If Atheists Ruled the World

[Minstrel]

Not to be picky, but the largest known star is about 2B miles in diameter, which is about 2000x the size of the sun. The most massive star is about 250x the mass of the sun.

I don't mean to minimize just how huge 2B in diameter is. If it were where our sun is, it would engulf all the planets through Saturn (and quite a bit beyond).

Yes, it's supermassive black holes that can be millions of solar masses.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've posted about this before, but I'll repeat it now because I find it interesting.

Carl Sagan was one of the top scientists of his day. He was always a proponent of the search for E.T., and responsible for the gold record on Voyager, and the plaques on the Pioneer spacecraft. His list of awards and accomplishments rank him as one of the brightest of his (or any other) day.

Sagan died in 1996. In 1997, a movie based upon a book he wrote (fiction) came out called Contact. In the movie there were a lot of religious images, actors/roles, and philosophy. It all went hand in hand with the science.

SPOILER ALERT (plot follows).

The short story is that Jody Foster (an atheist/scientist) is a SETI type researcher. She hits the jackpot when the first extraterrestrial signal is received during one of her experiments. As the story unfolds, the aliens send the blueprints for a machine and the nations of the world agree to pitch in $1T to build it.

She is not chosen as the one to "ride" in the machine, because she refused to say she believed in God during a congressional hearing to pick the person who'd go. Sagan's message is clear in this bit if plot - the vast majority of people in the world DO believe in God, so anyone who's going to represent the world in meeting another race has to believe in God as well (to be representative, right?).

Palmer Joss: "Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion. "

A religious zealot somehow gains access to the machine and blows it up with a bomb during one of its final tests, killing the guy who was going to take the ride. Everyone thought all was lost.

Foster's character had a mentor, who many believe was Sagan writing himself into his story (though her mentor was a recluse $billionaire, but like Sagan was a dying man). This mentor contacts Foster with the news that the Japanese had built a duplicate machine at the same time the first - "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret. Controlled by Americans, built by the Japanese subcontractors. Who, also, happen to be, recently acquired, wholly-owned subsidiaries..."

So she does get to ride the machine. From the point of view of the hundreds of cameras and thousands of people who watched her ride the machine, it was over in seconds. From her POV, she spent hours or even days travelling through a network of wormholes to points very distant in the universe (not the milky way). She ended up in a place that one can only conclude is "heaven." It was a tropical paradise, and she met her dead father there. What is heaven if it isn't paradise and you don't get to join your dead ancestors?

In the end, she was taken before another congressional committee who was investigating the fraud that surely took place.

Senator: "[questioning to Ellie about her travel across the galaxy and back] Dr. Arroway. You come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts, only a story that, to put it mildly, strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent. Dozens of lives were lost. Are you really gonna sit there and tell us we should just take this all on faith? "

Take this all on faith. That's a religious term, not a scientific one. The lawyers and scientists didn't believe her. In the end, it was Palmer Joss, the religion advisor to the president who stood up for her and said he believed her. And in the end, it was the atheist scientist who had to beg everyone to have faith she was telling the truth!

Joss was no religious zealot, though he was deeply religious in his own right.

News Reporters: Reverend Joss! Reverend Joss, what do you believe? What do you believe?
[pause]
Palmer Joss: As a person of faith I'm bound by a different covenant than Doctor Arroway. But our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of Truth. I for one believe her.


Sagan surely knew he was dying when he wrote his book. He had several bone marrow transplants along the way to fight the disease that did him in. The questions raised by the book/movie do not preclude science and religion co-existing (quite the opposite!). What's even more interesting to me is that when faced with his own mortality, he seemed to have embraced religion. Perhaps science didn't provide enough for him.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

Haven't read it, but supposedly he has spent over 10 years researching Jesus and that time period. I've also seen that the 'Jesus' characters name was not Jesus, or a translation of Jesus. It was Yeshua, which is translated to Joshua.

 

[Natebishop3]

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

Haven't read it, but supposedly he has spent over 10 years researching Jesus and that time period. I've also seen that the 'Jesus' characters name was not Jesus, or a translation of Jesus. It was Yeshua, which is translated to Joshua.

Again, I'm pulling from second hand info, but from what I was told, Jesus wasn't a name at all. It was a word for king or leader. More like a title. I don't know the real answer though.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

Haven't read it, but supposedly he has spent over 10 years researching Jesus and that time period. I've also seen that the 'Jesus' characters name was not Jesus, or a translation of Jesus. It was Yeshua, which is translated to Joshua.

Yep.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Sagan surely knew he was dying when he wrote his book. He had several bone marrow transplants along the way to fight the disease that did him in. The questions raised by the book/movie do not preclude science and religion co-existing (quite the opposite!). What's even more interesting to me is that when faced with his own mortality, he seemed to have embraced religion. Perhaps science didn't provide enough for him.

Carl Sagan did not, in anyway, embrace religion near his death. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Sagan wrote the screenplay for Contact in 1979. When the movie didn't get picked up, he converted it to a novel in 1985.

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl." - Carl Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan.

Carl Sagan is an idol of mine, and I don't appreciate your baseless claims.

 

[julius]

I've posted about this before, but I'll repeat it now because I find it interesting.

Carl Sagan was one of the top scientists of his day. He was always a proponent of the search for E.T., and responsible for the gold record on Voyager, and the plaques on the Pioneer spacecraft. His list of awards and accomplishments rank him as one of the brightest of his (or any other) day.

Sagan died in 1996. In 1997, a movie based upon a book he wrote (fiction) came out called Contact. In the movie there were a lot of religious images, actors/roles, and philosophy. It all went hand in hand with the science.

SPOILER ALERT (plot follows).

The short story is that Jody Foster (an atheist/scientist) is a SETI type researcher. She hits the jackpot when the first extraterrestrial signal is received during one of her experiments. As the story unfolds, the aliens send the blueprints for a machine and the nations of the world agree to pitch in $1T to build it.

She is not chosen as the one to "ride" in the machine, because she refused to say she believed in God during a congressional hearing to pick the person who'd go. Sagan's message is clear in this bit if plot - the vast majority of people in the world DO believe in God, so anyone who's going to represent the world in meeting another race has to believe in God as well (to be representative, right?).

Palmer Joss: "Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion. "

A religious zealot somehow gains access to the machine and blows it up with a bomb during one of its final tests, killing the guy who was going to take the ride. Everyone thought all was lost.

Foster's character had a mentor, who many believe was Sagan writing himself into his story (though her mentor was a recluse $billionaire, but like Sagan was a dying man). This mentor contacts Foster with the news that the Japanese had built a duplicate machine at the same time the first - "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret. Controlled by Americans, built by the Japanese subcontractors. Who, also, happen to be, recently acquired, wholly-owned subsidiaries..."

So she does get to ride the machine. From the point of view of the hundreds of cameras and thousands of people who watched her ride the machine, it was over in seconds. From her POV, she spent hours or even days travelling through a network of wormholes to points very distant in the universe (not the milky way). She ended up in a place that one can only conclude is "heaven." It was a tropical paradise, and she met her dead father there. What is heaven if it isn't paradise and you don't get to join your dead ancestors?

In the end, she was taken before another congressional committee who was investigating the fraud that surely took place.

Senator: "[questioning to Ellie about her travel across the galaxy and back] Dr. Arroway. You come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts, only a story that, to put it mildly, strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent. Dozens of lives were lost. Are you really gonna sit there and tell us we should just take this all on faith? "

Take this all on faith. That's a religious term, not a scientific one. The lawyers and scientists didn't believe her. In the end, it was Palmer Joss, the religion advisor to the president who stood up for her and said he believed her. And in the end, it was the atheist scientist who had to beg everyone to have faith she was telling the truth!

Joss was no religious zealot, though he was deeply religious in his own right.

News Reporters: Reverend Joss! Reverend Joss, what do you believe? What do you believe?
[pause]
Palmer Joss: As a person of faith I'm bound by a different covenant than Doctor Arroway. But our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of Truth. I for one believe her.


Sagan surely knew he was dying when he wrote his book. He had several bone marrow transplants along the way to fight the disease that did him in. The questions raised by the book/movie do not preclude science and religion co-existing (quite the opposite!). What's even more interesting to me is that when faced with his own mortality, he seemed to have embraced religion. Perhaps science didn't provide enough for him.

That is one of my favorite movies

 

[Paxil]

It seems to me that science will never prove or disprove spirituality, just like religion will never be able to prove there is a higher being. It wouldn't be very much of a faith if there was indisputable evidence sitting before us all. There seems to be a need for balance.

But at the same time, I can imagine a time a 100 or 200 years from now when science may know enough about how our brains function that they may be able to determine if we have any freedom of thought at all. If we are just biological machines... and have no freedom of choice... then really religion starts to fall apart.

To me... a lot of my faith comes down to whether I am a biological machine with no real freedom of choice... or that I do have this other thing that lets me be in essence... more than the sum of my parts... I also think that even if a creator did not exist... we would most likely create the image of one anyway.

I think religion has wrongly fought against science in the past (as Galileo would say if he... ah... had a head). I just don't see it as one or the other. At least... not yet.

 

[Denny Crane]

Carl Sagan did not, in anyway, embrace religion near his death. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Sagan wrote the screenplay for Contact in 1979. When the movie didn't get picked up, he converted it to a novel in 1985.

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl." - Carl Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan.

Carl Sagan is an idol of mine, and I don't appreciate your baseless claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(film)

Principal photography for Contact began on September 24, 1996 and ended on February 28, 1997.

Despite being diagnosed with Myelodysplasia in 1994, Sagan continued to be involved in the production of the film.

FWIW, I am a big fan of Sagan, too. I read the book before the movie came out, and I've seen the movie maybe a dozen times.

Sagan can say one thing, but what is presented in the movie are those symbolic things I talked about. Like the (basically) marriage of Joss (man of the cloth without the cloth) and the atheist scientist main character.

More Sagan quotes:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101010164158AA1wrH0

Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.

I'm not so sure his wife's quote is attributable to him.

 

[Denny Crane]

It seems to me that science will never prove or disprove spirituality, just like religion will never be able to prove there is a higher being. It wouldn't be very much of a faith if there was indisputable evidence sitting before us all. There seems to be a need for balance.

But at the same time, I can imagine a time a 100 or 200 years from now when science may know enough about how our brains function that they may be able to determine if we have any freedom of thought at all. If we are just biological machines... and have no freedom of choice... then really religion starts to fall apart.

To me... a lot of my faith comes down to whether I am a biological machine with no real freedom of choice... or that I do have this other thing that lets me be in essence... more than the sum of my parts... I also think that even if a creator did not exist... we would most likely create the image of one anyway.

I think religion has wrongly fought against science in the past (as Galileo would say if he... ah... had a head). I just don't see it as one or the other. At least... not yet.

I've seen a program on the science channel where they showed an experiment that indicates religious thought and experience can be stimulated with magnetism near the proper part of the brain.

FWIW.

Ultimately, religion is about Faith - a belief in something regardless of physical proof, and science is about physical proof and not supposed to be about Faith. In the end of the movie, Foster's character was in tears because she had to convince people to take on Faith that she experienced what she claimed.

I suppose the 18 hours of snow on her video recorder was some sort of statement that there was actual proof of her experience...

 

[Denny Crane]

I watched that movies many times as it's one of my favorite movies. I never thought the place in which the character played by Foster met the being disguised as her father was Heaven at all. The being, whose appearance looks exactly like her father, even said to her that they downloaded her memory and picked the best place (the tropical paradise and a childhood favorite spot of hers) and person (her father as being a person that's she's most comfortable with) to meet her to sort of ease her into the situation. It was pre-arranged by that alien civilization. I assume if it was another person that took the ride, a different meeting place and "person" would have met whoever went on the ride.

Sure, but isn't it a scientist's way of trying to explain "heaven" through this kind of theory? And I'd think "heaven" is supposed to appeal to whoever is there, so making it scientific (download, etc.) would make her most comfortable. Still, the symbolism really can't be denied - "heaven" was portrayed as paradise and she went to the "other side" and communicated with her dead father.

I don't see that Sagan was consistent in his presentation of Religion, though. There was a priest trying to console Foster's character as a child (and failing), the whacko that blew up the machine (dangerous!), a guy with a sign "God is an Alien" (loony?) at the "tailgate" party outside the facility that became the HQ for investigating the signal, and Matthew McConaughey's character who was slick and hip.

 

[Natebishop3]

I thought Contact was boring, and I felt jipped at the end when I didn't get to see the aliens. All that buildup and it's her dad? Lame. Very lame. Super lame. And then they don't believe her. Maybe I should read the book.

 

[Minstrel]

Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.

Agnostic means he didn't "embrace" religion. What those quotes say is that he uses the terms the same way I do: that atheism is essentially strong atheism: a belief in no God or gods, and that agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknowable and therefore there's no reason to believe in one.

 

[Minstrel]

science is about physical proof and not supposed to be about Faith.

Not proof. Evidence-based models. Any good scientist will say that nothing outside the field of mathematics can be proven. Science is all about the best predictive models, and new models replace older ones if it does a better job of describing what we observe and making predictions.

While faith is a good differentiator between the missions of science and religion, truth is also. Religion is after truth. Science isn't, because ultimate Truth can never be known for certain, since future discoveries can change our understanding.

 

[Denny Crane]

Agnostic means he didn't "embrace" religion. What those quotes say is that he uses the terms the same way I do: that atheism is essentially strong atheism: a belief in no God or gods, and that agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknowable and therefore there's no reason to believe in one.

Extraterrestrial life is difficult to prove or disprove. Seems to me he's saying that he's skeptical, but willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist.

Which is pretty much my view of it as well.

 

[Ed O]

Extraterrestrial life is difficult to prove or disprove. Seems to me he's saying that he's skeptical, but willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist.

Which is pretty much my view of it as well.

Actually, proving extraterrestrial life would be easy... signals that we can decode, or a planet we can see with lit-up continents, or skeletal/fossil remains on Mars.

Of course, proving God's existence would be easy, too. He/she/they just need to let us know more clearly.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Extraterrestrial life is difficult to prove or disprove.

Extraterrestrial life will always be impossible to disprove, but is theoretically possible to prove...finding it. God, as most major religions frame it, will always be impossible to prove or disprove. It's very nature makes it impossible to observe, as a matter of definition essentially.

Seems to me he's saying that he's skeptical, but willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist.

Sure. I think anyone is willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist...it just has to be produced. I don't think I would take Sagan's comments that there is no way to prove/disprove a God existence as an "embrace of religion."

 

[Denny Crane]

Extraterrestrial life will always be impossible to disprove, but is theoretically possible to prove...finding it. God, as most major religions frame it, will always be impossible to prove or disprove. It's very nature makes it impossible to observe, as a matter of definition essentially.



Sure. I think anyone is willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist...it just has to be produced. I don't think I would take Sagan's comments that there is no way to prove/disprove a God existence as an "embrace of religion."

First you say God will be ALWAYS be impossible to prove or disprove. In your next paragraph, you say "it has to be produced," as if it theoretically could. That it theoretically could is why Sagan said he didn't know enough to be an atheist. "Know enough" means "know there is no god with 100% certainty." Or it means "know there is a god with 100% certainty."

There are plenty of accounts of God showing himself or gods showing themselves or performing feats that only a god could perform. Recorded by numerous people at various points in time. Granted it's been a while since one of these accounts seen as credible by people of our time, and the sources are certainly dubious at this point. The point being that it might be quite possible to prove.

 

[Minstrel]

First you say God will be ALWAYS be impossible to prove or disprove. In your next paragraph, you say "it has to be produced," as if it theoretically could.

It can't be produced, as religious leaders present God (that is why I qualified my first paragraph with "as most major religions frame it.") However, if God actually exists, he/she/it may not actually be as major religions claim and could choose to reveal itself/herself/himself. So, it is impossible as religions frame it, but theoretically possible if the religions are wrong.

That it theoretically could is why Sagan said he didn't know enough to be an atheist. "Know enough" means "know there is no god with 100% certainty." Or it means "know there is a god with 100% certainty."

Yes, that's a fine job of repeating my definition of an agnostic. Saying that it's not possible to know either way for certain is not really an "embrace of religion."

 

[Denny Crane]

It can't be produced, as religious leaders present God (that is why I qualified my first paragraph with "as most major religions frame it.") However, if God actually exists, he/she/it may not actually be as major religions claim and could choose to reveal itself/herself/himself. So, it is impossible as religions frame it, but theoretically possible if the religions are wrong.



Yes, that's a fine job of repeating my definition of an agnostic. Saying that it's not possible to know either way for certain is not really an "embrace of religion."

He didn't say it's possible to know either way for certain. He said he doesn't know enough. HUGE difference. In the second quote, he specifies that an infinitely old universe would make it less difficult to prove (god exists).

Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.

 

[Minstrel]

He didn't say it's possible to know either way for certain. He said he doesn't know enough. HUGE difference.

Calm down, my man. I meant (in that particular sentence) not possible based on current information. I think that's pretty much the same as not knowing enough. Maybe it will be possible in the future, if god stops being so shy.

 

[jlprk]

Religious dude: Are you an atheist?

Atheist: Yeah.

R: No you're not. You're not saying you can prove that God doesn't exist.

A: Well no. I just don't believe in God. I can't prove it. Can you prove he exists?

R: Don't get off track. We're here to grill you, not me. So you're really an agnostic, not an atheist. You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

A: No, I can't.

R: So you admit you're not an atheist. So I beat you. I sure feel good.

A: I guess there are two definitions of atheist. 1) Someone who doesn't believe in God. 2) Someone who thinks he can prove there is 0% chance that God exists. Your trick is to shift from the common definition to the ridiculous definition and then claim victory.

R: Quiet! Quiet! I already got you to admit that you're wrong and I'm right!

A: No you didn't, but I'm tired of arguing with a nincompoop.

R: That's how I win everytime! Using my twisted definition, I can continue saying that hardly anyone is an atheist, most of the Founding Fathers were not atheists, etc., etc.!!!