Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ksagnostic · 10-24-2002, 07:47 PM

Keith

I don't think that your evaluation of the movie Contact was quite fair.

The point of the hearing scene is that Arroway NEVER compromised her standards. Confronted with being unable to provide any physical evidence of what she reported as happening to her (although it seems that the 18 hours of static would have gone public before the hearing took place), she didn't say "believe me anyway." She held herself accountable to the same standards that she held everyone else to. That was why Palmer Joss said that he held himself to a different standard than Arroway, because he could say that he believed her even while she was allowing for the possibility that she could have been fooled. IMO, the film was a very positive portrayal of an agnostic atheist. None of the theists, including the overprotective Joss, came off nearly as well as she did.

The book was different, in that several people went on the journey and came back with different, similarly personal stories. In the end of the book the existence of a creator was confirmed through an intelligent message contained in the decimals of Pi. However, that was fictional confirmation of god, discovered by looking for a fingerprint in the very nature of reality. In real life, Sagan was an agnostic, and very skeptical regarding the possible existence of a transcendent creator theistic god.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

Kent Stevens · 10-25-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author (1934-1996).
There was an article, "In the Valley of the Shadow" in the March 10, 1996 issue of Parade Magazine in which Sagan discussed his atheistic beliefs in the face of his own death.

In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views.
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness? "If someone who has had an experience that tells us something about the universe that we didn't know and that later turns out to be true, then we'd have to say, 'My goodness.' " But that, he said, "would have to be more than the anecdotal reports that typically are used to support religious experiences."

From the website that lists Famous Dead Nontheists
at <a href="http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html" target="_blank">http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html</a>

Carl Sagan was probably a vague atheist. He was a little vague about what he exactly believed in at times. Carl Sagan's use of the term agnostic would mean that even militant atheists would be an agnostic. This is because militant atheists among others, don't believe in something until there is evidence for it.

lpetrich · 10-25-2002, 07:15 PM

I remember reading the book, though I never saw the movie. The way the probe erased the physical evidence of Ellie's trip seemed contrived -- it was too successful.

And that "artist's signature" in the digits of pi I consider absurd. This is because pi has its value out of mathematical-logical necessity, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4. Thus, it cannot be adjusted to carry some message.

Shadowy Man · 10-25-2002, 07:54 PM

ksagnostic: except she wasn't on her toes at the hearing, because there was no possible way they could have faked the signal from a satellite, and if she were an astronomer she would know that.

Except for that, I really liked the movie!

ksagnostic · 10-25-2002, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
ksagnostic: except she wasn't on her toes at the hearing, because there was no possible way they could have faked the signal from a satellite, and if she were an astronomer she would know that.

Except for that, I really liked the movie!

The point was that given a circumstance where she could not produce physical evidence of her experiences, Arroway played fair. However, I agree that the claim that Hadden somehow faked the signal was...well, dumb, and unnecessary with regards to the point of that scene.

ksagnostic · 10-25-2002, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
I remember reading the book, though I never saw the movie. The way the probe erased the physical evidence of Ellie's trip seemed contrived -- it was too successful.

And that "artist's signature" in the digits of pi I consider absurd. This is because pi has its value out of mathematical-logical necessity, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4. Thus, it cannot be adjusted to carry some message.

That bothered me also. I think Sagan's fictional point wasn't that the value was adjusted to carry some message, but that the message itself was contained in the necessary value.

I actually consider the movie quite superior to the book, and I am glad the Pi message was left out of the movie.

cjack · 10-25-2002, 10:58 PM

First off, regarding "Contact." I for one enjoyed the movie much more than the book.

For a first foray into fiction, "Contact" wasn't too bad, but the film version was much more concise and communicated what Sagan was trying to say in a very easy to understand way.

I am of the opinion that the changes necessary to make the novel into a motion picture would have appealed to Sagan's need to present his ideas in a dramatic, compelling, and simple fashion.

On one level, the movie works because it exposes non-scientific people to the notion that science is at least on an equal footing with religion, and argues (rather eloquently, I thought) in the "Senate Hearing" scene that science must be given the benefit of doubt that is freely given to religion. For those of us raised in the traditions of skepticism and non-theism, this is no big deal, but to the "great, unwashed masses," it might be a revelation of sorts.

It is important to remember that Sagan, perhaps more than anyone else, had a knack for "dumbing down" his ideas so that the average Joe could understand them. This, combined with his obvious flair for the dramatic, leaves no doubt as to who guided the spirit of the movie.

Regarding his beliefs:

One thing I have taken away from Sagan's works is that he is always open to the possibility that there is something he has missed.

For example, Sagan's writings indicate that he harbored no illusions about whether or not the Earth had been visited by NTI's (The Cosmic Connection), yet other writings (Contact, for example) demonstrate that at some level, he wished it were otherwise.

As I see it, Sagan was a skeptical agnostic or weak atheist, yet he had a "spiritual" streak that allowed him to communicate effectively with theists and non-theists alike.

bluefugue · 10-26-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

So he just died without realizing that he was God.

Well, I worshipped the guy... does that count for anything?

galiel · 10-26-2002, 07:49 PM

What difference does it make whether Sagan was a deist, atheist, theist, or zeist? (made up that last one)

Gallileo was a devout Catholic. So what?

Arguing about the beliefs of dead scientists is rather ridiculous, IMO. Tell the guy you are debating to focus on what Sagan did and said, What he contributed to human knowledge and our understanding of the universe, not what he did or did not believe.

Logic Execution · 10-28-2002, 01:25 PM

galiel: It makes no difference to me how anyone believes or doesn't believe. Also, I haven't been arguing about the beliefs of the late Dr. Sagan. I was questioning the veracity and credibility of an article which someone referred me to which averred that Carl was a deist, and that's about it. I posted here solely to seek corroboration or falsification of the claim. While the belief systems of people I admire are utterly inconsequential to me, challenge and refutation of falsity, urban myths, and the like are worthwhile endeavors, in my opinion. Ultimately, myself and the person I was having this discourse with are both admirers of Carl, irrespective of his beliefs or lack thereof.

10-24-2002, 07:47 PM	#21
ksagnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 2,514	Keith I don't think that your evaluation of the movie Contact was quite fair. The point of the hearing scene is that Arroway NEVER compromised her standards. Confronted with being unable to provide any physical evidence of what she reported as happening to her (although it seems that the 18 hours of static would have gone public before the hearing took place), she didn't say "believe me anyway." She held herself accountable to the same standards that she held everyone else to. That was why Palmer Joss said that he held himself to a different standard than Arroway, because he could say that he believed her even while she was allowing for the possibility that she could have been fooled. IMO, the film was a very positive portrayal of an agnostic atheist. None of the theists, including the overprotective Joss, came off nearly as well as she did. The book was different, in that several people went on the journey and came back with different, similarly personal stories. In the end of the book the existence of a creator was confirmed through an intelligent message contained in the decimals of Pi. However, that was fictional confirmation of god, discovered by looking for a fingerprint in the very nature of reality. In real life, Sagan was an agnostic, and very skeptical regarding the possible existence of a transcendent creator theistic god. [ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 07:15 PM	#23
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I remember reading the book, though I never saw the movie. The way the probe erased the physical evidence of Ellie's trip seemed contrived -- it was too successful. And that "artist's signature" in the digits of pi I consider absurd. This is because pi has its value out of mathematical-logical necessity, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4. Thus, it cannot be adjusted to carry some message.

10-25-2002, 07:54 PM	#24
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	ksagnostic: except she wasn't on her toes at the hearing, because there was no possible way they could have faked the signal from a satellite, and if she were an astronomer she would know that. Except for that, I really liked the movie!

10-25-2002, 10:58 PM	#27
cjack Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 4,294	First off, regarding "Contact." I for one enjoyed the movie much more than the book. For a first foray into fiction, "Contact" wasn't too bad, but the film version was much more concise and communicated what Sagan was trying to say in a very easy to understand way. I am of the opinion that the changes necessary to make the novel into a motion picture would have appealed to Sagan's need to present his ideas in a dramatic, compelling, and simple fashion. On one level, the movie works because it exposes non-scientific people to the notion that science is at least on an equal footing with religion, and argues (rather eloquently, I thought) in the "Senate Hearing" scene that science must be given the benefit of doubt that is freely given to religion. For those of us raised in the traditions of skepticism and non-theism, this is no big deal, but to the "great, unwashed masses," it might be a revelation of sorts. It is important to remember that Sagan, perhaps more than anyone else, had a knack for "dumbing down" his ideas so that the average Joe could understand them. This, combined with his obvious flair for the dramatic, leaves no doubt as to who guided the spirit of the movie. Regarding his beliefs: One thing I have taken away from Sagan's works is that he is always open to the possibility that there is something he has missed. For example, Sagan's writings indicate that he harbored no illusions about whether or not the Earth had been visited by NTI's (The Cosmic Connection), yet other writings (Contact, for example) demonstrate that at some level, he wished it were otherwise. As I see it, Sagan was a skeptical agnostic or weak atheist, yet he had a "spiritual" streak that allowed him to communicate effectively with theists and non-theists alike.

10-26-2002, 07:49 PM	#29
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	What difference does it make whether Sagan was a deist, atheist, theist, or zeist? (made up that last one) Gallileo was a devout Catholic. So what? Arguing about the beliefs of dead scientists is rather ridiculous, IMO. Tell the guy you are debating to focus on what Sagan did and said, What he contributed to human knowledge and our understanding of the universe, not what he did or did not believe.

10-28-2002, 01:25 PM	#30
Logic Execution Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Northeastern United States Posts: 6	galiel: It makes no difference to me how anyone believes or doesn't believe. Also, I haven't been arguing about the beliefs of the late Dr. Sagan. I was questioning the veracity and credibility of an article which someone referred me to which averred that Carl was a deist, and that's about it. I posted here solely to seek corroboration or falsification of the claim. While the belief systems of people I admire are utterly inconsequential to me, challenge and refutation of falsity, urban myths, and the like are worthwhile endeavors, in my opinion. Ultimately, myself and the person I was having this discourse with are both admirers of Carl, irrespective of his beliefs or lack thereof.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.