Talk:Carl Sagan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Involvement as consultant in the movie Contact

It is my understanding he also served as science adviser in the movie Contact, any further info about this for the article?

Primary source

A good primary source for this article is here:

http://throwawayyourtv.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagan-on-Charlie-Rose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.251.22 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Google's search results for Carl Sagan

When I type "Carl Sagan" into Google I get Wikipedia as the second result "Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never admitted this ... When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, ..." I know this is more of a Google issue, but I think the summary should reflect something about the Wiki article being about the man and not just about his marijuana use. Can there be a way to correct this?

    That is a Google issue, but as of recent I checked and said result does not appear  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAgurl (talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Sagan smoked pot for all of his adult life, his last wife was a member of the NORML board of directors, and his best friend for 3 decades was marijuana legalization advocate Dr Lester Grinspoon, maybe this isn't such a bad thing. 70.68.141.163 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Dec 26, 2007, The high guy

Funeral March

I suggest the magic Vangelis Cosmos to sound perpetually at his page. --Javalenok 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like an idea that could be applied to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bold text==Talk:Carl Sagan/Subpages== I propose that all discussion from this page on the issue of how pantheism relates to Carl Sagan's views be moved to Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism. JWSchmidt 19:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

.....AND that the discussion of pantheism be removed from this page.
.....And that people be requested to go to Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism when they want to add new discussion of pantheism. Maybe there also needs to be Talk:Carl Sagan/cosmotheism or Talk:Carl Sagan/Attempts to cliam that Sagan was religious, a page that would cover all religions. JWSchmidt 14:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please. We're listing the nuclear winter in Iraq silliness but not saying what happened? Now I'm offended because he intruded into history, which he didn't understand. MichaelTinkler

"In a Nightline debate, Fred Singer predicted that on the contrary winds would dissipate the smoke within a few days."

Can anybody clarify this? I don't see how "dissipating" the smoke would ameliorate cooling effects.

Removed text:

During the Gulf War, Sagan predicted that smoke resulting from U.S. bombing of Iraqi oil and refining facilities would result in a condition similar to nuclear winter. In a Nightline debate, Fred Singer predicted that on the contrary winds would dissipate the smoke within a few days.

It's unclear where this is supposed to be going. Sagan made a prediction, someone else made a different prediction, and... what? Did the facts bear either of them out? --Brion

I guess where it is going is this: Sagan and Ehrlich's "nuclear winter" scenario always attracted a considerable degree of skepticism from other physicists, but like SETI (his other favourite project) was practically unfalsifiable. Sagan's prediction of 1991 being a "year without summer" on the basis of the same model, provided a way to falsify it. And it was very wrong - according to CRU data, 1991 was actually an unusually warm year. 203.51.99.36 10:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No Gulf War Winter

The smoke had an effect on local, but not measurably on global climate, thus Sagan was demonstrably wrong on this. [1]

I don't know how fast the smoke was dissipated after the fires were extinguished, though.

Aragorn2 14:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


"His father was a Jewish garment worker and his mother a housewife": this is awkward. Was his mother not a Jew? If the point is just to say that Carl Sagan was ethnicly a Jew, or was raised a Jew, let's just say it.

He was ethnically and culturally jewish. However, orthodox jews would not ever duly consider him to be a real jew, unless his mother was actually a jew.

His adopted religion, like Spinoza and Einstein before him, was actually a form of pantheism or cosmotheism.

According to a Cosmotheist Web site and dedicated to the late Dr. William L. Pierce:


"Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts that there is an internal purpose in life and in cosmos, and there is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one."

"What is our true human identity is we are the cosmos made self-aware and self-conscious by evolution. "

"Our true human purpose is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious individuals and also as a self-aware species and thereby to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal awareness, and towards the ever higher perfection of consciousness and being."[2]

Some quotes by Carl Sagan from his Cosmos TV series that do mirror the three Cosmotheist statements above are:

"The Cosmos is all that is, was, or ever will be." "The Cosmos is within all of us; we are all made of Star Stuff."


"We Humans have here on earth evolved consciousness and have gained some measure of understanding. We Humans are a precious form of matter, life, and which has been groomed by evolution to consciousness."

"We Humans are the legacy of 15 billion years of Cosmic Evolution." "We Humans are truely creatures of the Cosmos." "We are the way for the Cosmos to know itself".

If Sagan had been interested in adopting the God Hypothesis he would have said so after having said each of the above comments. However, as Sagan's work makes clear, he saw no utility in adopting the God Hypothesis and was not a "theist" of any kind. JWSchmidt 14:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Obviously, that "hypothesis" of JWSchmidt that Carl Sagan "would have said so" is just completely without any foundation in fact, and is just purely his own subjective and pov bias against the facts and Carl Sagan's own words. Carl Sagan was NOT any PERSONAL THEIST, but, his own words do clearly indicate that he was a IMPERSONAL THEIST, ie. a pantheist or a cosmotheist, and this is factually true whether JWSchmidt falsely claims that he wasn't or not.-PV

This is utter nonsense. Its just a religion trying to claim a prestigious patron after his death. Sagan made very clear in his writing that he was skeptical of all religion, and questions related to god or the supernatural. He decried the failure of imagination of those that needed to believe, instead of needing to know for sure. A mind like that would not make the mistake of simply relabeling god to make it thing he loved and revered the most just because it would suit his way of thinking. You mis-understand what Carl Sagan was all about. He wanted to know what was true, not fashion it from what might comfort his sensibilities. I would suggest you start with reading "The Demon Haunted World" before labeling Mr. Sagan some devotee of some marginal cultish sect of Pantheism. Qed (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth in advertising

At the bottom of the Carl Sagan page is an external link to an article called Contact: A Eulogy to Carl Sagan by Ray Bohlin.

If you follow the link you can find at the end of Bohlin's article the following:

"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."

The entire article by Bohlin is an attempt to condemn Carl Sagan for being an irrational materialist, a faithless atheist and an "enemy of the faith".

I think it is useful to have this link. It demonstrates the kind of reaction that Carl Sagan provoked due to his philosophical orientation as a free-thinker. However, I think it would be appropriate to label the link with a warning to readers not to be misled by the title of the article.

eulogy. n : a formal expression of praise (to speak well of someone).

The title of the article might mistakenly be taken to suggest that Bohlin wrote a eulogy about Carl Sagan. However, the article simply describes the movie Contact as being a eulogy for Carl Sagan. I can accept this portrayal of the movie as "a fitting eulogy", even though the movie was constructed before Carl Sagan died. However, there is nothing in the title to warn the Wikipedia reader that Bohlin does NOT intend a formal expression of praise and that he instead provides a condemnation of Carl Sagan's religious views. JWSchmidt 02:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. How do you suggest the link description should be changed?—Eloquence 05:41, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful to change,
Analyzes Sagan's views from a Christian perspective.
to
Dr. Bohlin suggests that the movie Contact can serve as a fitting eulogy for Carl Sagan. Sagan's scientific approach to the question, "was the universe created?" is critically analyzed by Bohlin from his Christian perspective.
I was going to sleep on it. JWSchmidt 06:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Butt head?

Apple gave their product the title BHA "Butt Head Astronomer" as an internal company name, after CS prevented them from using "Carl Sagan". CS sued, but lost. BTAIM, Apple didn't name CS butt head, and I wouldn't call it a honour. So I've delete the line. Fen 09:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One of the assertions here is that Apple used "BHA", standing for "Butt Head Astronomer" as an internal company name. This is true: I was working with Apple employees at the time (as a major customer), and that's what they told me, which is enough to make it true, since the use of the name is itself what's at issue. I don't think this is a claim that needs documentary evidence, since it's not something that would necessarily HAVE any documentary evidence. Jason Grossman 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone told you something, doesn't mean that that's enough to make it the truth. Imasleepviking 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis. --12.208.150.136 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant
CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 
June 27, 1994, Decided  
June 27, 1994, FILED


Here's a quote from one of Sagan's article in Parade Magazine in March 1996 called "In the Valley of the Shadow", also published in his last book "Billions and bilions": "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."

His wife in the same book wrote that there was no religious awakening or anything like that, he remained true to his beliefs until the very end.

I think those prove that he was nothing but a model atheist. I think he would consider an insult putting anything else, especially in encyclopedia. --Spec 14:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Sagan only believed in God using Spinoza's definition, in the same sense that Einstein talked about God playing dice. If he spoke about the cosmos, it was only to establish a sense of scale, not to attribute the universe with a divinity or a real consciousness of its own. He was deeply critical of what he termed 'significance junkies'. --Fangz 18:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Faith Healers

Carl Sagan is listed as a coauthor of The Faith Healers, along with James Randi. I recently read this book, and don't recall Sagan as being a stated author. I believe he wrote the introduction. Any comments? Stormwriter 13:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just checked my copy (which is the exact same edition as listed in the bibliography), and you are correct; Sagan only wrote the foreword. I guess this means it shouldn't be in the bibliography? Or should it perhaps be listed under a new subheading, like e.g. "literary contributions"? Mortene 16:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the reference. Stormwriter 18:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sagan's swastika theory

Hello. I've moved some text about Sagan's swastika theory out of swastika and into Carl Sagan. Sagan's theory has appeared in swastika twice, I believe, and given Sagan's notoriety I'm sure it will appear again. However, since the theory is unsubstantiated it seems inappropriate to give it any prominence in swastika. Carl Sagan seems like its natural home, if it has one. I'll let the regular Sagan editors decide whether it merits treatment in Carl Sagan. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Non-existence of) Criminal Charges

"When the biography, entitled Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention, but no charges were laid by police." - but Sagan died in 1996, so surely there was never any question of criminal charges being raised? I didn't change this just in case I'm missing something obvious about US Criminal Justice, but surely the War on Drugs doesn't extend to dead people...

(The author of this entry appears to have some issue with cannabis or Sagan. There are THOUSANDS of celebrities and public figures around the world who have made statements about marijuana use and not been subject to criminal charges. DA's need evidence and cause. Perhaps author feels inclined to visit several hundred celebrity pages and add "Criminal Charges -- why weren't there any" for all of them?)

Nuclear Winter in Kuwait (Gulf War)

Can Wikipedia actually come out and say Sagan was wrong about his nuclear winter prediction about Kuwait? Or should we just cite newsman Ted Koppel as "asserting" that Sagan was wrong? In other words, do scientists generally acknowledge Sagan as wrong and Fred Singer right in this instance, or is it still controversial? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 22:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

It is probably not wise to call Sagan's prediction about the oil fires a "nuclear winter prediction". Clearly there was no thermo-nuclear war in Kuwait. In his book The Demon-Haunted World Sagan admitted (page 257) to being wrong about the amount of global cooling due to the fires. Memenen 18:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading or "related books and media" is not the same thing as proper references. Those could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in that section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest using this method to compile references. Memenen 15:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weasel Words - "On the other hand, there was some unease that the public would misunderstand some of the personal positions and interests that Sagan took as being part of the scientific consensus, rather than his own personal views. Some believe this unease to have been motivated in part by professional jealousy, that scientific views contrary to those that Sagan took (such as on the severity of nuclear winter) were not being sufficiently presented to the public." This should be cited as it appears to be an opinion - but whose? LaPalida October 25, 2006

Hey, I read wikipedia quite a lot but I never edit... so if I should be doing this differently do tell me. I just noticed that his residence, my hometown, is tagged with citation needed and I was wondering if a newspaper article from the local paper is sufficient. The Ithaca Journal did a thing on the suggested stamps and it refers to Sagan as a resident of Ithaca. I know it's trivial, but... http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/NEWS01/802120342/1002 (Tnearing (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Inflated Ego

I am removing the sentence, "Sagan was considered by some to have an inflated ego," from the Personality section. If the original author can justify this phrase -- and expand upon it in-article -- it may be usable. But as it stands the sentance seems like it functions as a way to subtley slip a NPOV statement into the article in the guise of POV.

It is also unclear what part of the "Personality" section the "inflated ego" phrase is in reference to -- being the first sentance of the section. Certainly, Sagan's marriages are not an indication of an inflated ego. I'd take offence at characterizing any religious belief, or lack thereof, as egoism.

The Apple lawsuits seem like the most relevent example, but the issue could be spun either way: as either a reasonable request or as vainity. Using the phrase here spins toward the later, and is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Readers can draw their own inferences without guidence from the text. ~CS 18:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, based on the fact that you deleted the remark without any comment in the article's audit trail, I reverted your change. I then saw this "talk" discussion. To prevent misunderstandings like this from arising in the future, you may want to always say something like "Deleted text; see talk page" in teh audit trail.
I'd revert my own reversion, but the Wiki database is acting up and I can't see your version in the article history right now. But I guess we can let whichever version stand while this all gets discussed here. (Personally, I suspect I agree with the "over-inflated ego" comment.)
Atlant 19:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Atlant. I went ahead and removed the line again (with additional notation in the history), as your objections stemmed more from confusion, and not from opposition to the removal. If anyone objects, we can discuss it here. If someone wants to provide content to the article which presents actual accusations about Sagan's ego -- or provide better examples -- he or she should go right ahead, but as it stands the comment appears to be out of a political problem with Sagan's actions and beliefs. I'm not certain "over-inflated ego" passes encyclopedic muster to begin with. Perhaps more delicate phrasing would be necessary as well. ~CS 04:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the interesting things I read about Sagan (I think it is in the Poundstone biography, but I cannot find it in the index right now; however see this) is that he had a CV (Curriculum Vitae) that was several hundred pages long. I read that it included every (even casual) mention of him by any source that was ever printed. Memenen 16:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sagan was highly regarded at Cornell during the time I was on campus earning my undergraduate degree (1984-87). He was also widely considered, however, to have an inflated ego, so the sentence "Sagan was considered by some to have an inflated ego" is fair, if an understatement. Also, I was close to one of his colleagues on the faculty, who told me in a phone call, about a month after Sagan died, that one thing he regretted about "Carl" was that he surrounded himself with sycophants. In my view, this lends further support to including the sentence. Jplerner10 03:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ann Druyan "leftist"?

I note that Sagan's third wife Ann Druyan is labeled a "leftist" in the article. No supporting reference is given, and her article doesn't mention this. While she may well describe herself as a leftist, it would be nice to have something a little more concrete. Standing on its own, it is hard to tell whether or not this is just a fact or some sort of POV remark from someone who disagrees with her. Gwimpey 00:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Ann Druyan might accept the label "leftist" with pride. She has always favored education, freedom, and reason as the engines of social change. Memenen 13:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That comment sounds a bit biased in itself217.43.134.139 29 June 2005 15:34 (UTC)
I had in mind what I think is the original Western European meaning of the political "left"; those who favored "revolutionary" ideas like representative democracy rather than traditional systems such as monarchy. --JWSchmidt 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

carl's religion

anybody know about carl's religion? i'm guessing he was strongly against the christian right - maybe even atheist/humanist?

He was very interested in many topics that are traditionally thought of as religious or spiritual matters. He was very skeptical about traditional organized religions as valid sources if insight into questions like: was the universe created? what was the origin of humans and all life on Earth? is there some form of life after death? what constitutes moral behavior? He defended (in print) other free-thinkers who have been persecuted by religious bigots. See his book: The Demon-Haunted World and this web page. Memenen 12:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Carl Sagan considered himself as a free-thinker. He definitely was NOT an atheist. However, he could have been an agnostic. Does anyone have any official reference to this? --Siva1979Talk to me 10:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Carl Sagan refused the label of atheist, however, every thing he said on the subject of religion is consistent with an atheist. It seems impossible to me that Sagan could have *believed* in god (whether he was agnostic or not; which is an orthogonal concept.) I have always assumed he was an atheist who simply didn't like the label of atheist. Qed (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how you can say that he was definitely not an atheist, and afterwards asking someone to give you a reference. If he was the author of the book "Contact" -and he was- there you have a very strong hint of what he thought about the subject.

Sagan did not describe himself, but I would classify him as an agnostic. He was knowledgable about many religions and considered various religious texts 'moral guides and great literature' (quote from 'The Demon Haunted World'), while continuously reminding people of what science can say about the universe. I wouldn't class him as an atheist. Concering Contact: recall that the final plot twist in the book is the heroine finding a message hidden in pi. It is never stated explicitly, but one possible implication is that it is a message from God. Anyone who is willing to accept that idea is not an atheist, because they admit that there is some possibility that God exists. Michaelbusch 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote from Ann Druyan: 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 Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently 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 that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.[3] Atheism seems appropriate, or agnostic at the very least. --AWF
I attended the memorial and was the only journalist to write "Memorial in a Cathedral for an Atheist."
http://phios0pedia.org/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan&action=edit&section=1
Warren Allen Smith, Founder, Phios0pedia
The link Smith added is bad (Firefox opens it as a blank page). I've removed it. Michaelbusch 07:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

14 Feb 07 It comes up on my Firefox. Then use the total page, please:

http://phios0pedia.org/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan

His wife, Ann Druyan, also was an atheist:

http://phios0pedia.org/index.php?title=Ann_Druyan

Both Carl Sagan URLs also come up as blank pages on MS Explorer 6.0.2900 - Cgingold 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help to click the blue line. Notice it's phios0pedia.org - not .com (whether done on a Mac or a pissy)

Apparently the site he's *TRYING* to link to is blacklisted by wikipedia for some reason. When I corrected the URLs and tried to post them here, wikipedia informed me that the site was black listed. Qed (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Sagan is not an American agnostic and it's not clear why he's listed as a Jewish American writer. Thanks. . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Allen Smith (talk • contribs)

I still get nothing. Sagan was an American and a self-described agnostic. He was Jewish by culture if not by belief. Sign your posts. Michaelbusch 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is Michaelbusch using Safari. Links still bad. 131.215.220.112 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear why someone continues to object to including Sagan's wife's, Al Gore's, and the Episcopalians' public acknowledgement of Sagan's atheism - he was not an agnostic - at the St. John the Divine Cathedral memorial described at

http://phios0pedia.org/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan

Again, I am signing that I am Warren Allen Smith, Founder of Phios0pedia, at info@phios0pedia.org /s/ wasm@mac.com I am copying this to Janet Asimov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Allen Smith (talk • contribs)

Your links are still bad. Sign your posts. Michaelbusch 19:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: classifying the religious beliefs of Carl Sagan is likely to be complicated, because his beliefs changed over the course of his life. You could make a reasonable case to put him in all of Jewish Scientists, Agnostic Scientists, and Atheist Scientists. Michaelbusch 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is meant by "your links are bad" and "sign your posts." The "external link" to Phios0pedia was to allow Wikipedia researchers to read the only journalistic account of Sagan's final memorial, which was packed with his family present. His wife (whom I will contact to report what now seems fissiparous because it's her family that has to fight such errors much as E. E. Cummings's family has to fight people who write e. e. cummings) and Isaac Asimov's wife often hear errors made about their husbands' religion (which in this case is lack of any religion and abundance of positive philosophic views). Phios0pedia will of course list Sagan as an atheist, although you who are writing seem to say Wikipedia prefers listing him as a pantheist or whatever. My point is simply to direct researchers to what was said at his final memorial.

If all this is simpy a techy's problem, please be good enough to advise specifically how to make my links good and how to sign my posts. I have material about Thomas Mann, George Santayana, and dozens of others who have corresponded with me and could be "external links" also. If you wish, contact me directly at wasm@mac.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Allen_Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Allen Smith (talk • contribs)

To sign, follow the instructions on the bottom of the editing window: add '~~~~' at the end of your posts. 'Your links are bad' means exactly that: I have tried Safari and Firefox and other users have tried Explorer, and your links give only blank pages. I can only assume that this is a problem with the pages at your site. Michaelbusch 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Techy report: Yes, since February 13th there has been a problem at this end, one that is being resolved. Warren Allen Smith 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sagan was a self-described agnostic, but not a traditional agnostic. He said that an atheist had to know that there is no God. "I think if that there is no evidence for it, then forget about it." He was very skeptic about organized (and all types of religion) as you had said. As his wife said neither she or Sagan believed in a traditional God. "But if by God means the set of physical laws, then there is such a God." He also said, that you didn't have any compelling evidence for the nonexistence of God you couldn't be an atheist. So he was an agnostic, who didn't believe in God. Sorry about my English, I'm Hungarian. --Starnold 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's too late to re-do his final memorial, at which MIT physicist Philip Morrison, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, the director of the USSR's Space Research Institute, Vice Presdent Al Gore and the Sagan children and Ann his wife all celebrated the "memorial in a cathedral for an atheist." Labels have limitations, of course. If some people are happy defining God in a way a pure scientist would not, there's no law against it and it may help them continue their vested interests. See http://phios0pedia.org/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan#Memorial_in_a_Cathedral_for_an_Atheist Warren Allen SmithWarren Allen Smith 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The key thing to keep in mind here is that "belief" could never be satisfying for Carl Sagan. As a freethinker he moved throughout his life searching for truth in miniscule incriments, not some all-encompassing worldview, or religion, as some might call it. Belief, it has been said, is the first step in self-deception, as we simply cannot comprehend the universal truth that we all hope is out there. Not at this point, anyway. I think this would have rung true for Carl Sagan, and he goes into it in some depth in "The Varieties of Scientific Experience," the collection of his Gifford Lectures.

Sagan explicately denied being an atheist, he said "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God." of course this quote is very hard to find... go figure. [1] Bryanpeterson 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha! This confirms what I thought all along -- Sagan had been operating under the wrong definition for atheism. To *know* that there is not god is to be a gnostic atheist, or strong atheist (Flew called it positive atheist). However standard atheism only requires that you not have a belief in god. Which very much appears to be the case with Sagan. Qed (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On Carl's Religion: I was present at a seminar at Cornell in Spring 1987 when Prof. Richard Swinbourne, a Christian and famous defender of arguments from design at Cambridge (I think that's where he teaches) began his address to the group of 15 or so students by saying, "[now let's start with the fact that] no one would dispute that Jesus Christ existed..." Prof. Sagan, who was there to debate Swinbourne, was sitting directly in front. He cut off Swinbourne with the words, "I'd disagree with that." (BTW the bracketed words in Swinbourne's quote I'm unsure of, but that's the gist; the other words are an exact quote, as are the words spoken by Sagan). What I drew from that exchange, and even more from the fuller discussion during the 90 minutes that followed, is that Sagan was indeed an agnostic, or negative atheist, i.e. he did not accept the evidence that there is a deity, such as the arguments from design. Interestingly, he did not even accept the common conclusion that Jesus existed as a man. --Jplerner10 03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jesus existed is not a relevant argument from the atheist's perspective. Its only relevant from the theist's perspective. It doesn't score points or really get the atheist anywhere to suggest that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is questionable. The real argument is that if he existed, there is a false account of him in the Bible. So this should not be seen as any kind of evidence that Sagan accepted anything about Christianity. Qed (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet Sagan

Does anyone know if the planet "Sagan" in Songs of Distant Earth was named after Carl Sagan? --Memenen 8 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Minor Suggestion about Choice of Words

"In The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan gave a list of errors he had made (including his predictions about the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires) as an example of how science is tentative."

I propose that the last word in the above sentence "tentative" be replaced with "self-correcting." Though I suppose both are correct, tentative indicates hesitation and uncertainty. While uncertainty is an inherent (and fundamental in the case of quantum mechanics) property in science, I believe the point he was making is that science as a whole is self-correcting. That is, despite whatever errors or mistakes individual scientists make science as a whole approaches truth.

I agree. The original version said self-correcting. In Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World", Chapter 13, Sagan wrote that since scientists know that mistakes happen, science polices itself and corrects its own errors. In Chapter 14, in the pages leading up to his list of some of his own errors (including his prediction about oil fire smoke reaching the stratosphere and altering climate) he wrote, "Science is a collective enterprise with the error-correcting machinery often running smoothly." In "Cosmos", Sagan said, "There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny." If you read the entire context of Sagan's list of his own errors in Chapter 14, it is clear that he was thinking about science as "self-correcting." --Memenen 04:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Billions and Billions phrase

The article states that Carl Sagan didn't use this as part of Cosmos, but he did write (Cosmos, p5) "A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars - billions upon billions of stars." - this is presumably the origin of the phrase and the entry on this page could be updated. --81.178.117.224 17:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Carl Sagan wrote the following in the first chapter of his book "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium": "I never said it. Honest... I said 'billion' many times on the Cosmos television series... But I never said 'billions and billions.' ... But Johnny Carson - on whose Tonight Show I'd appeared almost thirty times over the year - said it." So, that's the origin of the phrase according to the man himself. --factorial 22:30, 19 Jan 2006 (UTC)