The late Carl Sagan has a special place in Brendan’s heart, I know. A dedicated scientist and featured narrator in middle school science classes, he’s most famous to us for the lilting way he says, “There are more stars in the universe… than there are… grains of sand… on all the beaches… of all the world.” He also wrote a book called The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. As the title suggests, it was an attack on all superstition, pseudoscience, and religion (especially cults). He honestly didn’t understand why people turned to such things, when the natural world had plenty of wonder and mystery to spare. How could you look at a nebula, for example, and still need the supernatural to feel a sense of awe? More to the point, at the end of the book, he hopes that future entertainment will stop sending the message that believing the irrational is a virtue. Perhaps instead of the X-Files, for example, there might be a show about a man who debunks UFO sightings and crop circles and conspiracy theories and the like.
I think Sagan’s dream might very well be slowly but surely coming true. Sure there are still shows on Sci-Fi that try to convince us that science fiction is real, but there’s a growing number of shows dedicated to reason. There’s the non-fiction first. Discovery Channel has MythBusters, wherein special effects experts put urban legends to the test - and usually have some form of explosion in the process. Moreover, when somebody brings up a rational counterargument, they revisit the myth! Showtime has Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t! (as spelled in the actual title). Magicians Penn and Teller follow the example of their hero Houdini and expose quacks. They spend half the time on politics and half thrashing pseudoscience.
And now it’s spread to fiction. It makes sense for a fanciful show like Lost or Battlestar Galactica to operate outside reality, though even Lost might be interpreted with some rational explanations, but it’s refreshing for more “realistic” shows to actually have some realism. Take Fox’s House or CBS’s Numb3rs. Numb3rs uses math to solve crimes. In the words of Charlie’s voiceover: “It’s logic. It’s rationality.” The psychics have nothing to offer the investigation, and in one episode Charlie proves a psychic a fraud. Better yet is House. Though I doubt that many atheists in one place follows the laws of probability, House isn’t afraid to outright tell people that their faith has no basis in reality whatsoever, he’ll stick to medicine, thanks. The faith healers accomplish nothing (unless they’re carrying a herpes virus that attacks cancer cells which they spread to a cancer patient, anyway). House does.
Anyhow, I thought it was worth note. Me, I like my completely implausible scenarios with good characters (that everybody knows are fiction) right beside my realistic fiction with a penchant for ridiculing the ridiculous side by side.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
April 30th, 2006 at 2:12:59 pm
Wouldn’t Sagan want to reserve judgment on religious explanations until everything in the universe had been sufficiently explained by science ? Kind of close-minded to have such contempt for faith when one’s own ‘faith’ in the scientific process has far to go to be shown comprehensive. God, as revealed through any particular religion, is but one of many rational explanations for a host of unknowns still unexplained by science. If we put religious hostility to science on a scale against scientific hostility towards religion, why we might have the first catapult to heaven. I’ll keep an open mind even if the Wizard of Oz turns out to be just a man behind the curtain. Sagan and his lot who are beside themselves with the persistence of that viral religiosity in people need to come to terms with their self-consciouss complexes. Disprove deific justification for every element of the universe down to the last grain of sand and we’ll have a universe of room for faith and the supernatural. Jody Foster can come home with as many aliens as the Mos Eisely cantina can hold (or as many Dan Brown books, for that matter) and the faithful will be no worse off. But keep tryin’, really, it’s funny.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:14:39 pm
if the tone left some doubt, you would want to be on the religious hostily side of the catapult ;)
April 30th, 2006 at 2:36:00 pm
God, as revealed through any particular religion, is but one of many rational explanations for a host of unknowns still unexplained by science.
There’s nothing “rational” about religion–that’s the point. To rationalize religious thought is to marginalize it; faith, by definition, is belief without material evidence.
I think you mean: God, as revealed through any particular religion, is but one of many valid (in the logical sense, inasmuch as it has not been proven invalid) explanations for a host of unknowns still unexplained by science.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:57:58 pm
Why not rational. What is irrational about saying, from the largest level to the smallest, ‘this system or thing was constructed by that person or thing that has power to do it.’ Admittedly there are some many premises within this statement, but that does not make it irrational, so long as those premises could be themselves proven. Besides that, if in fact a supernatural entity caused a rain, what is irrational in crediting the act to the cause ? Perhaps supernatural is a poor word. An apparition from a heavenly spirit is no less natural than a 6th grader’s vinegar -based volcano project. People like Sagan seem to think religious people prefer to believe in what is not real over what is, but that begs the question. . . . The religious believe that it IS real. Until Science Disproves God or the ’supernatural’ resivoir of influence in reality, God IS a rational explanation for the unexplained, just as much as evolution is a rational explanation for the still-unexplained phenomenon of biological existence and all its ‘wonder’. The fact that you scientists are likely getting upset by this just makes the case that science writ large wants a monopoly on belief and doesn’t want to fight for it, trench by trench.
April 30th, 2006 at 3:05:31 pm
addm: just because I believe God is all powerful, doesn’t mean I believe He operates in irrational ways (indeed, our petty notions of rationality are grossly subordinated to His, but that’s not to say that when we do ‘get it’ we are inconsistent with His Perfect Reason; that’s why we feel like supermen ourselves when we obtain knowledge (especially new knowledge), whether we know it or not, we are experiencing the joy of sharing in part in that Perfect knowledge of things; it’s a grace and a gift. Neither God nor the religious are such fools that they believe he can make a stone so heavy he can’t lift. Faith and Reason are good friends that ought never fight, but that doesn’t mean you have to invite both to every party you throw in order to be a good host.
April 30th, 2006 at 3:55:19 pm
“faith, by definition, is belief without material evidence”
Well that’s not the Catholic definition of faith.
“Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
April 30th, 2006 at 4:23:58 pm
I don’t know, maybe I am wrong here, but, to take one example, I think one could find Catholic teaching on the ’supernatural’ phenomenon of communion rational, or that, for God at least, the Real Presence of Christ notwithstanding the physical appearances of bread and wine, could be rationally known, although for now, for the petty human, it must be accepted in faith or not at all. My main point is that I oppose this stark disconnect Sagan seems cursed with between Faith and Reason, as if they are enemies. Inherently no, I say.
April 30th, 2006 at 4:31:16 pm
i am of the belief that i created the universe, and when i go to sleep you all stop existing. which to me makes more sense than all suggested alternitives. yaWN. oh sorry about that, jar jar’s getting sleepy… so i guess it’s back to non-existance for you, you imaginary scum… for the next eight hours i deem only rachel lee cook’s cleavage worthy of existance.
April 30th, 2006 at 7:09:44 pm
One thing is for sure in all of this…Carl Sagan has now discovered the truth, one way or another.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:26:20 pm
now I’m going to be thinking of her the rest of the night. thanks Jar. :(
April 30th, 2006 at 9:17:33 pm
jar jar, you sleepytime slut. :> Notwithstanding that I don’t know who in the hell rachel lee cook Is (no, really :), I Do know there are Some that Say that since Quantum Mechanics scientifically Shows that the Behavior of the Observed is but a product of the Observer’s Observation, you are precisely correct about Us. :) Except of course, them that Says it would substitute Them for You. :> Now Meee, I’m not really Reporting any of this because your Somnolescence has Winked me out of Existence until the morning’s Light. Pleasant Dreams. :> (oh yeah & Hi Doctor Mike. Don’t even Start tryin’ to untangle the above, it ain’t Worth it :)
April 30th, 2006 at 10:11:04 pm
Groucho: “Your Honor, just Look at my poor client. An Abject figure.”
Chico [the Client]: “I Abject.”
Groucho: “Well there you have it. My argument for immigration control.”
Sean, I Abbaject :) to your characterization of The X-Files. :>
“…at the end of the book, [Sagan] hopes that future entertainment will stop sending the message that believing the irrational is a virtue. Perhaps instead of the X-Files, for example, there might be a show about a man who debunks UFO sightings and crop circles and conspiracy theories and the like.”
(1) Granted, The X-Files appealed to those who Want To Believe that the Sightings (and the Takings) & the humanly-impossible Circles [did they have Episodes about The Circles? I suppose they Did / Must have ;> / but even if Not, no Matter, valid Example anyway ] and the Conspiracies are Real-and-Presently-Proven to be True. / However,
(2) that does Not mean that Chris Carter was necessarily Sending the Message of the Virtuousness of believing the Irrational. Recognition of the Probability of the existence of “alien” life is Not Hardly irrational: indeed it is Rational altogether.
(3) Nor is it Irrational (though it Is of a cumulatively Lower order or Probability) to calculate that such Lifeforms could, given the requisite environmental & chronological Givens, in future (a) evolve Smarts enough to (b) get Here and {c} Take some Specimens for Experimentation and (d) enter into Contractual arrangements with some compliant homosapient cigarettesmoking Weasels while (e) fiddling around with Cropcircles off-duty just for Fun. ;>
(4) [paraphrased ] ‘Mulder, are you really going to pay any attention to these idiots?’ [i.e., to the Lone Gunmen :] // ‘Wait, Scully, I don’t think it’s necessarily idiotic for them to claim that you’re Hot.’ :>
Re the Scientificality of CBS’s “Numb3rs”, I think you might get a Demurrer from The Brothers Wiser as to the Transferences from subatomic Particlepaths to human Interactions. / But I like it too. :)
As to “House”: Right On. :> and “MythBusters” is not only Rational, but Hilarious. :)
May 1st, 2006 at 2:45:20 am
“One thing is for sure in all of this…Carl Sagan has now discovered the truth, one way or another.”
Unless of course there is no God/afterlife, and then, being dead, he can discover nothing.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:41:55 am
The burden of proof lies on he who proposes a positive. You can’t prove a negative. Sorta like I can’t prove there are no cluruchauns. Sure, I’ve never seen a drunken leprechaun-like creature riding a sheep, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist! See how someone’s faith in cluruchauns is still suspect? And that’s why such belief is inherently irrational.
Mr. Loy, poor writing on my part. I didn’t mean to necessarily suggest X-Files as a show that encourages irrational thought. A better example might be The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where the professor tells the children that it’s right and proper to believe in a fantasy world, though he personally has no proof of such a place. X-Files was pure escapist fiction, and quite good. You’ll even notice that the resident skeptic has to believe in light of the evidence. In fact, if you base your beliefs of the real world on events in X-Files… something’s wrong.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:47:20 am
Unless Sagan has been gathered in Hela, because he did not die in battle and was thus unworthy of Valhalla? Or maybe he’s in the Elysian Fields, taken personally by Pallas Athena and protected by her Aegis? You can’t prove it isn’t true, after all. (Just ignore the round earth sans World Tree Yggdrasil… and the empty Mount Olympus…)
May 1st, 2006 at 11:28:34 am
There is so much that mankind has not proven, but there is even more that mankind has not proven. At the present time, we simply do not have the capacity to know or to understand Truth (the “T” is upper-case for a reason).
600 years ago, man knew that the earth was flat.
200 years ago, man knew that we would never be able to fly.
50 years ago, man knew that computers would be too big to ever become practically-used in the home.
… And 6 years ago, man knew that George W. Bush would be a good president (OK, maybe that last one was just a jab)
But the point is that as time progresses, what is knowable and achievable by mankind changes. Tell a man of 2000 years ago about daily life today, and it would be as if we were speaking two different languages. Hell, tell a man of 200 years ago about our lives and we would be designated witches and burned for heresy.
We may Know things in time, but for right now, I’ll keep my science fiction. It helps me understand the world around me better.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:44:19 am
ahh, gooodmorning. welcome back into existance bloggers! now before you get comfortable Joe, 4-7, you should know that i can’t promise you’ll be around long. blame the cataplexic narcolepsy. buuut while i have you here, and i do have you here, you need to understand that it is perfectly normal to feel as if you’ve been existing throughout my snooze. don’t be hornswoggled by piaget! object permanence is variable and subject to my perception and my perception alone. now that you know the truth, you have but one task, amuse me! 4-7, you can make balloon animals while joe brings me maria bello! (oh and joe, if you don’t know something, it might be worth looking up.) =)
May 1st, 2006 at 12:34:01 pm
Sean Vivier (@ 7:41) ! I am surprised at you ! Call yourself a teacher !
(grin)
“I didn’t mean to necessarily suggest X-Files as a show that encourages irrational thought. A better example might be The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where the professor tells the children that it’s right and proper to believe in a fantasy world, though he personally has no proof of such a place. “
Surely a skilled and experienced teacher encourages children of all ages to believe in a fantasy world as long as that belief is in that fantasy world as a fantasy world and not as reality ?
The ability to have a healthy fantasy life encourages creativity, exploration, individual growth, and tends towards the ‘outside-the-box’ thinking which often leads to significant progress …
May 1st, 2006 at 2:06:11 pm
I may have discovered the key to the D-list view on facts and education generally …
This URL succinctly seems to describe their behaviours …
(hat-tip: Adam Smith Institute Blog)
May 1st, 2006 at 2:25:18 pm
I love fantasy worlds, Alasdair. In fact, if all goes according to plan, I’ll eventually be making a living writing fantasy and sci-fi. But that doesn’t mean I BELIEVE it. That’s the difference.
PS Define “D-List”?
May 1st, 2006 at 2:43:48 pm
Sean - I don’t remember onto which post I appended the comment about “D-list” first … (I’m not sure, even, if that detail is important) …
It was, as I recall, in response to one of the many and various political backs-and-forth betwixt the ‘conservative’ Alasdair/Andrew/Joe Mama/et al perspective and the ‘not-so-conservative’ David/dcl/Mendacious Mouse/et cetera expressions …
Which led to A-list and D-list (with connotations of various plays-on-words) … (as in “D-list - not even good enough to be C-list, never mind B-list”, and so on) …
And, no, it was NOT meant to be flattering to those on the D-list … I do, however, try to keep references to D-list at least tangentially-topical, rather than ad hominem, out of respect due to the Blog-Creator, Himself !
It’s not a permanent status, being rather one acquired by writing something more egregiously knee-jerk-and-unsubstantiated by citation(s) than usual … you know the BDS-kinda things … A&A, while having the Good Initial, manages to be D-list about 2/3 of the time, and yet A-list about 1/3 of the time … an interesting dichotomy either way you cut it … (innocent smile) …
But, back to the important stuff of Life !
In terms of writings, some of the best fantasy and sci-fi writers have constructed and populated and maintain remarkably consistent and ‘realistic’ worlds and even universes (as in the Niven “Known Universe” and/or the Mercedes Lackey’s “Valdemar”) … such creations are believable with a comparatively minor suspension of disbelief …
Are we able to access any of your writings yet ?
December 19th, 2006 at 7:03:36 am
great blog
January 30th, 2007 at 4:27:35 am
indian+casino+in+oregon