeptic of revealed religion; he views the Bible as "half barbarian history and half fairy tales."(3) In the movie, Ellie admits to Palmer Joss that her father was asked to keep her home from Sunday School because she asked too many questions that could not be answered, such as "Where did Cain get his wife?" Although this and other objections offered in the novel are easily answered, they are left unchallenged as apparently sturdy nails in the Bible's coffin.

When Ellie's father dies in the movie, the clergyman offers harsh and uncaring words about some things being hard to understand, that we aren't meant to know, and that we just have to accept it as God's will. This deliberately presents the God of the Bible as unknowable, cruelly inscrutable, and demanding of our acceptance. Ellie's response to the minister's attempt to be consoling is to berate herself on where she should have left extra medicine where it could have been reached in an emergency. Self-reliance and analytical thinking easily out-compete the minister's feeble lecture. In a conversation with Palmer Joss, Ellie confidently asserts that we created God so we wouldn't feel so small and alone. He's just an emotional crutch.

Two other characters in the film outline Sagan's view of the modern evangelical right. The long-haired preaching zealot is portrayed as a dangerous man, out of control and out of touch with reality. He later borrows a trick from Muslim fundamentalists by sacrificing himself in an attempt to derail the multinational project to build the travel machine. Richard Rank, the presidential advisor, represents that portion of the religious right that hungers and thirsts not for righteousness, but for political power. At a cabinet meeting, Rank offers sanctimonious drivel about science intruding into areas of faith and the message being morally ambiguous. If his remarks made you cringe with anger, they were supposed to.

And then there is Palmer Joss, the enigmatic, amoral, has-been priest. Palmer Joss's New Age religion sees truth as relative and the real issue as oppression. Joss has no quibble with the conclusions of science, just its attempts to overstep its boundaries and rule our lives. His knowledge of God is limited to an experience on which he does not elaborate and that intellect cannot touch. Perhaps the attraction between Joss and Arroway is the challenge they represent to each other. Joss's religion is at least scientifically informed and therefore intriguing to Ellie, and she is scorned by the same scientific establishment that Joss distrusts. A match made in Hollywood.

Sagan left no room for any faith that does not embrace the conclusions of a scientific materialism. This needs to be kept in mind when Joss challenges her about her belief in God during the hearings. When the other multinational members speak up in defense of Joss's question, it is clear they are only referring to some politically correct supreme being, not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Sagan's Extraterrestrial Hope

Even in a scientifically sophisticated film such as Carl Sagan's Contact, we run into our culture's preoccupation with life beyond our planet. Though Carl Sagan spent some of his time combating the UFO crazies, he nevertheless held out a hope that there are civilizations out there waiting to discover us, or us them. Where does this conviction come from? For a scientific materialist and humanist like Carl Sagan, this confidence comes from two sources. First is the notion that if life evolved here, it is presumptuous of us to think that we are alone. Certainly life has evolved elsewhere! Second is Sagan's and others' fear that our species sits on the brink of self-destruction and we will need some outside help to overcome our predicament.

In a conversation with Palmer Joss, Ellie Arroway gives a calculation of sorts to explain her confidence in life having evolved elsewhere. She is looking up into the plethora of stars in the nighttime sky and says, "If just one in a million of those stars has planets, and if only one in a million of those has life, and if just one in a million of those has intelligent life, then there are millions of civilizations out there." It is a little surprising that a film of such high caliber would get this one wrong. If you take each of those probabilities and multiply them together, that's one in a million million million, or a billion billion, or in scientific notation, 10 to the 18th power. Current estimates suggest that the stars number approximately 10 to the 22nd power. That would technically leave only 10,000 civilizations in the universe, not millions. That would mean that we are alone even in our own galaxy.

In another essay (Are We Alone in the Universe?) I summarized the calculations of Christian astronomer Hugh Ross. Ross estimated the probabilities of all the necessary conditions for life occurring by natural processes. Ross concluded that if all we have to depend on are physical and chemical processes, then we are alone in the universe. Life could have evolved nowhere else. Even the biochemical complexities of living cells are revealing that life requires intelligence (See my review of Darwin's Black Box.). Sagan's confidence that life is super-abundant in the universe is grossly out of proportion.

The second reason for Sagan's hope of other civilizations was expressed well by Ellie Arroway. An international panel, assigned the task of choosing the one individual who would enter the machine and perhaps visit this alien civilization, queried each candidate what one question they would ask. Ellie said she would want to know how they survived their technological adolescence without destroying themselves. Sagan has been a tireless supporter of nuclear disarmament. He truly feared that we would destroy ourselves before we reached our full potential. In the opening scene of his Cosmos television series, he remarked that our species was "young and curious and brave; it showed much promise."(4) Couple this fear with the conviction that there is no God, and the only source of hope for a salvation from ourselves is another civilization more advanced than us, giving us some pointers for survival.

This confidence that an alien culture that could contact us would be more advanced than us is not unreasonable. If they have the technology to purposefully contact us, and this is something we cannot do, then their technology must be beyond ours. What is never explained, however, even though it is raised in the movie, is why we would expect this alien culture to be benevolent. It is just as likely, if not more so, that an alien civilization would be more of the variety depicted in the movie Independence Day. This hope reflects more on Carl Sagan's optimistic cosmic humanism that any scientific reality.
Who Will Save Us, God or Aliens?

The movie Contact tells us of a more realistic scenario for a first encounter with an alien civilization, than, say, Men in Black. A radio signal is received from space that is broadcast at a frequency that is equal to the value of hydrogen times pi and gets our attention by counting the prime numbers from 1 to 101 in sequence. The message is authenticated as coming from the star Vega, 26 light years away. The message is eventually decoded and found to contain the plans for constructing a machine for one person to apparently travel out into the galaxy. Ellie Arroway, a young astronomer who discovers the message, eventually boards the machine and travels out into space for a close encounter of a supposedly more realistic kind.

A very tantalizing line is repeated three times in the course of the film. When Ellie Arroway, as a child, asks her father if there are any life forms out in the universe, he says that if there isn't, it would be an awful waste of space. Palmer Joss repeats the line to an adult Ellie as they engage in a conversation under a starry sky in Puerto Rico. It is a poignant scene as Ellie clearly is stunned as she recalls her father saying the same thing. Ellie, herself, repeats the phrase at the end of the film as she is addressing a group of school children and is asked if there is life out there in space.

Sagan has drawn a bead on the argument for the existence of God from design, or the teleological argument. Waste implies misdirected design. If the universe was created for us and we are alone, why does it have to be so big? Surely we could have survived quite well in a much smaller and economical universe. But if you think about it, Scripture proclaims that the heavens declare the glory of God, not man (Ps. 19:1). Indeed, if the universe was created only for man's benefit, then it is a waste of space. We don't deserve it. But if the main purpose of the universe is to glorify the splendid, eternal, all-powerful God, it could never be big enough.

Another interesting theme is the form that the alien takes. After Ellie travels through the galaxy, she arrives at a large docking space station. She is somehow transported to a beach, resembling a picture of Pensacola, Florida she drew as a child. Eventually, a figure approaches. It is her father. The alien appears to her in the form of her father. He tells her that they thought this would make it easier for her.

It's fascinating that Sagan often complains that if God exists, why doesn't he make himself plain? Why not a cross in the sky or a mathematical formula in the Bible? Why is everything so obscure? One answer from Philip Yancey's book, Disappointment with God, is that God did reveal himself plainly to Israel during the Exodus and they still rebelled, and Jesus performed incredible miracles and still most rejected him. The Father does not want to coerce our love. So isn't it interesting that in Sagan's own story, when a superior intelligence wants to make contact with us, they put us in familiar surroundings, take on our form, and speak our language?! If they appeared to us in their true form, we would be repulsed. Isn't that precisely what the Father did for us in sending Jesus to live among us? It appears that Carl Sagan has unwittingly answered his own objection.
The Worldview of Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan began his highly acclaimed public television series Cosmos with a grand overview of the universe and our place within it. With a crashing surf in the background, Sagan declares,

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."(5)

Sagan eloquently expresses his conviction that matter and energy are all that exist. He goes on to describe his awe and wonder of the universe. He describes a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, as the greatest of mysteries is approached. With excitement, Sagan tells us our tiny planetary home the Earth is lost somewhere between immensity and eternity, thus poignantly emphasizing our simultaneous value and insignificance.

In the movie Contact, Dr. Ellie Arroway expresses this awe and wonder at several points in the film. The most dramatic episode occurs during her galactic space flight when she is confronted with the wonders to be seen near the center of the galaxy. She is at a loss for words in the face of such beauty and humbly suggests that a poet may have been a better choice to send on the trip.

While this is all very moving, the great emotion seems strangely misplaced and inappropriate. If the cosmos is indeed all there is or ever was or ever will be, why get excited? If we are lost between immensity and eternity, shouldn't our reaction be one of existential terror, not awe? Sagan borrows his excitement from a Christian worldview where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice.

In the next to final scene in Contact, Ellie attempts to defend herself by finally admitting that she has no evidence of her trip through the galaxy. But she has been given something wonderful, a vision of the universe that tells us how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we are. In Cosmos, Sagan reflects that while we are a species that is young and curious and brave, our place in the universe is to be compared to "a mote of dust that floats in the morning sky."(6)

How can we be tiny and insignificant and rare and precious at the same time? Clearly Sagan cannot live consistently within his own worldview. His view of the universe dictates that all is meaningless chance and we are nothing special, yet he irrationally rejects the despair that logically follows in favor of being curious, brave, rare, and precious.

As Sagan neared death, many around the world were praying for him. Though clearly an enemy of the faith, the closing sentences of the novel Contact indicated a belief, a hope, in an intelligence that antedates the universe. Might he see the whole truth before he passes into eternity? In his final book Billions and Billions, his wife Ann Druyan writes, "Contrary to the fantasies of fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion.... Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching."(7) In reflecting on the many cards and letters she received upon his death from people telling of the impact Sagan had on their lives, she writes, "These thoughts comfort me and lift me out of my heartache. They allow me to feel, without resorting to the supernatural, that Carl lives."(8) Sadly, Carl does live, but not as she believes. Remember that enemies of the faith are lost and in need of a Savior. But even though they may be prayed for and witnessed to by colleagues up to the end, many, including Carl Sagan, will still, defiantly, die in their sins. It is a bitter, needless grief.

Notes

1. Carl Sagan, Contact (NY: Pocket Books [Simon and Schuster], 1986).

2. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p. 459.

3. Sagan, Contact, p. 20.

4. Carl Sagan, Cosmos Video, "Episode 1: The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean" (Turner Home Entertainment, 1989).

5. Ibid.

6. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4.

7. Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions (New York: Random House, 1997), p. 225.

8. Ibid., p. 228.

©1998 Probe Ministries.

About the Author

Raymond G. Bohlin is president of Probe Ministries. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). He is the co-author of the book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, served as general editor of Creation, Evolution and Modern Science, co-author of Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research and Cloning (The BioBasics Series), and has published numerous journal articles. Dr. Bohlin was named a 1997-98 and 2000 Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
 
Last edited:

avatar382

New member
Read Contact, the novel. It's better than the movie, and I *really* enjoyed the movie. In fact, the novel affirms a higher, non-naturalistic power. To say any more would be a spoiler, and TOL doesn't have
Spoiler
tags enabled.

I find it troubling that you refer to "9th anniversary of Carl Sagan's entrence into the eternal flames of Hell." Kinda shows where your own mind is, you know?

And why oh why do you people still stick to the old "Evolution is a theory, not fact" argument?? Is it really that hard to understand that in scientific diction, "theory" is defined as:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Science does not deal in absolutes. Don't look for something that's not there.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I enjoyed Contact very much. And I agree, this whole "Sagan is in hell" nonsense not only does the man a disservice, it's a gruesome and morbid spin on the man's death.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Granite said:
I enjoyed Contact very much. And I agree, this whole "Sagan is in hell" nonsense not only does the man a disservice, it's a gruesome and morbid spin on the man's death.
I don't doubt Carl Sagan is in hell, but dismissing God's warnings about hell are gruesome and morbid, if, before you die, you don't repent.

You didn't specify; have you read the book, too, or were you merely commenting that you enjoyed the movie? I thought the movie was great, but very empty.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Aimiel said:
I don't doubt Carl Sagan is in hell, but dismissing God's warnings about hell are gruesome and morbid, if, before you die, you don't repent.

You didn't specify; have you read the book, too, or were you merely commenting that you enjoyed the movie? I thought the movie was great, but very empty.

The movie. Never read the book.
 

avatar382

New member
You thought the movie was empty?

In the movie, Ellie Arroway finally understands faith, as much as someone like her can. I agree that the movie pales in comparison to the book (usually the case, with novel -> movie adaptions, just look at the latest Harry Potter) but Zemekis still did a terrific job with the movie.

There's more than the faith aspect, too... Ellie Arroway is humbled from her science knows-it-all mindset to a more humble one where she recognizes much of the world is unknown, and unexplainable.

I guess you could argue that conservative Christians get a bad rep in the movie, but lets be honest here... when has hollywood ever portrayed conservative religionists in a positive light? To focus on that would be to miss the point of the film. Contact is about the discovery of faith. It's too bad many people are so narrow-minded as to what constitues faith.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
avatar382 said:
You thought the movie was empty?

In the movie, Ellie Arroway finally understands faith, as much as someone like her can. I agree that the movie pales in comparison to the book (usually the case, with novel -> movie adaptions, just look at the latest Harry Potter) but Zemekis still did a terrific job with the movie.

There's more than the faith aspect, too... Ellie Arroway is humbled from her science knows-it-all mindset to a more humble one where she recognizes much of the world is unknown, and unexplainable.

I guess you could argue that conservative Christians get a bad rep in the movie, but lets be honest here... when has hollywood ever portrayed conservative religionists in a positive light? To focus on that would be to miss the point of the film. Contact is about the discovery of faith. It's too bad many people are so narrow-minded as to what constitues faith.

Actually I think Rank (clearly modeled on Ralph Reed) and the nutty bomber were portrayed fairly and accurately. And the bomber was more of an apocalyptic nut than anything else, anyway.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
The movie is definitely empty, and seems to show the lengths that one can go to, in an attempt to avoid God and fellow-men. Not only did Carl Sagan portray science as the ultimate knowledge, he had to throw a curve at Christianity while doing so. It's not enough to express his own hatred for Christians, he has to portray them as nut-cases. Typical Hollywood drivel. If Hollywood portrayed politicians just half as hard-heartedly as they do Christians, there would have been a revolution in the USA a long time ago. We get the short end of the stick, but that comes with the territory.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The primary thing that I find of interest is not the movie or the book but Carl Sargan himself and how he turned science into a religion so enthusiastically as to become perhaps the most influencial "atheist" in history. He truly was a prophet of Scientism, and I believe, due in so small measure to the impact of COSMOS (Both the T.V. show and the book), that those in the scientific community have become his disciples. Scientism is now the religion of scientist and Evolution is their gospel.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

avatar382

New member
Aimiel said:
The movie is definitely empty, and seems to show the lengths that one can go to, in an attempt to avoid God and fellow-men. Not only did Carl Sagan portray science as the ultimate knowledge, he had to throw a curve at Christianity while doing so. It's not enough to express his own hatred for Christians, he has to portray them as nut-cases. Typical Hollywood drivel. If Hollywood portrayed politicians just half as hard-heartedly as they do Christians, there would have been a revolution in the USA a long time ago. We get the short end of the stick, but that comes with the territory.

First, what is it with you Christians and your persecution syndrome? It's like if you're convniced someone is constantly out to get you.

Second, I completely disagree that Contact portrays science as ultimate knowledge. You could say that Contact portrays science as the best man can do, standing alone with naught but his brain- but that goes without saying. The technology we all enjoy, the very technology that grants us such a high standard of living is a direct result of science. This much is obvious.

Yet, it's clear both in the movie and in the novel that science and technology only go so far. There is more to life and the universe than what we glean by applying logic and rational thought. Many mysteries are unsovled and probably will still remain. Contact, to me, was primarily about the realization of the limitations of science, and thus the realization of the limitations of man. Contact is about a brilliant scientist that was humbled in a way she didn't think was possbile.

Re-read the book and see the movie again, I believe you were so focused on how a few fictional characters were portrayed that you missed the whole point of Contact!
 

avatar382

New member
Clete said:
The primary thing that I find of interest is not the movie or the book but Carl Sargan himself and how he turned science into a religion so enthusiastically as to become perhaps the most influencial "atheist" in history. He truly was a prophet of Scientism, and I believe, due in so small measure to the impact of COSMOS (Both the T.V. show and the book), that those in the scientific community have become his disciples. Scientism is now the religion of scientist and Evolution is their gospel.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is not at all possible for science to be "turned into religion". Religion and science are diameterically opposed in nature and purpose.

The purpose of science is discovery and knowlege of the natural world, the purpose of religion is mainly spiritual fullfullment.

Right there a big flag should be raised in your head - what does "spiritual fullfillment", which has an incredibly strong connotations to the supernatural, have to do with knowledge and discovery in the natural world?!

Religion is about revelation, usually from a supernatral entity. Science is about discovery.

Religion is typically fixed and unchanging. Science, by definition, will change. When scientists find a better explanation, the old one is scrapped.

I really could go on, but I see no point. Your point of view is a result of your religion taking the place of science in your mind., i.e., you look to the supernatural to explain the natural world. Don't look down on people who separate them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
avatar382 said:
It is not at all possible for science to be "turned into religion". Religion and science are diameterically opposed in nature and purpose.
Tell that to Carl.

The purpose of science is discovery and knowlege of the natural world,
The correct pursuit of which has never contradicted the Bible in the slightest.

...the purpose of religion is mainly spiritual fullfullment.
You know nothing of the Christian faith.

Right there a big flag should be raised in your head - what does "spiritual fullfillment", which has an incredibly strong connotations to the supernatural, have to do with knowledge and discovery in the natural world?!
Everything! You cannot discover anything of the natural world without presupposing the supernatural (whether done intentionally or otherwise). If God does not exist, knowledge of anything is impossible.

Religion is about revelation, usually from a supernatral entity. Science is about discovery.
Again, you know nothing of the Christian faith.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse​

Religion is typically fixed and unchanging. Science, by definition, will change. When scientists find a better explanation, the old one is scrapped.
The truth about reality never changes. We were either created by God or we were not, planets move in eliptical orbits or they do not. Christianity is about truth, not discovering what truth is thus your criticism here makes a error of category and is therefore of no substance.

I really could go on, but I see no point. Your point of view is a result of your religion taking the place of science in your mind., i.e., you look to the supernatural to explain the natural world. Don't look down on people who separate them.
The point is that they cannot be separated. Your pretention to the contrary not withstanding. I cannot wait until this Battle Royale gets started! You atheists are going to flip your lids :chuckle:

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Jukia

New member
Clete said:
The correct pursuit of which has never contradicted the Bible in the slightest.
Except for, how about 6 literal days of creation 6000 +/- years ago?
Or a world wide flood several thousand years ago.
Clearly the science contradicts those.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
If science doesn't contradict the Bible that's certainly news to anthropologists, astronomers, archeologists, and historians who think it's bogus and no use as a historical or scientific text.
 

Jukia

New member
Granite said:
If science doesn't contradict the Bible that's certainly news to anthropologists, astronomers, archeologists, and historians who think it's bogus and no use as a historical or scientific text.
I am not sure that it has no value as an historic text, in part. It ought to have as much historical accuracy as any other old text, at least until the evidence shows otherwise. but my concern has never been the historical accuracy except to the extent that it is used to "prove" the age of the earth.
 

avatar382

New member
Clete,

First, I am not an atheist.

Second, you assert that science and religion are intertwined and inseprable. We'd probably both agree that a great deal of scientific progress has been made in the past 100 years. Could give me some examples of scientific and technological advances made within the past 100 years that were discovered by the Church or clergy or any mainly religious institution, or otherwise attributed to the Christian faith?

Third, do you have any experience in the field of science?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
I am not sure that it has no value as an historic text, in part. It ought to have as much historical accuracy as any other old text, at least until the evidence shows otherwise. but my concern has never been the historical accuracy except to the extent that it is used to "prove" the age of the earth.

Good point. Accurate until proven otherwise is the best attitude to take.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jukia said:
Except for, how about 6 literal days of creation 6000 +/- years ago?
Or a world wide flood several thousand years ago.
Clearly the science contradicts those.
No it doesn't. Certain theories contradict it but nothing that has been proven or that even could be proven for that matter. In fact, the real evidence is that the Earth really is only 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood. I'd say that those were topics for another thread though. I'd prefer to keep this discussion on the topic of Carl Sagan and how his worldview is religious at it core.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Johnny

New member
In fact, the real evidence is that the Earth really is only 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood. I'd say that those were topics for another thread though.
Of course you would, because you know that you can't defend those notions. Only Bob Enyart can, o' apostle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top