Carl Sagan's Belief in Spite of Facts
Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:
You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan
We’d agree as the God denier Sagan himself provides supporting evidence in another of his famous quotes:
The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
Sagan believed in the (now discredited) theory of the infinitely old universe — the eternal existence of the cosmos simply isn’t true. The universe did have a beginning — the question remains when and how, both of which are currently subject to considerable debate.
Sagan held the wrong belief (as far as we know) up until his death — in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why? Because his world-view (secular atheist) required it. Even after most accepted the “big bang” theory, Sagan didn’t — he couldn’t — because it conflicted with his world view. His belief wasn’t based on evidence or science, but a deep seated need to validate his worldview (also a case of confirmation bias, a subject we’ll take up in future post).
… Hoyle dislikes the idea because, as he puts it, “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation”. Barry Parker sums up the feelings of most cosmologists: “If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us” (Herren, Fred “Show Me God” page 107–108)
You frequently can’t reason with atheists and evolutionists — their belief isn’t based on evidence, but on a deep seated need to deny the existence of God, as Carl Sagan brilliantly demonstrated. You have to admire Sagan, however, not many people (especially those claiming to be scientists) would continue to hold an absurd position to suit their worldview, when abundant evidence proves them wrong.
It’s sad many quoting Sagan miss the irony.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010
Comments
No. Even by a cursory glance
No.
Even by a cursory glance at Dr. Sagan’s work, and by that I mean only seeing his documentary Cosmos, he believed the big bang to be the beginning of our universe:
Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjwF_-ydcM
He did argue that the universe may be infinitely old, but going through cycles, collapsing and exploding repeatedly. There is evidence to support such an opinion.
He believed this back even in the 70s, and believed it all the way up until his death (Billions and Billions, Demon-Haunted World, Pale Blue Dot).
He believed it in 1972, eight years before Cosmos, during the period his book The Cosmic Connection was published.
You’re either purposefully spreading misinformation, or you haven’t done your homework on the man. I suggest you fix that.
Whats to fix? We agree...
And the article said “Sagan believed in the (now discredited) theory of the infinitely old universe”. Looks like we agree on what Sagan believed.
What’s to fix?
We agree Sagan believed in the infinite age of the universe—his famous quote “The
universecosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be”, which obviously implies an eternal cosmos, exactly what the article stated.Perhaps you missed the irony of Sagan's quote
When Sagan said “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.”— a statement quoted by atheists against religious people, you’ve missed the irony of that statement applying to Sagan himself, as he held to an infinitely old universe.
He simply couldn’t accept the universe (gasp) had a creation and wasn’t eternal, as that conflicted with his atheism.
Could atheism really be a religion, accepted on faith and a deep seated need to dis-believe?
What they were referring to
What they were referring to by the now discredited hypothesis of the infinitely old universe, is that the universe didn’t have any beginning (as in no big bang). THAT hypothesis is discredited, the hypothesis that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and collapse continuously, remains a prominent cosmological hypothesis, and it has some pretty serious science backing it up.
And he never said “The universe is all there is, was or ever will be”, he said, “The Cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be”, and anyone even remotely familiar with his work will know that when he says Cosmos, he means everything - not just our universe. That’s why he talked about other universes, other dimensions, and suchlike. Our universe, as he argued, was part of a greater Cosmos, which is more or less widely accepted in the scientific community in regards to dimensions.
That quote, “You can’t
That quote, “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.” must be taken in context. Sagan never said it, he said it through his character, Ellie Arroway in his book Contact. She says this before she herself has a semi-religious experience in the form of the Dodecahedron’s journey through space (really should read it, it’s an excellent book on the topic), and understands the religious perspective.
At the end of the book, Sagan has his protagonist (Dr. Arroway), see “god’s signature” in the very fabric of our universe - indicating that the universe had been created by something.
Further, Carl Sagan wasn’t an atheist, he was an agnostic. He didn’t believe in the Christian god, yes, because there was no evidence to support it. But he also argued that there could be a god, but he had made no position on the matter, due to a lack of evidence (Varieties of Scientific Experience, Billions and Billions, Pale Blue Dot, The Demon-Haunted World, Broca’s Brain, Cosmic Connection).
Atheism itself isn’t a religion, it’s simply a category for religion (just like theism is). It is merely the disbelief in any god. Many religions integrate it into itself, just like Christianity integrates theism into itself. Many atheists do indeed take the non-existence of god on faith.
But not all do. And Carl Sagan is definitely the wrong man to go after for this charge (Dawkins is a much better scientist to attack for it).
Can you cite the page in the book?
You’re right, I made a typo. It’s fixed.
That quote I’ve found widely sourced to him in many, many places. I don’t have a copy of the book, can you quote the passage with a page number? I’d like to have it and update the article.
But if he didn’t really say it except in a fictional account, I’ll have to look at changing the article. The main point is atheists use it against religion and miss the irony of it, and that point won’t really change whether he said it or not, but still I’d like to be as accurate as possible.
Oh yeah, we’ve written on Dawkins, and have a new article coming on him soon :)
I actually like Sagan and the Cosmos series—it’s still a mostly good introduction to the issues it presents (I recall watching the PBS series when it first ran a loooong time ago). His explanation on relativity is perhaps the best explanation I’ve seen for a non-scientist to understand.
I think he’s quite wrong on the eternal cosmos idea for lots of reasons, but that’s a sidebar debate I’m not going to begin as it’s really tangential to the point.
Don’t misunderstand the article as an attack on Sagan (he was wrong in some areas, but everyone’s wrong on something)—the point of the article was simply many people miss the irony of the (what has been attributed to Sagan) quote.
Atheists hold a deep-seated belief without proof, and when using the quote against religion miss the irony of it.
Well, I don’t remember the
Well, I don’t remember the exact page (it’s a 430 page book), but I remember while reading it that quote, because atheists like to use it a lot. It was from, I believe, one of her discussions with de Hurr in the book, but where I can’t find. I wish I could be more helpful on that note. The only thing I can tell you is I’ve read, seen and heard most of the stuff out there by Carl Sagan, and I can guarantee you that those atheists are taking him well out of context. The fact the quote isn’t sourced very well anywhere on the internet (aside as marking it that Arroway said it in Contact) is very indicative of that.
However, I can’t give you the exact page number, as I don’t have any resources to search for it.
That being said, I see your point. The irony in them using it is silly. Though not because of the “infinite cycle” universe model (again, it’s a hypothesis that has some backing in cosmology). I think the real irony of them using a quote out of Sagan, in any way, is that Sagan said many times that he doesn’t know enough to be an atheist, because atheists must know a lot. Atheists aren’t skeptics, they claim to know the truth that there is, absolutely, no kind of god at all.
Even more ironic is the fact that Sagan had his character grow out of that attitude by the end of the book.
And you are correct, he was wrong in some areas. He actually admitted that in several of his books (provided lists, too).
Rabid atheists bother me (Dawkins-kind), and I consider myself agnostic. Them being so obsessed with the idea of calling those they consider “religious” morons itself contradicts their claim that they are enlightened and guided by science. They simply don’t know enough to make a positive statement (scientifically speaking) as to the existence of a god or creator.