Carl Sagan's Son

[Dave1001]

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

I think there are plausible arguments for all three.

 

[Nucular]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

Also, destroying one's life's work on one's deathbed is unlikely, I would have thought, to engender pleasant happy feelings. That to me would be the biggest downside to any 'deathbed conversion'.

As well as the thought that people would have a memory of me as an equivovating, 'do as I say not as I do' sort of phoney.

But it does sound incredibly unlikely, all in all. Not just because of who Sagan was, but also because of the claim itself - as someone pointed out, how do you 'disavow' scientific arguments for things?

If it's not a conversion to a 'mainstream' conservative, evangelical religion (and it sounds like the implication is that the conversion was to, eerily, a similar position to which the cow-orker subscribes?), two questions: how, and why?

How, because it'd be quite tricky, I'd have thought, to put together a coherent bunch of probably disparate beliefs along the lines, perhaps, of eclectic new-ageism (if that's the cow-orker's bag), close to death with time running out, and then say "so that's what I believe and why". It's at least a trickier enterprise than saying, e.g. "I'm a Christian, suddenly! Hallelujah!"

Why, because in the non-mainstream religions there are few conditions which would be compatible with a Pascal's wager sort of set-up. I've never heard of someone, for instance, claim that if you haven't accepted Cayce, you won't be reincarnated.

Finally, burden of proof, obviously. Beady's done his side of the homework, looking for said book himself even though he didn't need to, and finding Ann Druyan's wonderful writings which seem directly to contradict the claims. Surely nothing is left but for the cow-orker to produce said document, on pain of receiving a long lecture on epistemology.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here. A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )

I suspect that, as an obviously clever man, you choose to associate with people who possess a similar level of ability and therefore overestimate the average level of intelligence; Joe Public isn't terribly bright, believe me.

 

[brooklyn44]

Bravo

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

hear, hear!!!!!

 

[switchtech]

If I make a deathbed conversion ...

... someone kill me!

jbs

 

[...JR]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.

Well I'm currently reading "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer and while I'm only on the second chapter, he goes into how some sort of spirituallity that we seek (not necessarily through religious means) is hardwired into our genes, but this is, of coarse, not the end of the story since as he puts it, there is an amalgamation of things going on, but his hypothesis is simply that, yes, spirituallity is something hardwired into us. I will let ya'll know how the rest of the book goes.

anyone read this book?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Or maybe evidence that people are afraid of death and take comfort in the thought of an afterlife.

If strong belief in everyone in the afterlife is hardwired, ya gotta start to wonder..., especially when many people "take comfort" in it while they are still healthy and not afraid.

 

[hgc]

If strong belief in everyone in the afterlife is hardwired, ya gotta start to wonder..., especially when many people "take comfort" in it while they are still healthy and not afraid.

Wonder about what? All the other "design" flaws?

 

[joobz]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

I find this amusing.
Why should any of us care if he changed beliefs right before he died. It doesn't have any bearing on the truth of the science. It doesn't detract from the work he did educating the masses. I wouldn't lose respect for him if he developed alzheimer's or any form of dementia.

Now, especially since the atheist believes that nothing happens after death, Why should it matter what he says or does on the way he dies? Why should it matter for those "left behind"?

It seems that the desire to believe Sagan didn't denounce his non-faith is an extention of some athiests needing to have their non-religion reaffirmed. Such is the halmark in the beginnings of zealotry. The desire to know that those you respect and all of those you interact with have the same viewpoints. Add in a sense of persecution and you can develop a whole fundamentalist non-god movement. Like Steven Colbert once said, "where is your No-god now?"


Remember:

Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus- I'd still have to bum rides off people.

 

[hgc]

It seems that the desire to believe Sagan didn't denounce his non-faith is an extention of some athiests needing to have their non-religion reaffirmed.

I seems to me that it's just anger at having someone who is highly respected being claimed to have taken the exact opposite position from what he is respected for, post-mortem. Believe it or not, fans of Sagan like the person for who he was in addition to believing in what he did.

 

[joobz]

I seems to me that it's just anger at having someone who is highly respected being claimed to have taken the exact opposite position from what he is respected for, post-mortem. Believe it or not, fans of Sagan like the person for who he was in addition to believing in what he did.

That I could understand. I would especially understand distain and anger against the propagation of lies and false information. But that isn't what I've been reading. Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

 

[Major Billy]

one who's really into woo claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos. <snip> ...has anyone here heard of such a book?

Well, Carl Sagan did say he wished he had given more voice to opposing viewpoints to the theories presented in his book The Dragons of Eden.

And his son Dorian Sagan did write a sequal to that book called Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence, a follow-up that presented new discoveries and new theories. Science advances, and corrects.

I'm not surprized the woo's get the son and the science wrong.

 

[brooklyn44]

That I could understand. I would especially understand distain and anger against the propagation of lies and false information. But that isn't what I've been reading. Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

Thank you joobz. You've given me food for thought. I'm still digesting. (Lest my honest reappraisal be misinterpreted as snark, be advised that this is sincere and not sarcasm.)

 

[Beady]

And his son Dorian Sagan did write a sequal to that book called Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence, a follow-up that presented new discoveries and new theories.

I think that may be it! Thanks!

If you have a personal bias against skepticism, have poor memory, and want to counter-argue a skeptic, this could be interpreted as a refutation of sorts of something Carl Sagan wrote.

 

[Gilmar]

Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

I was addressing the specific claim of there being no "downside" to a deathbed conversion. It appears that ImaginalDisc was as well. For what it's worth, the defamation aspect does annoy me.

 

[bjb]

Here's an article written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

 

[Dave1001]

Here's an article written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

That's a great article. His son jumps around a bit in it, but some of his criticisms are on point (about being skeptical about science, for example). One gets the sense that Sagan's greatest gift to his son was being intellectually imperfect in those ways.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Here's an article written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

I just read it. Frankly, Dorian does not share his father's gift for writing clearly. In fact, Dorian has trouble constructing clear sentences and cohesive paragraphs. After reading his essay, I don't even know what his theme or thesis is, apart from expressing his regret that he did not truly reconcile with his father before his death.

What I do know is that I find his "skepticism about science" to be an instance of anti-intellectualism, which is something he decries himself in his essay. Mr. Sagan the younger is rather patronizing towards science, which he describes as packing "as powerful a punch as most all philosophy." What? Science is merely another philosophy? He gives it a condescending nod with the throwaway comment that science's "habitual appeal to nature gives it the upper hand," and he describes science as "cocky." "Gee, thanks for the validation, Dorian," scientists the world over must be thinking. Finally, he calls his father hypocritical for not being critical of science itself. His father must be turning over in his grave. Well, he would be, if he weren't cremated.

I'm really disappointed that he is not a better thinker and writer. It's disingenuous to be "skeptical about science" the way he is. That's a strawman version of science. Science isn't about knowing the truth. It's a way of discovering provisional truths, yet always ready and willing to discard them in favor of new and better truths. Science is a method, a process. Dorian suggests it has limitations in its ability to discover truth. Well, sure it does. Science is limited to describing nature. It does not pretend to be able to delve into the realms of metaphysics or ontology. Dorian appears to hold some reverence for science, but also to hold scorn and contempt for it as well. His position is foggy and unsupported.

I understand the reconciling with dad thing. I truly do. Outside of its being an instance of jealousy (of science, not of his father), what I don't understand is his rebelliousness against the beauty of science, and against his dad's championing it so eloquently.

AS

 

[Dave1001]

I just read it. Frankly, Dorian does not share his father's gift for writing clearly. In fact, Dorian has trouble constructing clear sentences and cohesive paragraphs. After reading his essay, I don't even know what his theme or thesis is, apart from expressing his regret that he did not truly reconcile with his father before his death.

What I do know is that I find his "skepticism about science" to be an instance of anti-intellectualism, which is something he decries himself in his essay. Mr. Sagan the younger is rather patronizing towards science, which he describes as packing "as powerful a punch as most all philosophy." What? Science is merely another philosophy? He gives it a condescending nod with the throwaway comment that science's "habitual appeal to nature gives it the upper hand," and he describes science as "cocky." "Gee, thanks for the validation, Dorian," scientists the world over must be thinking. Finally, he calls his father hypocritical for not being critical of science itself. His father must be turning over in his grave. Well, he would be, if he weren't cremated.

I'm really disappointed that he is not a better thinker and writer. It's disingenuous to be "skeptical about science" the way he is. That's a strawman version of science. Science isn't about knowing the truth. It's a way of discovering provisional truths, yet always ready and willing to discard them in favor of new and better truths. Science is a method, a process. Dorian suggests it has limitations in its ability to discover truth. Well, sure it does. Science is limited to describing nature. It does not pretend to be able to delve into the realms of metaphysics or ontology. Dorian appears to hold some reverence for science, but also to hold scorn and contempt for it as well. His position is foggy and unsupported.

I understand the reconciling with dad thing. I truly do. Outside of its being an instance of jealousy (of science, not of his father), what I don't understand is his rebelliousness against the beauty of science, and against his dad's championing it so eloquently.

AS

I think Dorian was criticizing science in the world, as it's practiced by scientists, and although not all scientists can be criticized equally in this regard, I think his criticism of his father in this regard does hit home in some areas.

Here's some choice quotes where I thought he did his oedipal job well:

He hated it when I claimed with Nietzsche that nature isn't given but already always an interpretation. Or when I spoke of the metaphorical nature of all language, including scientific discourse. Or when I pointed out the rhetorical way in which he used words like "science" and "evidence."

But when he wrote of those "standard postmodern texts, where anything can mean anything," I was as critical of him as he had so often been of me. To which standard postmodernist texts was he referring? Had he, in fact, read any? There is a huge difference, I emphasized, between a philosophical critique of science -- an historical examination of its social context, inevitable assumptions, and limitations -- and pseudoscience, the uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[hgc]

I think Dorian was criticizing science in the world, as it's practiced by scientists, and although not all scientists can be criticized equally in this regard, I think his criticism of his father in this regard does hit home in some areas.

Here's some choice quotes where I thought he did his oedipal job well:
...

But when he wrote of those "standard postmodern texts, where anything can mean anything," I was as critical of him as he had so often been of me. To which standard postmodernist texts was he referring? Had he, in fact, read any? There is a huge difference, I emphasized, between a philosophical critique of science -- an historical examination of its social context, inevitable assumptions, and limitations -- and pseudoscience, the uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Oh God. I can see whey they might have clashed. This sounds like a classic intellectual argument between father and son. You haven't even read Kristeva, you old fossil! And the topic is the same old reality vs solipsism.