Since I first ventured into Carl Sagan’s Cosmos last year, my scientific knowledge and interest have mushroomed exponentially, which leads to my decision to read all of his books by the end of 2016. So far, I’ve finished eight books, including this one.
“Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search of God” is a collection of lectures presented by Professor Carl Sagan with Ann Druyan as the editor. Its core topic is about the relationship between nature and religions. Moreover, it also discusses the probability of the destruction of Earth by asteroids or worse, nuclear war, and the possibilities, hypothesis, and myths related to extraterrestrial Intelligence.
With his traditionally respectful and poetic arguments for each topic, Carl Sagan leads the readers to a science forum without drowning them by breaking complicated scientific concept into digestible forms. Particularly, his arguments on God, I assume, can be with by theists or atheists without ones being offended. He also brought up histories of the various communities united as one to battle against slavery and smallpix, which makes him hopeful that once again, we human could work together to eliminate nuclear weapons that could be a severe danger to our civilization.
Below is what I extracted from the books so that after you read this review, you yourself can decide whether the book is worth your time or not:
“Does trying to understand the universe at all betray a lack of humility? I believe it is true that humility is the only just response in a confrontation with the universe, but not a humility that prevents us from seeking the nature of the universe we are admiring. If we seek that nature, then love can be informed by truth instead of being based on ignorance or self-deception. If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy?”
“Now, it would be wholly foolish to deny the existence of laws of nature. And if that is what we are talking about when we say God, then no one can possibly be an atheist, or at least anyone who would profess atheism would have to give a coherent argument about why the laws of nature are inapplicable. I think he or she would be hard-pressed. So with this latter definition of God, we all believe in God. The former definition of God is much more dubious. And there is a wide range of other sorts of gods. And in every case we have to ask, ‘What kind of god are you talking about, and what is the evidence that this god exists?'”
Date: May 03, 2016
Written by: Mr. Youk Menglong
e-Komnob 