Custom Search
Carl Sagan on Politics & Religion
I was cruising Paul Murphy's site tonight, even briefly considering clicking the Paypal link to send Anna some birthday money (Hah! Hah! Laughed at myself for that thought, I'm pretty broke at the moment), when I noticed an extremely long quote in Paul's nifty "Random Quote" block:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."-- Carl Sagan
Now, I ask you -- is the above statement an accurate portrayal of the human condition? Carl Sagan was a well-known atheist, yet he was always apologetic about it, very rarely antagonistic. He was also quite sour on the political system. Does this statement make Carl Sagan an anti-religion, anti-politics bigot, or is that statement accurate?
When's the last time you changed your mind about a political or religious issue and acknowledged that fact, rather than trying to hide it? What's your take on science's changeability vs. religion's immutability, or politics' stubbornness?
And perhaps most important of all, how often are major religions or major politicians willing to do a 180 on an issue?
Copyright © 2002-2010 Matthew P. Barnson. Comments and blog entries are owned by and copyright of the individuals who wrote them. All rights reserved. Logos or trademarks are property of their respective owner(s). Syndicate using
.
.
Comments
Fortune...
I stole that quote off the Unix Fortune generator.
I am always amazed how "right" science, religion, and politics always feel they are despite the number of times they are shown to be wrong.
Take another quote from my site. "A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes".
The Greeks were SURE that everything from thunder to volcanos to love were the products of meddling gods. Now we call it mythology. Common sense prevailed.
The same is true of scientist who thought the basic elements to be earth, wind, and fire. Or how about surgeons who practiced blood-letting and bleeding.
I guess though, even with all that stubborness, common sense prevails and ideologies ARE changed. Eventually.
I can say this. I have changed my position on so many views, having to eat crow or humble myself so many times in my life that I don't care to count.
--------
*This signature is an experiment in Google Bombing
mot propre
Theology
Well, the issue of religion is wrapped up in a single idea for me, that is one I have not backed off of yet. That idea is that religion is a way to try understand FACT. That's right.. it does not boil down to belief or faith, even, but fact. And I'll explain what I mean.
On Star Trek, sometimes, different aliens of different races believe totally that their Gods exist (I.E. Stovakor or the Prophets) but also recognize the idea that the other races gods do too.
Well, I always had a problem with that idea, and the idea that some in my family have.. the idea that "what you believe is good for you, and what I believe is good for me".
The fact is, Christian theology is built on the Jewish idea that we worship the "one true God", and that his Son is Jesus. It further purports that Jesus is the only real way to reach the "one true God". This, of course, allows very little leway to believe that "Christianity is the 'way to god' for me, but maybe not the way for someone else."
Now, that ideology is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, then Christ is the only way, and if it is incorrect, then he is not the way, because the entire belief system is set up on the idea that he is.. so ultimately the big idea comes down to whether or not that FACT is true. Some think it is not, I think it is, and could site reasons why, but won't here because that is not my point.
Assuming that facts and not opinions are the overwhelming idea, and that I have decided that it is far more likely that Christianity is true than false, the whole idea of religion becomes more scientific. Instead of weighing down in Dogma, I have tried to approach it with a scientific (or exigetical as opposed to isogetical) eye. I do believe that every word of the Bible is true, but that there are passages and sections that lend themselves to multiple interpretation. There are also sections that do not.
I have tried to steep myself in as much knowledge as I can in the sections are not open to interpretation so I can better understand the ones that are open.
Insofar as the major points, I have changed very little in recent years, as I have increased my understanding of theology. There have been times I have decided that my previous understanding of doctrine was incorrect when approached at a certain angle, and I have changed as time has gone on. (Ex. I used to believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life because I was raised Catholic. Knowing now what I do about James, I can no longer accept that)
Insofar as minor parts (or parts that affect theology less than others), I waiver all the time. There is a lot of poetry and symbolism in parts of the Bible, and one must be willing to reassess and change when necessary, as their understanding grows.
The point is, and I think many here would agree, all facts must be reexamined and questioned, and a faith that follows that idea will be closer to the truth.
NVZ: NINJAS VS ZOMBIES - THE MOVIE - www.nvzmovie.com
THE OFFICIAL JUSTIN TIMPANE WEBSITE - www.timpane.com