Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Moved from Talk:Carl Sagan)
- Can you show any cites from a non-Cosmotheist source showing Sagan is a pantheist, let alone a Cosmotheist? Just because Cosmotheists claim him as one doesn't mean a damn thing about him - David Gerard 23:33, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
Are you "reverters" disputing the fact that Carl Sagan was a pantheist or cosmotheist? Yes, by his own words I can demonstrate and prove that he most certainly was and along with his wife Ann Druyan. Try reading his own words from his book COSMOS, or from the TV series and video of the same name. I agree, that my claims do mean nothing without such proof, but, there certainly is plenty of evidence and proof from his own words to indicate that Carl Sagan was a pantheist/cosmotheist. (User:216.99.245.184)
- I could barely credit "pantheist", except that you haven't provided anything vaguely resembling a cite, let alone a good one. For "cosmotheist", my personal standard of proof is going to be pretty damned high. Wikipedia is not a recruitment advertising platform - David Gerard 23:45, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
I will give you several quoted examples of Carl Sagan's pantheism/cosmotheism.
Carl Sagan
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Pale Blue Dot
That unconventional emerging "religion" is "cosmotheism" which is also a synonym of "pantheism" and according to Websters' Unabridged Dictionary of 1912.
Is that "objective" standard of proof just not good enough for you, David?
I can provide many more examples of quotes from Carl Sagan's own works to show that he and his wife were pantheists/cosmotheists.
- Hi anonymous, the quote you cite is very vague and non-specific. It does not refer directly to cosmotheism or pantheism. Sagan was known for expressing himself in agreeable ways; many people could find their beliefs reflected in his statements. Someone could easily argue that the above quote refers to existing New Age beliefs, for example. So unless you can dig up a quote where Sagan pretty much directly says "I am a pantheist" or "I am a cosmotheist", we should not report these labels, but instead report what he said. The above paragraph from Pale Blue Dot, for example, could well go into the article. Would you agree with that as a compromise?—Eloquence 16:00, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it is too general and non-specific out of context, and I will add some more "quotes" of his to prove my point and to demonstrate that he truely was a pantheist/cosmotheist, and by his own words. You can add that quote for starters, but, I will find the specific quote you want.
- The Pale Blue Dot quote is already used on pantheism. And it verges on too nonspecific to really support that.
Indeed, because it was pantheism or cosmotheism that he was talking about in the first place!
- Furthermore, "cosmotheism" may have been an exact synonym of "pantheism" in 1912, but William Pierce's version of it had considerably changed the denotation as well as connotation of the term by Sagan's time. As such, it really would require something out of Sagan's mouth saying "I am a cosmotheist" before it would warrant mention in Carl Sagan. - David Gerard 16:24, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
'but William Pierce's version of it had considerably changed the denotation as well as connotation of the term by Sagan's time. As such, it really would require something out of Sagan's mouth saying "I am a cosmotheist" before it would warrant mention in Carl Sagan. - David Gerard 16:24, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary, the "denotation and connotation" of the term "cosmotheism" has only been "changed" by "political and religious bigots" opposed to Dr. Pierce and NOT to the actual MEANING of the term, "cosmotheism", itself! What only makes someone a pantheist or a cosmotheist is only their own stated or implied belief that "GOD is the COSMOS and that the COSMOS is GOD", which Carl Sagan had actually done, and NOT any such "testimonial" from them explicitly saying what he was! What nonsense!
Paul Vogel is right! David Gerard is being a bigot and is being "unreasonable". The fact is, Carl Sagan had said and had written very many things to clearly indicate that he had a "pantheistic" worldview.
- The right thing to do is not to apply a controversial term to Sagan, but to simply cite his own words and his own beliefs. This is particularly important as Sagan can no longer speak for himself.—Eloquence 13:22, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
- You're speaking of yourself in the third person now, Paul? - David Gerard 13:32, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pantheistic
Is there a dispute as to whether Cosmos is pantheistic? Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- Only David Gerard is "disputing it", when "Cosmos" was quite clearly "pantheistic".
- Paul Vogel has occasionally swung by and covered this article in links to cosmotheism and pantheism. Read the above. - David Gerard 17:32, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Only because that is what Carl Sagan actually promoted in his televison program "Cosmos" and within many of his books.
-
-
- Oh, good - you have a reference to the program being promoted as such? Glad to hear it. What is it? - David Gerard 20:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
-
- OK, but this is a question about the word being used once, to describe Cosmos. Anthony DiPierro 17:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- It has been used far more often than that, and mostly and mainly within "pantheistic" or "cosmotheistic" circles.
(cur) (last) . . 19:59, 24 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv Vogelspam (was the word used in the series or its promotion?))
Are you denying that the series "Cosmos" was not "pantheistic", just because the word "pantheism" may have not have been explicitly stated?
(cur) (last) . . 19:18, 31 Mar 2004 . . Eloquence (rm pantheism - cite some authority, or do not make the claim)
What could be more "authoritive" than Webster's Dictionary and Carl Sagan's own words? Curious.
Main Entry: pan·the·ism Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
Obviously, David is a little "dense" as the reference is clearly the definiton above:
(cur) (last) . . 16:08, 29 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv Vogelspam (you still have no reference for it whatsoever, do you?))
That "spam" idea of yours, David Gerard, is really just complete nonsense, as what actually makes something "pantheistic" is the idea of GOD in ALL and ALL in GOD, and whether or not GOD is the IMPERSONAL COSMOS or is any PERSONAL GOD.
- I mean any reference that shows that was the show's intention, which is what placing it in the header means. Not that you can pull a dictionary definition out of the air and try to get it in that way. Do you have any references that show it is intended to be pantheistic as such? David Gerard 16:26, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
The name "Cosmos", clearly indicates the "pantheistic" intention:
http://css.peak.org/newsletter/1997/aug97/sagan.html
One of the quotes out of the above is clearly "pantheistic".
Need I point it out to you?
Here it is:
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
-- Carl Sagan
Carl Sagan was a "pantheist", 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe, and his work "Cosmos" was and is quite clearly "pantheistic" in intent.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
- You have no references of Carl Sagan saying "I am a pantheist". You have no references to show that Cosmos was explicitly pantheistic in intent, and certainly not to the degree that the word belongs in the intro. - David Gerard 18:30, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Such explicit "references" are both unnecessary and irrelevant. His own words do clearly indicate that he was in fact a "pantheist", and that even the very title "Cosmos" clearly reveals the "pantheistic" intent of his work. Obviously, you really do have no real clue about neither Carl Sagan's spiritual beliefs nor much about "pantheism" or "cosmotheism", whatsoever.
-
- What else isn't new?
-
- Best regards,
-
- Paul Vogel
-
-
- His own words do not SAY he was in fact a "pantheist", in quotes as if from a quotation. Please produce evidence of Carl Sagan ever, ever attributing the word "pantheist" to himself. - David Gerard 18:42, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Such explicit "references" are both unnecessary and irrelevant.
-
-
-
-
-
- (cur) (last) . . 18:34, 29 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv Vogelspam (was the word used in the series or its promotion? You have been asked repeatedly for a shred of actual evidence and not come through))
-
-
-
-
-
- Nonsense!!!
-
-
-
-
-
- His own words do clearly indicate that he was in fact a "pantheist", and that even the very title "Cosmos" clearly reveals the "pantheistic" intent of his work.
-
-
-
-
-
- Obviously, you really do have no real clue about neither Carl Sagan's spiritual beliefs nor much about "pantheism" or "cosmotheism", whatsoever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Can you produce ANY quote in which he ever used the words "pantheist" or "pantheism" as attributes of himself? That's a yes or no question. Is the answer to that question yes or no? - David Gerard 18:53, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
Not necessary.
For does the following quote factually indicate that Carl Sagan was indeed a "pantheist", yes or no?
"But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God." Carl Sagan
Well?
Is the answer to that question yes or no, David?
It is quite clear to any "objective" observer that "yes" is the correct answer!
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
-
- What else isn't new?
-
- Best regards,
-
- Paul Vogel
- Yes, all those CAPITALS really CONVINCE me… —Herbee 11:05, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Herbee", you also don't understand or are "CONVINCED" of the "definition" of "pantheism" above, whether in CAPITALS or NOT! LOL! :D
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
PS--Obviously, even some "others", like "Bcorr" for example, also don't have the ability to actually accurately understand any NPOV definitions! LOL! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Carl_Sagan&action=history
What else isn't new? LOL! :D
- So what you're saying is, "no, I have no references whatsoever." Stating it in the intro as you wish to clearly implies that is its intention, and yes, I'd really like to see a reference that clearly states that it is its intention, in fact its main intention, before including it specifically. Just saying you think it's "pantheistic" really isn't enough - David Gerard 10:22, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
No, that is NOT what I am saying, whatsoever, David.
This is what I am saying and what I have said:
Are you denying that the series "Cosmos" was not "pantheistic", just because the word "pantheism" may have not have been explicitly stated?
Main Entry: pan·the·ism Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god 1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
That idea of yours, David Gerard, is really just complete nonsense, as what actually makes something "pantheistic" is the idea of GOD in ALL and ALL in GOD, and whether or not GOD is the IMPERSONAL COSMOS or is any PERSONAL GOD.
The reference to the definition of "pantheism", above, really should have been a good enough "reference" for anyone of those that actually ever read or ever actually watched "Cosmos", that indicates that both the book of the same title and the video series was "pantheistic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Carl_Sagan&action=history
Convincing the clearly "ignorant" is really not my intention.
Stating the objective facts is, and with a Wiki NPOV, and quite very unlike yourself, David Gerard, and your own clearly biased and bigoted and censorous ilk.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
- On the other hand, Sagan never complained about being called an atheist. Kindly stop the edit war until a compromise can be reached. Ashibaka ✎ 20:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The "edit war" is already over. The word "atheist" sometimes just means in relationship to any PERSONAL GOD, and not to the DIVINE COSMOS, itself!!!-PV
What is with this "there is no statement that says, 'I am a pantheist.'"? There does not need to be a specific, explicit reference to a person explicitly stating that they are of a certain religion, ideology, etc. Have you ever heard John Ashcroft say "I am a conservative Pentacostalist"? I don't think so. Have you ever heard John F. Kennedy say "I am a Catholic liberal"? I don't think so. ugen64 00:01, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Would he have said "I am a Catholic"? He certainly would have. - David Gerard 17:45, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
You are exactly correct, and only "David Gerard" was being "unreasonable" by reverting and insisting upon just such a explicit statement from Carl Sagan to actually determine Sagan's "pantheistic" worldview, which is and of course which was, total "nonsense"!--PV
- Pantheism does not have obvious rites and traditions, like Pentacostalism and Catholicism, that make it differ from atheism. Ashibaka ✎ 01:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Obvious "rites and traditons" really have nothing to do with whether or not pantheism actually differs from atheism or not. What makes pantheism differ from atheism is that atheism claims that there is no GOD or GODS, whereas, pantheists claim that "GOD is ALL and All is GOD", GOD being the Impersonal COSMOS, as a WHOLE, itself! -PV
why is atheism listed? this should be removed. sagan has not claimed atheism. this is fact. - mbk 4/25/07
- I'm new to this debate, but it looks to me like the quote in question:
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
is careful NOT to subscribe to the definition of pantheism. I think he really meant the "If" in "If by 'God' you mean"; he doesn't say that is HIS definition, and even seems (diplomatically) to distance himself from the definition in the next sentence. EmersonLowry 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
