Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

[The Berean]

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

Well said Clete. :first:

 

[The Berean]

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?

False dichotomy. Many scientists are Chistians.

 

[Clete]

Is employing logic a bad thing?!

It is if you are employing it in an attempt to validate the use of logic. It's question begging at its finest and is therefore irrational.

 

[ItIsWritten]

Given what scripture says about the fool that has said in his heart that there is no God, perhaps the title of "Carl Sagan: FALSE Prophet of Scientism" would be more appropriate.

 

[The Berean]

I've read the book and the movie. Of the course the movie had more detail and they made changes in the movie. It's been about eight years since I read the book. But what I remember is:

1) In the book Ellie was born in 1948, in the movie, 1964.
2) In the book Ellie was agnostic, in the movie she's atheist.
3) In the book Palmer Joss is very minor character, in the movie he is Ellie's man.
4) In the book five people traveled in the machine, in the movie only Ellie traveled in the machine.
5) In the book there was much more evidence for the trip than in the movie.
6) In the book S.R. Hadden wasn't so Howard Hughes-ish as he was portrayed in the movie.

Joss's character was totally lame. He never once mentioned Jesus Christ. His faith was more New Age in the movie.

I liked the book more since it had more character development and more science details. The movie was just ok.

 

[mighty_duck]

If God does not exist, knowledge of anything is impossible.

That statement is almost true, what it should say is "If God does not exist,absolute knowledge of anything is impossible."

Clete, I think this is where you misunderstand what science is, and what it deals with. It does not deal with absolute truths or absolute certainty. Science is merely a tool to help explain observable reality with other pieces of observable reality (with some exceptions). That does not imply any absolutes. Science does not absoultely rule out the FSM messing around with our lives, Just that it has seen no magic spaghetti sauce as of yet.

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.

Science is theories. If a certain theory is accepted, and it contradicts the Bible, for all intents and purposed you can say science refutes the Bible.

If you want to argue science is an unreliable way to get relative knowledge, then go right ahead, we're all ears.

The statement that, "all truth claims must be rational", is itself a truth claim.
How would you proppose to verify the truth of that claim?

That is an intersting philosophical conundrum. However, science is a very practical field. Logic works! The scientific method work! They have both been very useful tools to learn about our environment.

As has been stated, there are some axioms. The reliability of our senses (most of the time), and the reliability of our brains (most of the time). If you deny these axioms, then you deny reality. While on an absolute scale you may be correct, on a practical scale all you say is meaningless to our reality.

Sorry, I generally assume quacking birds to be ducks. If you're not an atheist, what are you?

HEY! I resent that. Not all quaking birds are ducks!

 

[BillyBob]

Scientism is now the religion of scientist and Evolution is their gospel.

What's wrong with science?

 

[GuySmiley]

What's wrong with science?

Clete's statement was about Scientism, which I think is not science. Nothing is inherently wrong with science.

 

[BillyBob]

Science is not a religion.

 

[Clete]

That statement is almost true, what it should say is "If God does not exist,absolute knowledge of anything is impossible."

Clete, I think this is where you misunderstand what science is, and what it deals with. It does not deal with absolute truths or absolute certainty. Science is merely a tool to help explain observable reality with other pieces of observable reality (with some exceptions). That does not imply any absolutes. Science does not absolutely rule out the FSM messing around with our lives, Just that it has seen no magic spaghetti sauce as of yet.

What I said was correct the way I said it. Without the existence of God being the basis of one's knowledge one cannot know anything at all. If you deny that God exists you couldn't prove to me or even to yourself that you are not some fancy bit of holographic computer programming which is running autonomously inside a memory cube which is sitting on Commander Data's desk. For all you know none of this is real and you cannot prove that it is.

Science is theories. If a certain theory is accepted, and it contradicts the Bible, for all intents and purposed you can say science refutes the Bible.

That is not so. It is not a theory that the Earth circles the Sun, that is as much a scientific fact as anything could be and all such scientific facts do not and never have contradicted the Bible.

If you want to argue science is an unreliable way to get relative knowledge, then go right ahead, we're all ears.

Science is a terrific way to get to the truth, just not by itself. Science literally borrows from the Christian worldview every time it utilizes any form of logic whatsoever.

That is an interesting philosophical conundrum. However, science is a very practical field. Logic works! The scientific method work! They have both been very useful tools to learn about our environment.

You cannot know this either. Remember, as far as you really know, you might be someone else's dream and none of this is real. Science and logic, by themselves are no use to you in figuring it out either and so from a very fundamental perspective science does not work when it is used outside of a Trinitarian theistic worldview.

As has been stated, there are some axioms. The reliability of our senses (most of the time), and the reliability of our brains (most of the time). If you deny these axioms, then you deny reality. While on an absolute scale you may be correct, on a practical scale all you say is meaningless to our reality.

But that's just the point. You can't verify what reality even is.

HEY! I resent that. Not all quaking birds are ducks!

:chuckle:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Science is not a religion.

Atheistic science is and Carl Sargan's definately was.

 

[BillyBob]

I don't buy it.

 

[Clete]

I don't buy it.

Did you read the article? Have you ever seen COSMOS? Do you not remember anything of what you read in Sagan's books?

Carl Sagan was the most religious atheist of all time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BillyBob]

Did you read the article?

No.

Have you ever seen COSMOS?

Yep, it's currently being replayed on the Discovery Science Channel every Tuesday. I also own the companion book.

Do you not remember anything of what you read in Sagan's books?

Absolutely, Sagan was interested in scientific truth.

Carl Sagan was the most religious atheist of all time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Science and religion are two very different things.

 

[BillyBob]

OK, I read it.

My position is the same as before.

 

[Clete]

Science and religion are two very different things.

I think I've established that atheistic science is indeed a religion.

 

[BillyBob]

I think I've established that atheistic science is indeed a religion.

This is an old strategy designed by Fundamentalist Christians to discredit science by claiming it to be a religion because science is incongruous with OT teaching. By diminishing science to merely a religion, it is easier to pursuade potential followers that Fundamentalist Christian teaching is equally relavent if not moreso.

Yes, yes, this tactic has been used for decades. I find it disingenuous and utterly desperate.

Are you aware that there are many Christians who are evolutionists?

 

[fool]

Are we sure he didn't say "Billions and Billions" ?
I thought I remembered him saying that when I first saw Cosmos on the local PBS station.
I think the TV might have had an actual antenna on it.

 

[BillyBob]

I saw him say it to Carsen, Sagan made a lot of appearences on the Tonight Show.

 

[Vaquero45]

This is an old strategy designed by Fundamentalist Christians to discredit science by claiming it to be a religion because science is incongruous with OT teaching. By diminishing science to merely a religion, it is easier to pursuade potential followers that Fundamentalist Christian teaching is equally relavent if not moreso.

Yes, yes, this tactic has been used for decades. I find it disingenuous and utterly desperate.

Are you aware that there are many Christians who are evolutionists?

Do you think Jesus was an evolutionist? He seemed to put a lot of stock in the Old Testament. The fact that some Christians are confused on evolution doesn't help or hurt the point Clete is making.