Book Reviews
LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE As A Member OR Visitor
Message Writer
Hire Writer
Report Article
Cosmos
Carl Sagan
ISBN: 978-0-345-53943-4
© 2013
Ballantine Books
I first heard of Carl Sagan around 1960 when he began to criticize Immanuel Velikovsky to refute the speculation of Velikovsky on the probability that there have been near collisions of other planets with Earth during historic times.
I read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision in 1953 when I was in the Air force. I was 22 at the time, and Velikovsky's book struck a chord in me. I had a Christian education during high school and did not understand why history did not affirm anything in The Old Testament. Velikovsky argued that the events recorded in Exodus about the plagues when the Israelites left Egypt appeared to be have been caused by a near collision of Venus with the Earth. He compared similar celestial events recorded by early civilizations all over the Earth but misinterpreted as battles between the gods as the gods tried to help their worshipers on Earth. He opined that if one ignores the religious explanations of what was happening in the sky and concentrates on whether planets really did change orbits in historical times, one would be convinced that ancient civilizations all over the world really did see Venus change orbit. I was convinced, but of course I was a young kid. Velikovsky wrote several other books: Earth in Upheaval, Ages in Chaos, Oedipus Rex, Peoples of the Sea, Stargazers and Gravediggers, Mankind in Amnesia, and other titles, which impressed me with Velikovsky's knowledge on many subjects.
Velikovsky was a psychoanalyst by training, but appeared versatile in many other fields. I was surprised by the fierce rejection of his ideas by the scientificworld, but I never lost my own conviction that Velikovsky was probably correct in some of his conjectures, and I spent a major period of my life reading his works and about the acceptance and rebuttals of his thoughts by others. I'm 84 now so I have wrestled with his thoughts for a long time. I notice today, that there is general acceptance that the Earth is vulnerable to collisions by large celestial bodies, far more than anyone thought in 1960, and that the Exodus probably has been misdated by historians. But that was not the case in the 1950s and 60s. One item that confirmed my acceptance in Velikovsky is why did the Greeks describe the god Mars as being pulled by a chariot drawn by two horses when, all along, they thought the planet Mars represented their god Mars? It turns out that Mars really does have two small satellites racing around it. But Mars is too far away from the Earth today for anyone to see those two satellites with the naked eye prior to the invention of the telescope.
Carl Sagan was a young scientist just beginning his scientific career in in the 1960's (he is two years younger than me), but he argued against Velikovsky from the beginning. Sagan was educated at University of Chicago earning a Ph. D. in 1960 when he was thirty-four. I thought Sagan (being thirty-four) was too young to confront the 65-year-old Velikovsky. Sagan must have had some kind of bias against Velikovsky. All Velikovsky wanted was for scientists to consider seriously his proposals. Serious consideration might help clarify certain issues not resolved in the general understanding of what happened in the past. He thought these unresolved issues fueled some of the psychiatric issues in the collective memory of some of his patients. That's what got him started on his quest to examine early worldwide mythology of errant planets.
Finally in 1975, the American Association for the Advancement of Science began planning a symposium to bring scientists together to discuss these issues. Velikovsky probably figured that finally, after so many years of arguments, the scientific community is at last ready to seriously consider his proposals. The meeting took place in February 1977 in Denver, Colorado. Sagan, to the surprise of Velikovsky, used the symposium to humiliate Velikovsky and discredit every point of Velikovsky's ideas. I think Sagan was only interested in defending the establishment's position so he could win his way into their gratitude and to advance his career. I thought Velikovsky got a raw deal from established scientists who did not want their theories refuted because, I think, they drew much fame and profit from public acceptance of their theories.
Velikovsky was popular with the general public, but the scientific community opposed him on every front. Finally in the late seventies, shortly after the 1977 symposium, Velikovsky suffered bouts of depression, probably because of the refusal of the scientific community to give his ideas a fair hearing, depression in a man who was a professional psychoanalyst to begin with. He died in 1979, a broken and disillusioned man. That saddened me. I felt sorry for Velikovsky, and being Christian, I thought I should pray for the repose of his soul.
I continued my faith in Christianity and have thought a great deal about our culture's rejection of Christianity, particularly when it comes to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the whole notion that everything just slowly changes over the years with no God or any intelligence guiding the changes and human beings simply evolving from brute animals, not to overlook the prevailing opinion that nothing in Genesis and Exodus is supported by archaeological evidence. These ideas rankle me because they influenced the formation of my children and of all American children. If our children are convinced that there is no God, I fear they will eventually meet disaster.
I was resentful against Sagan all my life, but now that he is gone, he died in 1996, I wonder (if my Christian faith is based on truth) I wonder if I should cut Sagan some slack also. After all, neither he nor Velikovsky were religiously minded. So I decided to read Sagan's book Cosmos. I had read almost all of Velikovsky's books. I should give Sagan a chance with an honest look at his book. His book was an international best seller, and the TV series of the same name was based on his book. His book and the TV series influenced millions of human beings (The Internet says approximately 200 million worldwide), so he gained the fame and income he was striving for.
I acquired his book and the DVD of Cosmos. I was impressed with both. They are very well organized, and contained a lot of interesting detail. I was surprised that his book and the DVD make speculations far beyond what can be proven factual, but that's all right. He is speculating on what he thinks will eventually be proven as science continues to examine nature and the cosmos, but I was astounded by what he felt awaits him after he leaves this life compared to what I think awaits me if my faith in God is based on reality.
Sagan begins Cosmos with the statement: "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be." This is similar to the claims of Christianity: "God is. He always was, and always will be." My acceptance of the revelation attributed to God through faith convinces me that this is absolutely true for God. He is eternal. He always existed and will exist forever. But the cosmos Sagan is talking about is evolving. It came into being about 13.8 billion years ago. It is expanding and is headed for dissipation some billions of years in the future. Even Sagan himself will dissipate into nothingness after he dies.
His wife Ann Duyran spoke an introduction at the very beginning of the DVD, a pretty young woman, who herself was impressed with Velikovsky in her youth before she met Sagan. Someone asked her, after Sagan died, if she thought she would see him again in a future life. She said When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me (it still sometimes happens) and ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was we both knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. How sad! I think all three of them, Ann Duyran, Carl Sagan, and Immanuel Ve;ikovsky still exist and will exist forever through their immortal souls. I shouldn't feel compassion only for Velikovsky, I should feel compassion for all three of them.
Sagan brings in a lot of historical detail of events that shaped his view about the conflict between religion and science, events that I know nothing about. I have to surf The Internet to see what really happened. An example is the martyrdom of Hypatia, an icon of classical (pagan) thought in A.D. 415. Sagan contents that Hypatia was set upon by a mob of Cyril's parishioners and who flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned. Her books obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint. This leaves the impression that the early Church was behind her martyrdom. Wikipedia relates the only known historical accounts of her death, two accounts that do not agree with each other. Her death was a result of civil disorders between Oreste, Roman governor of Alexandria, and Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. Both were Christian bishops. Sagan's four sentences put his bias onto the incident. I was not there to witness the incident, and I cannot find enough historical information to get a clear view of what happened. But I think Sagan does not know any more about it than I do, now that I have checked out his story.
Sagan does the same thing when he criticizes the idea that God exists. He claims that an old man with a beard having angels playing harps etc. is not his idea of God. This is not my idea of God either. I don't know why he chooses that statement to cast doubt on God's existence. Nobody takes a statement like that seriously. Probably, Sagan tries to influence his readers by inundating them with misinterpreted historical details to get them to accept his opinions without any regard to what is really true. If he is doing that, he is the big loser in this battle between truth and error.
He does the same with scientific detail. He, to his credit, explains a lot of scientific discoveries, but I don't think knowledge of science is a requirement for any human to arrive at faith in God. God made a revelation through Moses and the prophets continuing through Christ and the church he founded upon the apostles. All that is needed for anyone to approach God is to accept the truthfulness of that revelation. Work is still required because that revelation has been contradicted on every front, but there is ample historical evidence of all the contradictions for someone to decide what is really true, and then put his faith is what one recognizes as truth. One doesn't need to study science or history.
To his great peril, Sagan has deceived himself with this snow job of too many scientific details. which most people are not conversant with, and he lets his bias mislead his readers. He was undoubtedly more intelligent and far better educated than most of his readers, but he is the main one that is fooled by his arguments. He speculates to posit alien civilizations when, all along, he must know that there are no credible facts to support his speculation. He says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary facts." Yet he speculates that there must be hundreds of alien civilizations, even spending a whole chapter, and a whole episode in his DVD, cataloging the Encyclopedia Galactica, in which he presents a lot of detail on a catalog of all (possible) intergalactic civilizations, which he claims will be discovered through radio telescopes (even though we have not received a single message from them today--twenty years after his death).
There is something very similar to the Encyclopedia Galatica in the Christian mentality, the presumption that every human demonstrates, in real time, the history of how he, during his earthly life, responded to God, and that history is remembered in the next life. No human becomes extinct! We all will exist forever, some in unimaginable joy in God's heavenly kingdom with others not so joyful realizing that their refuse to submit themselves entirely to God's holy will carries a heavy price. God actually can be considered as the librarian of this Book of Life.
Searching through The Internet, I found this quote attributed to Sagan: "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine, p. 215].
This take me back to Sagan's Encyclopedia Galactica. If people from intergalactic civilizations merely post what they think is true, I would have an impossible time sorting out fact from fiction. I would not be willing to even try. I'm convinced that God does know what every person he created has done with their lives and all of that can be considered as "written in his book." Jesus told his followers: In my father's house there are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. So for some, hopefully many, the Book of Life has a happy ending, and for others, hopefully few, they will be punished. I surely would be interested in browsing through that book because everything there is true, because it's basically God's Book of Life, and it has a happy ending for all of us. I think where Sagan misses the point is that God does not want us to approach him by sorting through all the details about what others have said or what science has discovered. All God wants is for us to feel confident that what he revealed is true and place our conviction in that.
Another quote from Sagan is: The only sacred truth is that there is no sacred truth. The arguments from authority are worthless. If that is correct, then it would be impossible for humans to arrive at any truth. But all scientists are convinced that the fundamental laws of celestial mechanics are undoubtedly true. And the science expounded by any of them is offered as absolutely reliable.
Sagan never tries to explain the presence of evil in the world. He alludes to it when he criticizes wars and the tendency of all political governments to manufacture nuclear arms. My speculation on evil is that it is a spiritual activity of human beings. It is the refusal to abide by the holy will of God. Everything compatible with God's will is good because God is good. Everything incompatible with God's will is evil because refusal to comply with God's will puts into action events that God does not want, events that frustrate the happiness God wants all of us to experience.
How about if I speculate on God's revelation about the presence of evil in the world. Sagan, after all, makes broad speculation on the theories of science. If one does not believe the authenticity of God's revelation, particularly Genesis, one will never understand what life is all about. God created spiritual beings, angels, before he created human beings, and he created them as sovereign free persons. They resemble God in more than one way, especially in that they are free to choose what they want. God also gifted them with intelligence. With their sovereign free nature, they can act without compulsion in choosing anything they want to do. But their intelligence should warn them that if they choose against God they will bring disharmony into God's creation and cause grief and hardship for others who are dependent upon God to achieve whatever God wants to give them.
Thirty-three percent of the angels chose to ignore God's holy will and follow their own wills to achieve whatever they can achieve. This caused disharmony in heaven, and God cast them out of heaven and onto the Earth. One of them, the most gifted angel, Lucifer, influenced the first parents of the human race to also choose against God. He lied to them, telling them that God knows full well that if they eat the forbidden fruit, they will become like God, having knowledge of good and evil.
This is a major betrayal of Lucifer's reason for existence because Lucifer was created to be a morning light in heaven bringing illumination of what God is like to lesser created angels and all humans. This was an extraordinary privilege to given Lucifer, but he wanted more. He betrayed the very reason God created him. And he then misled the smallest and least gifted persons that God created.
I have speculated on my Christian Faith explaining what I derive from my Christian Faith just like Sagan speculated on Encyclopedia Galactica to explain what he derives from his speculation on extraterrestrial civilizations and radio signals from extragalactic civilizations. He spends twenty-six pages in his book and a full episode from his DVD drawing conclusions from them even though there is not a shred of incontrovertible fact supporting any of it. There is nothing there. And if he is correct in that there is no life beyond the grave, he will never participate in Encyclopedia Galatica.
Most human beings live sad and unproductive lives. Sagan doesn't address this in Cosmos, but Christianity does. Human beings lead sorrowful lives because rebellion against God is operating in the world. The strong oppress the weak, very little brotherly love is exhibited in the world. Few love others as they love themselves as God commands. The rich want to get richer, the powerful want to get more powerful no matter the price exacted upon others as they grab what they want. We are all victims of the incredible selfishness of others who want to amass for themselves whatever they can get out of this life.
God observes all of that and the angels and those humans who have already left this life observe it also. This is the real Encyclopedia Galactia. When we leave this life we will be able to peruse through the lives of others to understand why God created each one of us and why God plunged us, plunged me, into this war between good and evil. We will see the role each one of us played in this struggle and our own contribution to the eventual dismantling of evil in the world. That would be a lot more edifying for us to see how each one of us actually did accomplish something worthwhile in our lives compared to the sterile inquisitiveness obtained from learning what alien civilizations accomplished with their science in other civilizations.
Another criticism about Sagan's euphoria about possible alien civilizations is why is he so optimistic? Human political history show an almost universal oppression of primitive cultures by more advanced cultures. Even science fiction portrays oppression by advanced civilizations. If there are intergalactic advanced civilizations, I would worry how they will treat us if they ever came to our planet. I don't think anyone would look forward to an alien civilization who wants to mine minerals on our planet and decides to enslave us to work in the mines or who might consider us inferior and not fully civilized because we have not advanced our civilization as much as they have. There are racial wounds that still operate on Earth because of what previous generations did to the primitive societies in violation of God's commands that they encountered in their ambition to dominate the world.
Sagan argues that: No civilization can possibly survive an interstellar space-faring phase unless it can limit its numbers to zero population growth. He also states: Any civilization that engages in serious space exploration and colonization must have exercised zero population growth or something very close to it for many generations. Here again I have problems with Sagan's vision of a space-faring civilization. It sound too selfish for those who achieve it. I like the Christian mindset better where there is room for every human God creates. There's no need to freeze others out.
I realize not many of my readers will be sympathetic to what I write here, but I am an old man. I do not have much time left to me in this life. I spent a long time speculating on what life is really all about and about what happens when a soul leaves this life. Is it impossible to influence that soul? I don't think so. I hope Velikovsky benefitted from my prayers. And his lifelong nemesis, Carl Sagan, the bad guy. Should I wish ruin for him? I don't think so. I'm sure he is loved by God as much as I am. I should push my Christian Faith to the limit and pray for Sagan's soul also, and for Ann Duyran's soul. I should pray for every departed soul so that when I reach the next life I will realized I did not abandon anyone. Hopefully I helped some of them to choose correctly when they finally encountered God and be admitted into God's heavenly kingdom. That would please me very much.
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR
This article has been read 1185 times < Previous | Next >
Free Reprints
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
NEW - Surprise Me With an Article - Click here for a random URL
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
FaithWriters offers Christian reading material for Christian readers. We offer Christian articles, Christian fiction, Christian non-fiction, Christian Bible studies, Christian poems, Christian articles for sale, free use Christian articles, Christian living articles, New Covenant Christian Bible Studies, Christian magazine articles and new Christian articles. We write for Jesus about God, the Bible, salvation, prayer and the word of God.