The Varieties of Scientific Experience - A Personal View of the Search for God

Some years back I set out to read as many books as I could that purported to speak in favour and against the existence of God, and see where the evidence led. I won't bother you with my findings, we all have to make that journey ourselves.
With the greatest respect for Mr. Sagan, his arguments were very simplistic, superficial, specious, and, quite frankly, not worthy of being called scientific (alliteration not intended). This is not meant to demean the great man, but from reading numerous books on the topic, it is pretty clear that nobody is likely in our time to come up with any argument that will settle the matter one way or the other (I am sure he was aware of this). As an example, he takes a well-known egregious error committed by scientests and, unbelievably, turns it around into a statement against religion (if scientests could make this mistake, imagine how bad those emotional religious folks are).
One of the things I have noticed is how the scientific community's "there is no God" arguments always include a subtle element of ridicule or intimidation; the same is present here.
Okay, so why do I rate the book a 4? Well, Mr. Sagan's arguments, while not strong, are among the best I've read, but the kicker is the Q and A section at the back. Wow, now that is a powerful read! The Q and A section alone was worth the price of admission. Some great points came out, and he had some super (gentlemanly) verbal sparring matches with other amazing intellects. Absolutely enjoyable.

There are those who still contend Carl Sagan was not a "deep thinker". Perhaps they're correct, but the scope of his interests and his ability to impart them are unimpeachable. And peerless. The expressive and often humorous voice of science Sagan projected to an admiring public surely garnered a significant percentage of those students entering the discipline. If he left no other legacy, from plates on space probes or searching for alien life, that one is among the most admirable. Yet, that powerful intellect provoked many by issuing challenges to be answered. This collection of twenty-year-old lectures is one such thrown gauntlet. Presented to an audience which responded enthusiastically to his views, Sagan offered a redefinition of how they might view their god. As always, he did it with delightful wit and from a basis of extensive study and experience.

The Gifford Lectures centre on what's called "Natural theology". The term applies to using scientific methods to support theology. One can only hope that by 1985, the members of the audience knew of Sagan's thinking prior to his emergence on stage. From the opening lecture, "Reconnaissance of Heaven", Sagan strips away old mythologies relating how the cosmos worked. In nine lectures and a following question and answer session, he reveals the scope and workings of our universe that science has revealed. The key factor, of course, is "evidence". What we have learned about the world around us is derived from centuries of hard work by dedicated workers. The effort, performed in small, but incremental steps, has revealed a universe over 14 billion years old. It is populated by more galaxies than there are stars in our Milky Way, with each of those cosmic gatherings themselves populated by their own billions of stars. Yet, with all those fantastic numbers, Sagan reminds us, there is a uniformity among that host of fiery orbs. Sodium here is the same as that at the edge of our perception. Organic molecules, without which life could exist nowhere, are present everywhere. What are the odds that we humans are the sole intelligent life?

Extraterrestrial life and the implications arising from that possibility, form a sub-theme of the series. From the suggestion that so many stars exist, it naturally follows that many of them have planets, some of which ought to be capable of hosting life, perhaps even intelligent life. It's only logical that such life would also seek who might be residing as cosmic neighbours. Sagan explains the famous Drake Equation, which postulated the odds of such life existing. It hasn't been found, he admits, but that's no reason not to search for it. In his lectures, he supposes that in other places, intelligent life might last millions of years. That life might - ought - to be well in advance of ours. Furthermore, he contends, what does such life imply for our concept of a god who fashioned us and our beliefs? Is it rational, he asks, to think a universe as vast as ours should be initiated, let alone controlled, by a human-devised supernatural being?

Before an audience interested in nature and theology, Sagan posits a new concept of a god. Not one with supernatural powers and dabbling in affairs of a single species on a remote planet, but something different. This deity should represent the expanse and complexity of the universe we are only beginning to understand. He explains how older versions of deities hampered scientific investigation - they're still doing so. A new, less defined and more open concept of the spiritual aspect of the universe is in order. Entirely new religious experiences can derive from redefining our relationship to the universe, one more realistic and, in Sagan's view, much grander and more fulfilling. This concept, of course, underlies the book's title. By adapting William James' highly insightful, if less informed, work of human religiosity, Ann Druyan, Sagan's wife and collaborator, gave a "tip of the hat" to that earlier collection. "The Varieties of Religious Experience", a previous Gifford Lectures series, also sought a broadened sense of spiritual values. James' work needed little "updating", but Druyan offers some examples of what has been learned in the two decades since her husband's lectures to fill in meaningful details. Sagan would have applauded, since each new bit of information buttresses his case. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I would love to spend a paragraph or two on how lucky we were and are to have had Carl Sagan among us. Of course, anyone reading this review likely already knows that this is true and the extent of its truth. So, I will get to the point.

This is a very impressive posthumous collection of Sagan's Gifford's lectures where he talks about the intersection (or lack thereof) of sceince and religion. Most importantly, he talks about how the religious experience - more appropriately, the experience of extreme awe at our surroundings - is more apt for science than in religion. Where religious awe and wonderment revels in mystery, sceintific awe acknowledges the mystery and goes about extirpate that mystery via some explanation. Wheras religion's version of solving a problem is to postulate magic, science's version of solving problems involves solving them with evidence.

The first few essays are about the idea of the 'religious experience' - the acknowledgement of how small we are and how vast is the universe; the acknowledgement of how sublime all of our surroundings truly are. But science, suggests Sagan, seeks to find out about those surrounding, while religion revels in the idea of the 'incomprehensible.'

There is an essay that continues this theme by postulating on the possible NATURALISTIC origins of life. While we have not solved the puzzle, Sagan walks us through very plausible examples of how the chemical process COULD HAVE gone (certainly more plausible than an infinitely complex god deciding to create all of this, by which you then have to explain how THAT god arose.)

Another essay exposes the very embarassing 'proofs' of god that theologians have come up with through the years. Most atheists or agnostics will already be familiar with most of these, but Sagan rehashes and debunks them with crystal clear prose that is not so much combative as matter-of-fact. (Sagan wins over Dawkins here.)

The next few essays - of concern to Sagan his whole career through - talk about the importance of we humans realizing that just as our existince wasn't inevitable, neither is our continued existence. Sagan died in 1996 and, sad to say, not much has changed in terms of nuclear proliferation, etc. In fact, Sagan died before terrorism really took center stage via 9/11. Had he lived to see it, doubtless these essays would sound more urgent (a la Sam Harris). Yet, he writes of the dangers humans face should they want to live a full and long 21st century.

The common theme in this book - as in his earlier Demon Haunted World - was to guard against the perils of superstition, be it religious beliefs that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny, the belief that our planet is the center of everything, the belief that humans continued existence is assured because of divine fiat, etc.

I am not sure how else to end my review of this very worthy book but to say - Thank You, Mr. Sagan (and Mrs. Drunyan).

The wife of our late Carl Sagan edited this book which is a collection of the Glifford Lectures he was invited to give in Scotland in 1985, on a variety of topics spanning between science and religion. There are nine chapters and selected Q&A at the end. It is rather light reading on the wonders and importance of science and how religion simply has it wrong when it comes to a lot of things. Carl educates the audience with excellent examples to illustrate his points and very frank statements which I myself have long suspected but Dr. Sagan apparently knew even back then. For instance, on page 217, he suggests that people might be afraid to give up their beliefs because it is a painful realization, having devoted their whole life to it. There is generally a lot of material on astronomy with updated photographs and facts presented where possible. It is not technical but sufficient to give the layman a better idea about the universe we are all living in and some of the remarkable discoveries we have made thanks to science. There is also a good amount of discussion on the threat of nuclear war but this is understandable given the time in which it was presented. I found the second half of this book to be more interesting than the first half because more ideas are expounded there (and less pictures). As for the book itself, it's quite lovely (the hardcover edition). Even though the text is well-spaced and there are many photographs and half-printed pages, I wouldn't consider it lacking in content. If not for the typo errors in the footnote on page 200 and the somewhat poorly glued pages at certain points, I would have given this one five stars. A must if you are a Sagan fan and recommended for any library, personal or public.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience are edited transcripts from astronomer Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford lectures, and they make for a surprisingly holistic and gripping book. The book's nine chapters can be fairly divided into two sections: chapters 1 - 4 (by far the book's strongest chapters), dealing with the nature of the universe, the nature of life, and the nature of humanity's place in the universe; and chapters 6 - 9, which deal solely with the issue of religion, with chapter 5 as a bridge between the two parts. I've settled on 4.5 stars for the book as a whole based on the store's rating system, and as for specific ratings of the two parts (plus bridging chapter)...

Chapters 1 - 4 are mind-blowing stuff, definitely 5-star material. Particularly impressive, to me, was the second-chapter, which takes a long-view of scientific discovery as the constant undermining of (in his words) "human vainglory." For most of the long haul of Western Civilization we managed to delude ourselves into thinking that we were literally the center of the universe, with the sun rising and falling for our sake, and the rest of the cosmos existing purely for our own sake. This was undermined first by heliocentric theory, and then by successive discoveries. Every time we've managed to hope for a cosmic affirmation of our own vanity. Alright, so we are not the Big Boss locally in the Solar System (as Carl Sagan notes, we're the third bit of "debris" from the sun; an apt word, given the scales we are dealing with once we leave Earth), but perhaps we're at the center of our galaxy? No, actually, we're out near the edge of ours. But perhaps we're the center of the universe? Wrong: the universe has no center, and even if it did, we wouldn't be it. Leave it to humans to insist that all of the majestic splendor of the cosmos exists for the sake of a very young and very stupid "intelligent" species that is determined to commit mass suicide because a circumstance of our evolution which has left us violent and xenophobic.
I digress: although the majority of the sane portion of humans that inhabit our planet are forced to admit that we are collectively nothing more than a drop of water in the vast expanse of the "cosmic ocean" (yes, these are also Sagan's words, but taken from another source than this book), even they are afraid of going all the way. Thus the insistence on the 'separate creation' of humans from other animals, and the violent opposition to insights from biology and psychology. To many, being reduced to the level of a 'mere' creature is terrifying beyond words... ESPECIALLY with the implications for human consciousness this implies.
After putting humans in their place and exploring why we're so afraid of acknowledging the fact of our cosmic insignificance, he devotes a chapter to exploring the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe. This chapter is wonderful, like the other three, and heads off this first section.

Chapter 5 is fascinating, and 4-star material in its own right, but not as interesting as what came before it. In exploring the subject of UFOs and alien visitation, Sagan makes his case for extending the same skepticism which we employ when dealing with claims of alien sightings to religious claims. This serves as a compelling argument and as a perfect transition to the focus on religion in the second part of the book.

Chapters 6 - 9 is, in my view, the weakest portion of the book, and what demotes the work as a whole from a five-star to a four-point-five rating. It is by no stretch of the imagination bad, and the material was certainly very fresh in 1985, when atheism wasn't talked about as much as it is today. The problem might simply be that Sagan was at his best when he was talking about science, and what we can learn from it: he was less compelling as a social critic and as a pure philosopher. If you enjoy reading atheist treatises, then you will probably love these chapters, but if you've heard it all before then you will likely find this to be the low point of the work. Still not bad, however, and the occasional gem can still be found in these chapters, as in chapter 8's haunting portrait of a potential nuclear winter. 3/5 stars for the whole section.

The book ends with an extensive Q&A session, which itself is only the remaining fragment of the presumably much longer and even richer Q&A sessions that took place after each lecture. It is a pity that much of the material was lost to time, as this section rivals the first section as being the best part of the book. It only just comes in second. The back-and-forth between Sagan and his questioners would be worth the price of the book alone. It is rare when a person is able to articulate himself as clearly and convincingly in discussions as was Carl Sagan, and he is thrown some hard questions.

There are quite a few beautiful illustrations in this book, most richly-colored astronomic pictures, and mostly concentrated in the first section, that replace the older photographs used by Sagan at the time and make this book as much a feast to the eyes as it is to the mind.

Buy this book. You won't regret it. Even if you don't agree with most of what he says, Carl Sagan was still a wonderful human being and a profound thinker, and I can't think of too many people who I'd rather spend time with than him.

Book report: The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan

In The Republic, Plato proposes government by philosopher-kings, benevolent and wise dictators who would rule justly and fairly. I would have nominated Carl Sagan to be a philosopher-king. He wasn't just a smart guy in his own field (planetary astronomy and exobiology). He was erudite in a number of fields, an expert teacher and popularizer of science, and had what I consider wisdom. He also seemed to appreciate people and the human condition. In my experience, this is unusual in scientists. Sagan also had a characteristic and vivid style both in speech and in writing that makes all his books entertaining and illuminating to read.

This particular book is the edited transcript of the Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology ([...]) that Sagan delivered in 1985 (the same year he wrote Contact, one of my favorite books and movies). The Gifford Lectures were endowed by a Lord Gifford in Scotland in 1887 to address "natural theology," that is, the study of God based on reason and ordinary human experience, with no reference to sacred writings ([...]). Selection to deliver the Gifford Lectures is a signal honor, and the list of lecturers is a Who's Who of modern scientists, philosophers, and theologians, including Paul Tillich, Hannah Arendt, Freeman Dyson, William James, Henri Bergson, Arthur Eddington, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Albert Schweitzer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Niels Bohr, Arnold Toynbee, Iris Murdoch, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Dawkins, Werner Heisenberg, Roger Penrose, and Martin Rees. The title of the book is, of course, a play on William James's own famous book, The Varieties of Religious Experience.

In his lectures, Sagan explored themes and aspects of God from the viewpoint of science and the rational. Although he disclaimed the label of atheist, Sagan was extremely doubtful, stating elsewhere that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, Sagan is a congenial and even courtly host who is always respectful to those who do believe in God. This is in marked contrast to others (cough, Dawkins, cough) who regard believers as, at best, dangerous and delusional morons.

One of the delights of this book is how Sagan brings his own field to bear on the topic. For example, in the very first lecture he wonders: given the now-known immensity of the universe, with all the billions upon billions of stars and planets, why would God single out the Earth for special treatment? He invites us to expand whatever our theology is to encompass the entire universe.

In reading this book, his words are more than just printed on the page. We can hear him speaking them in his well-known voice. In fact, he seems to be inviting a dialog. Many times I found myself agreeing with him totally or appreciating a particularly telling expression of an idea. At other times, I felt like saying, "Come on, Carl, you don't really believe that." There are many parts that are very funny, such as his recounting - and demolishing - the main "logical" arguments for the existence of God. He's extremely witty about the guy-with-a-white-beard-in-the-sky vision of God that many people conjure up.

I learned a lot from his research. For example, he points out that belief in God can depend on how you define God. For example, Spinoza and Einstein imagined God as the sum total of all the rules that govern the universe. As long as you believe in the laws of physics (or, at least, that there *are* laws of physics), you believe in God. From this point of view, no one is an atheist. However, this is not the kind of God one would pray to, and differs from most people's conception of God. Everyone has a God they don't believe in.

He brings up plenty of ideas I find myself countering:
* As science advances, the need for God to explain things diminishes.
* Religion exists to pacify people and make them obey authority. "How rare it is that religions take the lead in confronting civilian authorities when monstrous injustice is being done."
* The religious experience may have a molecular basis in brain chemistry, the evolutionary purpose of which would be to pacify people and have them obey authority.
I find these ideas exciting. Good teacher that he is, he gets people to think.

One thing that I found most astonishing is that it doesn't occur to this consummate scientist to perform the experiment and report on his results. What could be simpler than to pray even a blisteringly satirical prayer for a month or two and see what happens?

However, I found his discussion about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, and its impact on theology, to be fascinating. I think that here he has made a unique contribution to the discussion. The idea is this: If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then clearly our vision of God is far too narrow. To mention only one aspect, if there is such intelligent life elsewhere, would they also have their own version of Buddha, Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed? (Ray Bradbury actually wrote a short story on this topic.) If they don't, why did this happen only on Earth? On the other hand, if it turns out that there is no intelligent life anywhere else, then the Earth really is of supreme importance in the scheme of things. It's an amazing fact that future discoveries regarding extraterrestrial life will have immediate implications for theology.

If you have any interest at all in these kinds of topics, you'll find this book illuminating and entertaining. It's a pity that Sagan didn't live to see this published. It's a tribute to his wisdom and his wit.

[...]

Let me first say that it is very sad that the store is practically giving this book away, such is its demand.

In it, Dr. Sagan talks about everything from the possibility of life on other planets, to the existence of god(s). He discusses how life arose on this planet, its likely hood on other planets. He compares ideas scientists had in the past to what we know today about this process. He also discusses what UFO sightings really are and also ideas about god, gods, religion, and belief. Very mind-opening and ponderous, I might add.
This book would be great reading for philosophy students, college students, and people looking to expand their critical thinking skills generally.
This book is basically a transcript of the Gifford lectures that Carl Sagan gave in the University of Glasgow in 1985. Since it is basically a transcript of the lectures, reading it is almost like being in the lecture hall and hearing them yourself.

from wikipedia:
"The Gifford Lectures were established by the will of Adam Lord Gifford (d. 1887). They were established to 'promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term -- in other words, the knowledge of God.' The term natural theology as used by Gifford means theology supported by science and not dependent on the miraculous. The lectures are given at the Scottish universities: University of St Andrews, University of Glasgow, University of Aberdeen and University of Edinburgh.
A Gifford lectures appointment is one of the most prestigious honors in academia. They are normally presented as a series over an academic year and given with the intent that the edited content be published in book form. A number of these works have become classics in the fields of theology or philosophy and their relationship to science."

I was captivated by the title, the play on the original wording. In these lectures, Sagan discusses and compares religion and science, differences, expectations, areas of agreement and disagreement and finally the notion of scientific evidence for a supernatural creator. I would hope that Sagan, were he still alive, would reject the anti-religious crusades by high-profile scientists like Dawkins, Smith & Dennett. He always sought compromise (in the spirit of his friend the late great Stephen Gould) and persuasion as opposed to the near evangelical proselytizing of those obsessed with the subject. Vivir y dejar vivir!

Carl was a rationalist, a wonderer, an unbeliever who put the "I" in intellectual, a genius plain and simple. One can forgive some of the material - it was 1985 and Sagan, with other "progressive" scientists, were in a massive anti-Reagan campaign to keep US nukes out of Europe. Anyhoo, the weapons were stationed, the USSR immediately disintegrated and the incident passed into history. Sagan, like the rest of us, is victim to his own prejudices and opinions. In his case it was his deep belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence over the almost unanimous disbelief of biologists. (His book, CONTACT, is still one of my favorites- as is the stunning movie.)

We went so far as to publicly lobby for SETI funds yet 22 years later we have yet to find a single signal despite tens of millions of searches. This is not surprising to many since the unique conditions for the rise of intelligence on Earth depended on a path of millions of tiny steps, all of which led to our present juncture. Four of these were global catastrophes after which the structure of life began anew. He asks if life evolved on Earth or came from space. He then discusses the UFO craze (seriously) and concludes that (1) Earth has never been visited by aliens and (2) no UFO sighting was authentic. The old Fermi question, "If they exist where are they?" is still apropos with the most obvious answer being the most plausible - we are the first and only, at least in this galaxy. A recent explanation opines that all civilization eventually discard biological bodies in favor of virtual ones. More to the point, would civilizations millions of years more advanced use radio waves? (New search techniques have since been included.)

He tells the story of how humanity was dethroned from our position of uniqueness. Earth is not the center of the Universe, the sun is just a star, we evolved from other species, all life on Earth had a common ancestor. He asks why an omniscent being would wait 4.5 billion years to bring about sentience or what is the purpose of creating millions of species only to have them go extinct? He suggests that civilization extinction could be the reason for the cosmic silence. The book is filled with beautiful illustrations and the speeches are the model of clarity. Carl, we miss you.

I had a "That can't be so moment" when I read in the introduction that Carl died in 1996! Where has the time gone? This time dilation effect makes itself apparent when you realize that when he gave these lectures he wasn't privy to the latest discoveries in science that we take for granted now. This was a great read, illustrating again the skills of the man as an educator and teacher, making everything seem so understandable and accessible. Ultimately I don't know if the subject exactly worked, it's unclear to me how a Scientist can find God, using the Scientific method. This seems to me be a paradox. If you did find God that way, would it still be God or just a very interesting scientific explanation? Isn't finding God through Science actually destroying God? Isn't 'God" a matter of belief and not proof. These are the Questions he covers very well, but I am not sure which of the Gods Sagan actually believed in. I don't think this work is going to change anyone's mind on the subject of their own belief. But it is fascinating to see how a first class scientific mind approaches such a question. I recommend this Book

I personally had never read anything by Carl Sagan. I grew up in a generation that really remembered him as the guy on the tonight show with Carson, but never really understood his bigger ideas. Whether you agree or disagree with Sagan - and there is a lot of that which will happen when you read this book depending on which side of the faith/religion aisles you stand on - there is no doubt he is incredibly brilliant and speaks to us all on a very personal level. His insight is really wonderful, and his approach to the topic makes this book easily readable even by the non-science crowd. I would recommend this to any with even the slightest interest in the universe, its origins and the path we find ourselves on now.

I miss Carl Sagan (and I know I'm not the only one). No one in my generation - and possibly ever - spoke for science and rational thinking so eloquently. Here he starts in his familiar realm of astronomy and works his way into fundamental philosophical questions, like the nature of morality and the existence of God. Along the way, he shows a breathtaking erudition. His familiarity with evolutionary history isn't too dramatic, but when he starts off addressing existence proofs of God by working his way through ones from Hindu theologians, I'm impressed.

Since I basically agree with Sagan about just about everything, I wasn't in a position to be persuaded. However, I'd like to think that anyone not so familiar or comfortable with the skeptical, scientific point-of-view would find Sagan's views at least worthy of serious consideration.

I enjoyed this book, particularly two chapters: The God Hypothesis and the Questions and Answers. Sagan, with grace and eloquence, makes a strong case against the traditional concept of God. All of the arguments for God are examined, e.g. argument from design, the ontological argument, etc.. and are found wanting. Sagan also deftly dissects the case for UFO visits through icy logic. Sagan is actually, unlike Richard Dawkins, not hostile to religion per se-he simply wants religion to stay in proper sphere and not make scientific claims that are easily falsifiable.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in science and/or religion.

I am in debt to Carl Sagan, since I acquired most of my interest for science by reading his books when I was a child. The existence of God is a theme which is very dear to me, since I was raised in a very religious family. This book captures the religion versus science debate in depth but in very simple terms. I can recommend this book, but I still prefer other books by Carl Sagan: Cosmos, Broca's Brain, The Dragons of Eden or even the Contact Novel. On this subject, I can also highly recommend a portuguese book - not sure if available in English yet: "A Formula de Deus" (God's Formula) by José Rodrigues dos Santos.

I became aware of Carl Sagan when I first watched his TV series, COSMOS, many years ago. Not only was he a fine communicator, but it was clear that he was also a sound thinker.

I was attracted to this latest work, a compilation of his 1985 presentation of the Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow by the books subtitle: A Personal View of the Search for God.

I attended a small Jesuit College almost 50 years ago in part to search for God. I did not find what I was looking for. My search continues and Sagan adds a grand perspective to the search by offering his thoughts regarding his search, in this interesting and very readable effort, The Varieties of Scientific Experience. The book is edited by Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan and she adds an introduction that sets the reader off on a proper path of expectations.

I am a physician and a writer and reading this work offered some ten years after Sagan's death was enriching to my on-going search for answers that are neither revelation nor dogma, regarding where we humans are from and where we may be going.

I credit Carl Sagan's television series Cosmos (along with Randi's book, Flim Flam) with being the first to open my eyes to reality when I was in college. I had been raised a xian, but not strongly so, not much praying, church-going, bible-reading, etc. I hadn't really given the matter much thought until I was exposed to the concepts of critical thinking I learned from Sagan and James Randi.

Years later, I felt that Sagan's Demon-Haunted World was the definitive book on the subject of critical thinking. I thought that any intelligent and open-minded individual who read it would absolutely have to come to the same conclusions as Sagan. I thought it should be required reading in schools.

Now comes this "new" book. When I first picked it up, I thought there was nothing new I could learn from Sagan, but I felt I owed it to his memory to read it. I am still not quite finished reading it, but I am so overwhelmed by it that I simply had to post right away. The points that he makes are so amazing and so beautiful and so simple and yet so complex...I lack the words to give this book its fair due. I will simply say...read this book. I feel the way I did when I first discovered these things 25 years ago - in awe. I feel as though I'm discovering these things for the first time, and once again I find that it takes my breath awat. And once more, I can't help but think "how could anyone read this and not give up their belief in a supernatural god?"

I have just finished reading Dawkins's The God Delusion. It was an excellent book and makes several of the exact same points. But nobody does it like Sagan. While Dawkins comes across as angry and hostile toward religion (for good reason, don't get me wrong), Sagan simply comes across as someone who has explored all of the options and come upon the only logical conclusion and simply wants to share it with everyone. A more people-friendly version of Dawkins.

Again, if you haven't yet picked up this excellent book, do it now. Your New Year's resolution just might be to think about everything you thought you knew in a whole new way.

This book is a transcript of Sagan's Gifford lectures from 1985, where Sagan discusses his views on the question of if there is a deity. According to Druyan (from the appendix), she felt the need to publish these now with the growing "extreme fundamentalism violence" and when the United States is in a state of "phony piety". No doubt this was also published because of the growing market for atheist literature. I think its pretty lucky though that Sagan did the lectures 25 years ago and they seem less agenda driven and far more tolerant towards people of beliefs. I think this distance from the growing new atheist segment is where this book really shines, its far less than an anti-religious polemic but more of a discussion about why when Sagan looks up at night he doesn't see the work of a interventionist deity.

As for the book itself, a major reason Sagan doesn't believe in a god is because of the vastness of space. I can see his point, take a minute watch a youtube video or get a book such as Sizing up the Universe which shows the sizes of the planets relative to the sun and the sun relative to some of the large stars. The earth is just a minor spec in our solar system and our solar system is just a spec in our galaxy and out galaxy is just one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. It definitely puts things into a different perspective, it could cause a loss of faith, if everything was created by a deity and humans were the culmination of creation, then everything else sure seems like a waste. Of course to a theist this could have the opposite effect and confirm how magnificent god is, it all depends on your mindset.

The book is far more than just this one argument though and I don't want to list them all out now. I enjoyed it a bunch, I really liked the Q&A where Sagan was questioned by theists and while disagreeing with them, he seemed to at least respect their opinion and give real answers. This is the least offensive agnostic/atheist book I've read. As for the arguments and book itself, I previously read Pale Blue Dot which contained many of the same arguments (although not as focused), and really if you've read that much of this is redundant (and besides that's a better book all around).

This book shows why Carl Sagan is my favorite rationalist -- he expressed his ideas in crystal clear terms while maintaining a graceful civility throughout.

His arguments for rational understanding of the universe and our human place within it (without the need for "faith" or belief in the unprovable) are entirely convincing and down to earth. He expresses his views so well, they are are actually comforting, and that's a real miracle in itself.

Key points: The god(s) we were taught to revere by our various ancestors are just too small for the job of managing or creating the universe. Yet we can learn what we can, and slowly, by successive approximations, we can appreciate the magnificence of what is, and improve our relationship to it, and survive and thrive as well.

that quest to know, that reach to question and to learn. what greater capacity do we as humans possess? what is love without understanding? with that intro we are treated to a series of essays compiled from a presentatation Carl Sagan gave at the Gifford Lectures..this Pultizer Prize winner takes us on a magnificent journey, seperating truth and scientific reasoning and fact from romantic fables that comprise most of our beliefs and ideas of existence, religion, UFOS, and God. This is a marvelous journey with nary a cynical or course thought but a briliantly journey into the questions that we all ponder but can hardly put into words. Believers in God, non-believers all should share this journey and learn from it because as Carl Sagan so sanguinely tells us, extinction is certain, survival is not. The threat to human species survival is our greatest threat only we can make a difference.

Sagan delivers his characteristically eloquent and humbling assessment of our place in the universe. Certainly a thought provoking read and illuminated with a tasteful selection of colorful photographs. However, since it is a transcription of lectures, the chapters are necessarily brief and often only scratch the surface of the many issues he brings up. For example, he examines the grounds for religious belief (including supposedly fulfilled prophesies, religious experiences, etc.) and tries to rebut each of them. But each of them requires a lengthy discussion--which can be found in other places (e.g. the works of Dawkins or Dennett for the atheist perspective, or apologetics texts for the religious). A recurrent theme is the parallel between the search for God and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (EI). There is at present no evidence for the existence of either, Sagan contends. However, through arguments involving the Drake equation, he argues that EI has a plausible chance of existing and of making contact with us. So, it makes sense to set up radio telescopes and listen for them. As for God, Sagan is, like myself, all ears.

The Q&A section at the end of the book is a valuable addition, though it is a bit hard to follow at times. Through it, one can get a better sense of Sagan's personality. For me, it's clear that though he held strongly to his principles, Sagan ultimately had an open mind and took to heart the humbling perspective that our modern view of the universe provides. As he points out, we are very little and we know so very little. All the more important, then, that we proceed carefully and in accordance with tested and proved principles. For Sagan, as for myself, this means only accepting claims for which we have good evidence. It is our duty and our adventure to find that evidence.

This book shows why Carl Sagan is my favorite rationalist -- he expressed his ideas in crystal clear terms while maintaining a graceful civility throughout.

His arguments for rational understanding of the universe and our human place within it (without the need for "faith" or belief in the unprovable) are entirely convincing and down to earth. He expresses his views so well, they are are actually comforting, and that's a real miracle in itself.

Key points: The god(s) we were taught to revere by our various ancestors are just too small for the job of managing or creating the universe. Yet we can learn what we can, and slowly, by successive approximations, we can appreciate the magnificence of what is, and improve our relationship to it, and survive and thrive as well.

that quest to know, that reach to question and to learn. what greater capacity do we as humans possess? what is love without understanding? with that intro we are treated to a series of essays compiled from a presentatation Carl Sagan gave at the Gifford Lectures..this Pultizer Prize winner takes us on a magnificent journey, seperating truth and scientific reasoning and fact from romantic fables that comprise most of our beliefs and ideas of existence, religion, UFOS, and God. This is a marvelous journey with nary a cynical or course thought but a briliantly journey into the questions that we all ponder but can hardly put into words. Believers in God, non-believers all should share this journey and learn from it because as Carl Sagan so sanguinely tells us, extinction is certain, survival is not. The threat to human species survival is our greatest threat only we can make a difference.

Sagan delivers his characteristically eloquent and humbling assessment of our place in the universe. Certainly a thought provoking read and illuminated with a tasteful selection of colorful photographs. However, since it is a transcription of lectures, the chapters are necessarily brief and often only scratch the surface of the many issues he brings up. For example, he examines the grounds for religious belief (including supposedly fulfilled prophesies, religious experiences, etc.) and tries to rebut each of them. But each of them requires a lengthy discussion--which can be found in other places (e.g. the works of Dawkins or Dennett for the atheist perspective, or apologetics texts for the religious). A recurrent theme is the parallel between the search for God and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (EI). There is at present no evidence for the existence of either, Sagan contends. However, through arguments involving the Drake equation, he argues that EI has a plausible chance of existing and of making contact with us. So, it makes sense to set up radio telescopes and listen for them. As for God, Sagan is, like myself, all ears.

The Q&A section at the end of the book is a valuable addition, though it is a bit hard to follow at times. Through it, one can get a better sense of Sagan's personality. For me, it's clear that though he held strongly to his principles, Sagan ultimately had an open mind and took to heart the humbling perspective that our modern view of the universe provides. As he points out, we are very little and we know so very little. All the more important, then, that we proceed carefully and in accordance with tested and proved principles. For Sagan, as for myself, this means only accepting claims for which we have good evidence. It is our duty and our adventure to find that evidence.

This is the 4th sagan book i have read(Cosmos, Demon-Haunted, Bill/Billions) and this one just didnt seem quite as good to me. Varieties is still an absolutely fantastic book and deserves a read by anyone remotely interested but I just found this book not quite as concrete and solid as the others.... It didnt seem to go into quite the detail of his other books and seemed less deep to me. Again this is still a great book and well worth the read. The world needs alot more Carl Sagan's.

For those new to the science/religion debate this is an excellent primer. Sagan illuminates all of the basic theism/non-theism arguments with intellectual clarity and touches upon many thought-provoking topics.

As it is what it is, this book is a collection of lectures - highly readable nonetheless. To those educated and enlightened in science and its methodology, this is an easy and entertaining read - a one night read to the slight insomniac like me, although nothing new will be found.

Sagan never runs over into over-zealousness like Dawkins (although it may be needed). He's the naturalist that you can have at the Thanksgiving dinner table and win converts. That is the quality of this book that needs the most attention - Sagan's eloquence.

I was thrilled to receive this "undiscovered" Sagan work as a birthday present recently. Sagan's ability to blur the lines between the worlds of science and religion has always fascinated me. I didn't find this work to be quite as powerful as Cosmos or Pale Blue Dot, but then I considered the context in which it was composed: the book is actually a series of lectures Sagan gave to an audience that seems largely composed of religious potentates. The most incredible part of this book is actually the end in which Sagan takes questions from the audience. He's put in the position of defending his arguments in the face of religious doctrinism. Sagan does so with great articulation and persuasiveness. It's remarkable to read him "thinking on his feet," as it were. I wish I could have been witness to it.

I would love to spend a paragraph or two on how lucky we were and are to have had Carl Sagan among us. Of course, anyone reading this review likely already knows that this is true and the extent of its truth. So, I will get to the point.

This is a very impressive posthumous collection of Sagan's Gifford's lectures where he talks about the intersection (or lack thereof) of sceince and religion. Most importantly, he talks about how the religious experience - more appropriately, the experience of extreme awe at our surroundings - is more apt for science than in religion. Where religious awe and wonderment revels in mystery, sceintific awe acknowledges the mystery and goes about extirpate that mystery via some explanation. Wheras religion's version of solving a problem is to postulate magic, science's version of solving problems involves solving them with evidence.

The first few essays are about the idea of the 'religious experience' - the acknowledgement of how small we are and how vast is the universe; the acknowledgement of how sublime all of our surroundings truly are. But science, suggests Sagan, seeks to find out about those surrounding, while religion revels in the idea of the 'incomprehensible.'

There is an essay that continues this theme by postulating on the possible NATURALISTIC origins of life. While we have not solved the puzzle, Sagan walks us through very plausible examples of how the chemical process COULD HAVE gone (certainly more plausible than an infinitely complex god deciding to create all of this, by which you then have to explain how THAT god arose.)

Another essay exposes the very embarassing 'proofs' of god that theologians have come up with through the years. Most atheists or agnostics will already be familiar with most of these, but Sagan rehashes and debunks them with crystal clear prose that is not so much combative as matter-of-fact. (Sagan wins over Dawkins here.)

The next few essays - of concern to Sagan his whole career through - talk about the importance of we humans realizing that just as our existince wasn't inevitable, neither is our continued existence. Sagan died in 1996 and, sad to say, not much has changed in terms of nuclear proliferation, etc. In fact, Sagan died before terrorism really took center stage via 9/11. Had he lived to see it, doubtless these essays would sound more urgent (a la Sam Harris). Yet, he writes of the dangers humans face should they want to live a full and long 21st century.

The common theme in this book - as in his earlier Demon Haunted World - was to guard against the perils of superstition, be it religious beliefs that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny, the belief that our planet is the center of everything, the belief that humans continued existence is assured because of divine fiat, etc.

I am not sure how else to end my review of this very worthy book but to say - Thank You, Mr. Sagan (and Mrs. Drunyan).

The Varieties of Scientific Experience is the transcript of Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford Lectures at the University of Glasgow. The lectures are devoted to the topic of natural theology. Natural theology has traditionally been defined as the study of religion based on reason and experience, rather than faith and revelation. Essentially these brilliant lectures are Carl Sagan's ruminations on what I would call the philosophy of religion. Sagan addresses issues about the relevance of science to religion, arguments for and against the existence of God, the nature, value, and meaning of religion, and many others along the way that are central to our understanding of worship and religion today.

Briefly, Sagan is against it. He holds that the "God Hypothesis" is weak, that much of religion is based on outmoded myth, that religion is no longer necessary, that religion is mostly negative in its influence on society. The value of Sagan's book, whether or not you accept his conclusions, are his clarity of thought and expression, his focused use of data and reason, his wide knowledge of science and religion, and his ability to express his ideas forcefully and engagingly. At the very least, and it really is much much more, The Varieties of Scientific Experience is a tour through the major issues in the philosophy of religion from the perspective of one who is skeptical about the status and value of religion.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in philosophy of religion, basic questions about the evidence for and against the central claims of Christianity, the relevance of current scientific research and results to issues in religion.

Among the very positive features of The Varieties of Scientific Experience are Sagan's authoritative position in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics. This man knows what he is talking about when he invokes science. Incidentally there are also beautiful pictures of nebulae, galaxies, and so on. There is also a brief recounting of the history of scientific cosmology. Among the other nice things about The Varieties of Scientific Experience is that the appendix contains excerpts from the question and answer periods after the lectures. This is not to be missed. It's intense--and his answers to sometimes hostile questions demonstrate Sagan's gentle but razor-sharp dialectical brilliance.

Sadly The Varieties of Scientific Experience is tragically mistitled. Even the subtitle "A personal view of the search for god" gives no sense of the breadth, power, and importance of this book, nor its central concern with grippingly relevant issues of reason, experience, science, and religion. Some of the discussion is a bit dated since Sagan is partly focused on the insanity of the Cold War arms race. This hardly diminishes the value of this masterpiece of analysis of religion.

Among the classic conflicts that beset mankind, the battle between religion and science is towards the top of the list. More fundamentally, it is a conflict of faith versus reason. One of the prevalent examples nowadays deals with evolution. Some will oppose the concept based on their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. In a way, this is okay; people can believe whatever they want. Creationism (the primary counterargument to evolution), however, is not science. Faith can lead you to Biblical creation, but reason will lead you to evolution.

Much has been written on this subject, often more adeptly than I can do. One such skilled writer was Carl Sagan, and in The Varieties of Scientific Experience, he tries to reconcile the two conflicting sides. In this attempt, he is only partially successful, which is as much as can be hoped for. The ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats are minor compared to that of religion and science; if we can't get two political parties to be truly reconciled, how much more difficult would it be for two essentially opposing concepts?

Based on a series of lectures that Sagan gave in 1985, this book outlines Sagan's thoughts on this issue. Sagan starts by presenting some of the beautiful complexities of the universe and the laws of nature that hold it together. He discusses the rarity of human life and the possibilities of life beyond the Earth. He points out what I (and others) like to think of as the Goldilocks scenario: everything in the Universe had to be "just right" for human life to exist. Tamper with any of the physical constants just slightly (like the gravitational constant) and life would be impossible. Is this an argument for the existence of God (or the higher being of your choice)?

Much as Sagan often tries to be balanced, there is little doubt which side of religion vs. science he falls on. As a result, his arguments often have an agnostic, or at least deistic approach to them. If there is a God, Sagan argues, then, to be reconciled with what we know of the universe, he has to have certain properties that definitely conflict with a Biblical God. In particular, the Sagan version of God seems to be more aloof.

The problem with a God associated with miracles and prophecy is that there is no real evidence that He exists. As Sagan has stated (though not necessarily in this book), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Eyewitness testimony or argument from authority is not enough to prove a claim about God, even as it fails with evidence about UFOs. Sagan's God, however, can exist, as such extraordinary claims are not made for Him.

Although I think that Sagan makes some pretty good arguments, religion was never his specialty the way science (especially astronomy) was, and I can imagine that some might find his theological ideas rather simplistic. Another issue with this book is that it's very much a product of the mid-`80s, and Sagan's fears of all-out nuclear war seem rather quaint in this era of newer, more likely threats of biological weapons, terrorism and even global warming.

I don't want to sound nitpicky, however. Overall, this is a good book. As a scientist, Sagan's most important contribution wasn't any specific theories or discoveries, but rather his ability to popularize science and make it accessible to the layperson. Once again, in this book, he succeeds in doing this. In the faith-and-reason conflict, Sagan was very much on the side of reason, although he allowed room for faith. Reading his book, it makes you wish that more people on the other side were a little more sympathetic to reason.

The lectures are excellent, a kind of "Best of Carl Sagan".

A few topics are a little dated (we aren't as worried about

a nuclear winter at the moment), but Sagan's brilliant

defense of the scientific method is timeless. Reading

these lectures makes you miss Carl Sagan again even more.

He was such an effective proponent of skeptical, critical

thinking. He tried so hard to lure people into this

kind of thinking rather than to berate them for magical,

superstitious non-thinking.

In these lectures he pulls no punches when it comes to

analyzing religion, but he is never discourteous; he never

insults or belittles anyone. He also chooses his

battlefields wisely, for example mentioning in an aside

that he has no problem with the existence of Jesus,

Mohamnmed, Moses, or Buddha as historical figures.

It's been 10 years now, and so far no one has emerged

who can promote science as well as Carl Sagan did.

If you have any appreciation of Carl Sagan, you don't

want to miss out on this book.

I was moved to read Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God" (2006) after reading the classic study for which it is named: "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902) by the American philosopher and psychologist, William James. As was James's book, Sagan's book consists of the text of Gifford lectures, Sagan lectured in 1985, James in 1901 -- 1902. The Gifford lectures were established in Scotland in 1888 to "promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term -- in other words, the knowledge of God." Many distinguished thinkers have delivered the Gifford lectures over the years.

Carl Sagan (1934 -- 1996) was an American astronomer who became famous for his efforts in presenting science to a wide lay audience. In spite of the title of his book, which was given not by Sagan but by his editor, Ann Druyan, Sagan's lectures include no mention of James and little consideration of James's approach to religion in the "Varieties". Sagan's book is fascinating nonetheless. But I find it tempting to think of ways in which his approach might be complemented by that of James.

Sagan approaches religion from his background as a scientist. He takes complex scientific ideas and explains them learnedly and eloquently. He covers matters such as the origin of the universe and of the planets, the age of the universe, geological time, the origin of life, the likelihood of finding life on other planets in other galaxies, UFO's, and much else. The book is punchy and provocative without becoming overbearing.

Sagan argues that mankind's source of knowledge of the world comes through science. He argues that the view of the world presented in the Bible, with its creator God active in human affairs, cannot stand the light of scientific scrutiny. He is a skeptic in matters of religion and revelation and he argues that the better course for people is to withhold judgment on matters that they do not know or understand until sufficient reliable evidence is available on which to draw a conclusion. He describes, broadly, in his book how modern science gradually has destroyed the sense of a teleological (purpose-driven) human-centered universe, created and directed by a God with a divine plan, and replaced it instead with universal scientific laws of physics and chemistry. As have many thinkers before him, Sagan examines many of the traditional proofs for the existence of God and finds them wanting. He gives particular emphasis in this book to the argument from design and to the cosmological argument. In his concluding chapter, Sagan comes close to equating the religious search -- in the subtitle of the book -- with the search for scientific knowledge. He concludes (p.221) "I think this search does not lead to a complacent satisfaction that we know the answer, not an arrogant sense that the answer is before us and we need do only on more experiment to find it out. It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us." From this book, Sagan's philosophical heroes, whom he mentions many times, appear to be Spinoza and Albert Einstein, excellent company indeed.

I want to make a brief comparison of Sagan's approach with that of William James and to suggest that the two approaches largely bypass each other because they are directed to different questions. Sagan considers religion from the standpoint of scientific knowledge. James, in contrast, took as the theme of his "Varieties" the "exploration of religious themes and religious impulses." James defines the scope of his study as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude so far as they apprehend themselves to relation to whatever they may consider the divine." Thus, James explored the phenomena and the experiences of religious life without making any commitment to the cause of or the "objectivity" of these experiences, without commitment to revelation or particular religious dogma, and without challenging the teachings of science. James tried to consider what it was of value that people found in the religious quest and in religious experience. He tried to do so, for the most part, by leaving science free to explore and expand our understanding of the world and of physical law -- as this was understood in James's day and as it has expanded dramatically in our own.

Sagan's account is stimulating, and it reminded me of how much science has indeed changed our outlook on life -- including our religious outlook. I found it liberating. But I found it offered only a partial understanding of the religious search, it purports to describe in the subtitle, and of the religious life. I think religion needs to be approached by, in the words of many religious teachers, "looking within". Such a search need not require the contravention of the teachings of science, the postulating of revelation or of divine entities, or the deprecating of the value of the scientific endeavor. It is a search for meaning and self-understanding. I think this approach goes further even than the approach James took in his "Varieties", but his text suggests it to me. In this sense, I think that Sagan has only studied part of his broad issue. There is room both for his scientific approach and for the complementary approach of William James, who in his Gifford Lectures delivered the still-landmark study of the Varieties of Religious Experience.

Robin Friedman

The subtitle of this book is " A personal view of the search for God". This is a collection of the lectures presented by Sagan in Scotland on varied topics mostly connected with God and religion , but you also get a bit about the search for extra terrestrial life, nuclear weapons, creationism and other views. As always Sagan is very lucid in his writings , and it is hard not be impressed by him , not only for his ability to think clearly, but also for his ability to put across his point clearly. Sagan also is very polite and at least to me fairly balanced in his views when it comes to the evidence of 'God'. If you define God as the sum of laws of nature then he exists, If you define God as love then God exists, If you define God as a bearded white man in the heavens watching your every move then we need more evidence. I cannot easily summarise any of the material here , because Sagan's work is always so easy to understand that the only thing I can do is copy his words. So instead I will quote some of his beliefs from the introduction by Ann Druyan.
"What is wanted is not the will to believe , but the desire to find out" (Bertrand Russel)
"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you let him live. in a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another"
"His argument was not with God but with those who believed our understanding of the sacred had been completed"
"He never understood why anyone would want to separate science which is a way of searching what is true from what we hold sacred, which are those truths that inspire love and awe"
There is also a question and answer with the attendees of his lecture which is very interesting and informative.
There is something in this book for you, no matter which side of the argument you stand on.
It goes without saying read this book.

5 Stars.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience, edited by Ann Druyan, is a transcript of the 1985 Gifford Lectures presented by Carl Sagan. In this book, Sagan sets down some of his thoughts on the fuzzy boundary area between science and religion. The treatise is well written (spoken?), well thought out, and contains some wonderful insights into the nature of spirituality.

In the book, Sagan makes frequent reference to discoveries in science (particularly in astronomy) to illustrate a point or to pose a question. Ultimately, no concrete answers regarding religion (or it's relationship to science) are provided -- only thought-provoking questions that may help us achieve an open, thoughtful dialogue.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience is and enlightening and entertaining read, and I highly recommend it for believers and non-believers alike.

Wonderfully entertaining and educational. (These lectures were first given in the 80s; footnotes update most outdated information.) I'm usually as irritated by atheist dogma as I am by religious, but Sagan manages to not be annoying. In fact, this is the only atheist book I've ever read (and I've read many) that I found worthwhile.

(In the interest of perspective: I am an atheist. I generally find writing about it unnecessary.)

This isn't necessarily an attack on religion like some knee-jerk responses might indicate. Instead, it is for me an attack on the idea that science is itself an attack on religion. Dr. Sagan attempts to impart upon us a sense of awe and wonder at the counterintuitive (and therefore "magical") reality uncovered by the last 4,000 years or so of science. If you are religious then I hope you will come away with a new appreciation for how clever your Creator has been, and how long an arduous a task we scientists have ahead of us in understanding this creation. If you are not religious, you will appreciate that simply being here is improbable enough as to be enjoyed in precisely the same way as a miracle.

I am so grateful to Ann Druyan and her anonymous friend who located the transcripts of these Gifford Lectures, making them available to us. Carl Sagan's thoughtfulness and wisdom are dazzling, as is his ability to make complex scientific concepts easily understandable. And his little comic asides are priceless. I'll give one quote from the talk entitled "The God Hypothesis":

"The centers of galaxies routinely explode, and if there are inhabited worlds and civilizations there, they are destroyed by the millions, with each explosion of the galactic nucleus or a quasar. That does not sound very much like a god who knows what he she or it is doing. It sounds more like an apprentice god in over his head."

I'll leave it with a jacket blurb by Kurt Vonnegut: "Find here a major fraction of this stunningly valuable legacy left to all of us by a great human being. I miss him so."

After reading Candle in a Demon Haunted World, and watching Cosmos, Carl Sagan went to the top of my list of people to revere. I've missed him for such a long time and was thrilled to discover this book -- a compilation of lectures that he delivered over the years.

As always, there's something new to learn. He is heavy on science and astronomy, and poses all the interesting and philosophical questions we should ask ourselves about God. Can he really be all knowing, all powerful, and all good? Those three things cannot exist at once if there is evil and suffering in the world. Or is he indifferent to our plight? If God created the universe, who created God? And can he really intervene in our lives through prayer?

Sagan also makes a powerful case for nuclear disarmament, rightly claiming that species are all doomed to extinction, but most of them are killed by something other than their own hands. We are the only ones who seem to be orchestrating our own destruction. Is there still time to stop us? If he were alive today, I'm sure that this wonderful man would be gravely disappointed with our lack of progress over the last 15 years.

Unlike much of science, these 1985 lectures capturing the awe of astronomy and our minute place in the universe stand the test of time. Sagan describes his veiw of science as the tool to understand the wonder of the universe, compared with traditional theological tools of using faith. It's great pop reading - less of a call to arms than his outstanding "Demon Haunted World" and more a challenge to appreciate the magnitude of the universe and to humbly accept our place in it.

A good part of this work is a demonstration by Sagan of the superiority of Science over Religion- in the area of telling us the about the true character and nature of Reality. Sagan at the outset tells us about the vastness of the universe, and the great smallness of our own Solar System and Earth. The Copernican Revolution the discovery that Earth is not the Center of the Cosmos is one of a number of developments in which Earth- centered Mankind is shown how much less central we are to the Universe than traditional Monotheistic Religious teachings suggest. While Humility is in some religious traditions a great value Sagan claims that it is scientific discoveries which truly have provided us the means to put ourselves in proper perspective.

The other major path Science has taken towards the making of Mankind more humble is through showing a connectedness of all life both through the fossil record and comparitive examination of various species' genetic material. This according to Sagan puts into question the Biblical doctrine of Mankind's 'special creation'. Molecular biology links us with all life . And Sagan maintains that natural selection provides a relatively satisfactory explanation of the emergence of earth's dominant creature.

Sagan however not only takes on Traditional Monotheistic Religion in terms of basic principles. He attacks in other slightly unsavoury ways, such as implicity comparing religious faith to faith in UFO's or in the thesis that superior creatures have planted us here and our supervising us. The debunking of the outlandish views is done of course with intelligence and evidence but the implicit comparison with religious views is more problemtic.

Sagan is one of the great pioneers in the attempt at communication with extraterrestial intelligence. He gives us a recap of the famous Drake equation on the probability of Intelligences in regions close enough for us to communicate with them. His conclusion though it is of course a very speculative one is that there should be a large number of such civilizations close enough to engage in some sort of awkward dialogue

with.

Sagan while denying the reality of a personal God who listens to Mankind speaks with some reverence of the God of Einstein and Spinoza the God revealed and inherent in the laws of Nature.

In a moving preface to this work Anne Druyan Sagan's widow describes their collaboration together over the past twenty years. In an interview she has stated when asked her firm belief that her beloved husband and her would never meet again. She is grateful for the great gift of their life together and their love. This is in my opinion a respectable and courageous position. I mention it because I think it suggests something about Sagan's own position, and its limitation in religious terms.

I believe it is a major mistake to see Religion in the limited way the Sagans' do, as a kind of failed Science. I believe that Religion speaks to aspects of experience and life that scientific methods cannot really cope with and comprehend. One of these dimensions is certainly the one in which we feel love and loyalty to other persons, and pray for their continued existence beyond this life. Another is that whole personal connection a great many people have with a God who is far from them and close to them at once, who we may serve and live in the faith and hope of.

It is true that Science has reduced the realm that Religion and in another way Philosophy once occupied. Religion it my opinion should not be telling us that the Creation story is valid because there has been a Big Bang and a non- oscillating Universe. It speaks to a side of us , our moral our poetic our interpersonal side in a way no 'scientific studies' can. It does place God and Man at its center, but too finds wonder in the achievements of Science and Technology.

Sagan in the pursuit of scientific truth, in his making major discoveries in planetary science, in his popularizing science is a major figure in modern Mankind's quest to understand the world and ourselves. But it seems to me the perspective he has given in this work shows not only the greatness of Science but also its limitation in understanding the paradoxical, poetic, soul of conflicted praying humanity in longing for and relation to God.

Here is a great gateway into Carl Sagan, a preeminent scientist and thinker of the 20th Century. I don't find it quite as accessible as his PBS series "The Cosmos" or his book/film "Contact." But I really enjoyed it.

This book is actually a series of lectures Carl gave, all relating to science and the search for God. Especially fascinating is the final chapter, transcribed excerpts from Carl's Q&A sessions following each lecture. The give and take between Carl and audience members of different attitudes is a great top off to the lectures themselves.

If you are a Carl Sagan fan, this book is a must read. It's a great contribution to the debate between religion and science. The early chapters are really heavy on scientific terminology. But Sagan does a good job of couching complicated astronomical theory in everyday analogies.

I was drawn to this book because I had read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience years ago. And the title indeed was based on James' title, each book being a series of lectures given as the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion at the University of Edinburgh.

Carl Sagan never really spells out what he believes about God. This is something everyone must discover for himself. Sagan gives us a set of tools for baloney detection which will work for every subject we come across. He speaks of science in ways a complete illiterate (me) in the subject can understand and become excited about. So, after reading the book, I found myself with answers to everything I had so long wondered about, with a new awareness that life is fleeting. Yet life itself is a thing of wonder and awe. The things there are to learn about our species and our universe are truly endless; everything Carl Sagan wrote being a good place to start.

Perhaps this book especially feels like he's talking with us because these were lectures. But I get this feeling from his other books as well, and although there have been advances and discoveries since he wrote them, his style and approach awakens an excitement for his subject.

There are also transcripts of questions and answer sessions that took place after each lecture. Many thoughts from many intelligent thinkers, and Sagan's warmth and humor shining through.

I would recommend this book to everyone!

I received this book as a Christmas present and was both surprised and pleased to see part of Carl Sagan's unpublished archive had made it into the public domain. The work is a series of transcripts of a series of Gifford lectures, on the topic of natural theology, which Sagan delivered in Glasgow during 1985. The style of the book is different from those such as Cosmos of Contact which he deliberately prepared for written publication, as in this case the text is transcribed from his verbal presentations in public lectures and includes his impromptu responses to unscripted questions.
The end results, sensitively edited by his widow Ann Druyan, is a delightful opportunity to experience the rhetorical skill, and depth of thinking, of a man who had been brought up a Jew, had a great respect of the pervasive sense of order he discovered through his telescopes and remote controlled space craft and was genuinely opened minded about the root causes of reality.
The lecture topics begin with the sense of wonder which anyone can feel by looking out into the heavens on a clear night, move on discuss the place of humanity in the universe and then discuss the origins and probability of the emergence of life. Having established a foundation of the cosmos humanity inhibits Sagan's next lecture begins to pose the question "Are we alone?". He looks at the possibility of discovering and communicating with any intelligences which might have developed elsewhere in the universe, and whether any such contact has already taken place. Next his lectures move on to discuss the nature of the concept of God, and whether either human religious experiences or science can offer any insights. His penultimate lecture looks human condition and humanity's future prospects. He makes a strong case for the need to learn to love our fellow humans and to learn how to cooperate with individuals whose views we do not accept, it we as a species are to survive long-term. He makes the powerful point, in discussing the potential destructive power of humanity, that such cooperation is not needed to save the planet, as he comments
"Whatever the causes that divide us (humanity)... it is clear that the Earth will be here a thousand or a million years from now. The question, the key question, the central question - in a certain sense the only question - is, will we?"
The final lecture is an inspirational exhortation to use the skills of science, the insights of religion and the common cause of all earthlings to make the most of a tiny, island of life.

The book is a wonderful inspirational read. It shows the strength of science method, the motivational urge of religion and urges all humanity to realise how unusual or "pale blue dot" of a home is and how we should all try to take care of it.

I talk to myself - a *lot*. I work alone, writing, and my best stuff comes from these internal monologs. But one of the best sources of good stuff is a good argument - and that is what Carl Sagan offers here. As I read it, skipping around, I find myself agreeing, disagreeing, contesting, granting points, etc. Every time I put the book down, my head is spinning with ideas. (This, by the way, was Sagan's goal in life, I think - to get civilians *thinking*.)

AND: the book is beautiful. The pictures were carefully chosen by Steve Soter, a colleague of Sagan and Druyan (Sagan's widow). They are contemporary illustrations of Sagan's points - in other words, Sagan was dead when the pictures were taken (many of them via Hubble). They are a major asset of the volume. Just stunning. The book itself is unusually designed and a pleasure to hold and read.

This is an amazing book that I recommend everyone should read, regardless of there religious beliefs. This is, basically, a book on the existence of god encompassing a collection of lectures Carl Sagan did quite sometime ago and then edited by his wife, Ann Druyan. It combines the reason and logic of some of the best arguments against creationism with the wit of Carl Sagan. I have read several books on the existance of god and I must say this is one of my favorites. Carl Sagan is very convincing in his arguments while in no way being overly blunt, harsh or offensive. This book is somewhat unique in that it implements Carl Sagan's unique explanations of astronomy and the universe to give a convincing argument that the common view of a personal god is unlikely.

For example, a common arugument from a creationist is the anthropic principle. Ignorance, by the common creationist, claims that god must exist because there is no explanation for values of the cosmological constants which resulted in our universe. Carl Sagan offers a unique explanation to this argument show our universe would in fact be very different, but not necessarily barren or non-existant.

He also offers many of his classic and very convincing ideas of skepticism and uses them as parallels to religious beliefs. Please, do not be shunned away from this book because of the ideas behind it. It does not have the literary prestige of some of his other books, such as Demon Haunted World, because it is in the form of a lecture. However, it is an instant classic book for another entrance into the mind of one of the greatest and most ingenious popularizers of science on one of the greatest and most important questions of all. Even if it is in a small way, this book will change your life because it answers, comparatively well, one of the the hardest and most important questions of life itself. "What kind of god, if any, truely exists?"

The influence of a rational and logical enquiring mind permeates this book. My only previous knowledge of Sagan was through "Cosmos" and I only bought the title on recommendation from a couple of friends. Its greatest value comes in being able to give proper context to our relationship with the material world, with our place in it and in the universe in general. And clearly, despite humanity's understandably egocentric perspective of creation, a prime mover and an afterlife, the reality is that homo sapiens as a species is immeasurably marginal as a footnote in cosmological time and space.

I was reminded constantly of Douglas Adams books as I read through this. Wildly differing approaches but the same underlying theme - humanity needs to learn to stop taking itself so seriously.

Reading this book, with its high quality images, I felt like I was attending the lectures. His ideas are so well stated, so eloquent, that it's hard to believe that these words were delivered in a lecture setting.

Sagan presents a breathtaking vision of the universe.

A thoroughly enjoyable and fascinating read. Well explained and accessible.

Carl Sagan's Varieities of Scietific experience dazzles me once again with his nack for writing and explaining things so well. He has a well formulated idea of G-d that seems irrefutable. He also brings up many interesting thoughts on the nature of religion and the human condition. Overall, another fantastic book by Sagan.

I've read Dawkins and Harris and Dennett and am a bright positive atheist so this book wasn't earth shattering for me. Mr. Sagan's explanations about the vastness of space and our relative insignificance in it is clear and interesting. He also does a great job explaining about sedimentary layers and the fossil record contained in them. It boggles my mind that people still believe in young Earth creation and that dinosaurs were with Noah on his ark.

Great book. Easy read. I especially enjoyed the Q&A at the back. It's discouraging that, like the other great scientists and philosophers' works, this book will probably be read by the converted and ignored by those who need it most.

Whether you agree with him or not, the youth of America should read this book (as a mandatory reading list!). If you open your mind, the book will be truly thought provoking. Moreover it's beautifully and eloquently written.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

A mentally stimulating as well as entertaining look at science and religion. A book prepared by his wife after his death. Material used during a speaking engagement made many years ago but still very relevant. A new look at religion from the outstanding brain of a scientific genius. I like to study and consider other religious ideas, no religion is good if it can't be questioned.

I loved this book; Carl Sagan is smart and incisive; He asks why we should believe in a god (God or god) and tries to apply logic to the argument. As one might expect, this is not easy, but he does so with scientific rigor. Yet he is kind and does not indulge in vindictive or malicious behavior.

A great book to read, whether you are religious or not.

With so vast his scientific experience Carl Sagan book remain the best awards for all of us which want to understand the magnificient level at which the humanity had arrived on the planet earth. Carl Sagan have used all his experience in astrophysics to explain, dispite of all sorts of theological difficulties, the way of the life apparition on the earth, and as a result he has a justified reason for the extraterrestrial civilization also. The justified supplements added by the editors, based on the newest discoveries in the field, makes us to read an actual new book of Carl Sagan, although he had too early leaved us ten years ago.

This past December 20 marked the tenth anniversary of the death of Dr. Carl Sagan (1934-1996), renowned astronomer, science popularizer, policy activist, novelist, humanist, Pulitzer Prize winner and universal skeptic.

A fixture at Cornell, Sagan often raised the ire (if not the jealousy) of many professional scientists because his image was probably more recognizable on the "Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson than at a scientific conclave. A listing of this very public scientist's vocations may seem both impressive and innocuous. Let us acknowledge the former and debate the latter. His best-seller non-fiction works included "Cosmos", "The Dragons of Eden" and "The Demon-Haunted World". He was the author of the novel (and later screenplay) "Contact".

This volume, edited by Sagan's third wife and widow, writer Ann Druyan, is a compendium of Sagan's Gifford Lectures in 1985. The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow have been delivered by such luminaries as Albert Schweitzer, Arthur Eddington, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and James Frazer. The main title, "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" is a variation (although perhaps a parody) of the William James classic "The Varieties of Religious Experience". James himself delivered the Gifford Lecture almost a century ago--a century of unprecedented historical and cultural changes and our reflections upon them. Perhaps is it not coincidental that the posthumous release of Sagan's lectures occurs during a wave of atheistic crusading, including the releases of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". One can only speculate as to what provoked this wave of public nihilism.

In "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" Sagan's modern history of cosmology is quite informative and the photographic panels (updated by editor Druyan) are laudable. Core thematic chapters in this volume include "The God Hypothesis", "Religious Experience"and "The Search". Sagan was characteristically witty and articulate, full of pithy anecdotes loved by audiences. His long love affair with science exploring an awesome universe is never concealed. Yet he revealed no groundbreaking epiphanies here. His arguments nullifying the "God Hypothesis" were as old as the traditional proofs for God's existence. For Sagan, science proffers its own axioms: He would pursue only what his reason could grasp. Knowing is always superior to believing. In fact, believing must always be avoided. For Sagan, God was so elusive if to appear delusive. Michael Novak opined recently that "God is not on the same wavelength, so to speak, as our poor minds." Karl Barth taught us never to forget that He is "wholly other." The very act of providing tangible, quantifiable evidence makes a Supreme Being less than supreme. The "God Hypothesis" represented the oxymoron Sagan refused to contemplate. Human reason trumps all else in the Sagan worldview. That which is beyond human reason will not be considered as valid. He fell into the trap of a mutually exclusive view of Nature vs. Supernature, and he would never consider anything other than Nature to exist. Sagan summarized his perspective of the history and purpose of religion as: "As science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do...evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps, i.e., whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God. And then after a while, we explain it, and so that's no longer God's realm."God is then left to the purview of the Deists as an Aristotelian Prime Mover whom they eventually ignore all together. For Sagan, to ask "Who made the Universe?" was as verboten to the scientist as "Who made God?" was to the believer.

Anthropologically, Sagan bought into the Freudian exposé of a deity in the guise of a reinterpreted "exalted father figure" and "alpha male", concepts confounding psychologists for the last century. He concluded that many religious revelations are culturally conditioned, subjective and manifested in frequently contradictory forms. Therefore, we can dispense with all of them as unreliable. Prayer can essentially be summarized as asking a deity to grant that "twice two not be four."However, Sagan is still revered for the dictum "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."I strongly suspect that he wished to emphasize the exclusive pursuit of the rational since he considered the non-rational, at best, a waste of time. His drive was so imperative that, tongue-in-cheek, he decried The Ten Commandments as incomplete because they do not include "Thou shalt understand the world. Figure things out!" So much for mixing apples and oranges.

According to biographer Keay Davidson ("Carl Sagan: A Life"), Sagan was remiss in distinguishing between irrationalism and the non-rational aspects of religious awareness. "Sagan seems to have believed that he could argue the religion out of their beliefs..."As a surrogate, Sagan asserted that "I see no reason that we should not revere Nature." This was the only kind of "informed worship" that he would acknowledge. Blurring the lines between the irrational and the non-rational sadly caused Sagan to lampoon the fringe phenomena (UFOs, witchcraft, psychics) often in the same paragraph in which the tenets of established faiths (miracles, prayer) were challenged. But Sagan's simplistic view is predicated on his definition of superstition: "It is merely belief without evidence."

Sagan had always maintained the Enlightenment as the faultline in the history of Western civilization, maintaining it as a demarcation of the domination of reason and knowledge (read science and technology) over superstition and ignorance (read religion). The naïveté of this simplistic dichotomy is exposed by the last century's rampant history and its ugly record of totalitarian ideologies bearing no roots in transcendent beliefs. If the Enlightenment could have merely taught us that the science was the proper method to study Nature, we could surely rank it as a milestone. But the deification of human reason has rippled though the centuries as its greatest excess, planting the seed for some very virulent ideologies. As a scientist, Carl Sagan surely understood the nuances of honest, data-based science. Could we not simply render unto Science the things that are Science?

But is this debate, which Sagan loved, just an academic tussle, whose invectives and sermons are merely hurled from one ivory tower to the next? Ideas have consequences. "Where there is despair, let me sow hope," petitioned St. Francis of Assisi. Sagan seemed not to envision the social consequences of popularizing his vision of the universe. A lack of a founding principle for the universe may lead into a great despair, an angst that ripples across humanity. It has never been well articulated how a robust moral ethic could evolve in such a vacuum. One refrains from hypothesizing how a Sagan-style nihilism in society will manifest itself, or what might potentially fill the vacuum. A very wise professor of mine introduced his class each term by stating starkly that "Science is valueless." He was not attempting to justify the science phobia of many college freshmen but merely concluding that science, a rigorous method, did not dispense endogenous values. They have to be derived from other sources. This tenet is often ignored by the new disciples of scientism.

We live in an age riddled with both extreme skepticism and jihad. That is probably not a coincidence. Jihad--the ultimate heresy--transforms God (Allah) into a merciless Big Brother. It is potentially more abominable than the 20th century's totalitarian ideologies because it adds an apocalyptic twist: Most must die so that this vision of Truth may prevail. Diversity and dissent will never be tolerated. Will the West continue to abandon its core values in the face of religious extremism? Will only the stark realization of a looming holocaust shock us back toward our roots? To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, "It is not possible to fight something with nothing." The nihilists of our age will not be leading us against this challenge.

Hopefully the future history of science, not yet written, will warmly recall the late Dr. Carl Sagan as a popularizer and enthusiast for science during the late 20th century, not for his failure to acknowledge its inherent limits. Early in the 20th century British scientist J.B.S Haldane concluded that "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine!" Richard Dawkins ("The Blind Watchmaker", "The God Delusion"), a militant atheist in the forefront of the Sagan school, recently debated Francis Collins ("The Language of God") and stated, "If there is a God, it's going to be whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." Shakespeare had a good point: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy!"

...so that I can meet you there when I die.

...so that you can teach to me all your wisdom.

...so that I can thank you in person.

Your loss to us was great, but your life was greater.

Hope to one day see you on the other side...

Rather than "The verieties of Scientific Experience", I'd read anything by Brian Greene. Also, this was a book about lectures Sagan had given after he passed away. I didn't find it to be very gook in that I didn't learn much.

In 1985 Carl Sagan (1934-1996) delivered the Gifford Lectures on natural theology at the University of Glasgow to overflow audiences. In them he presented what he called the "definitive statement" of his personal views on the relationship between science and religion and the nature of the sacred. For twenty years these lectures lay hidden in a drawer until his wife, Ann Druyan, rediscovered them and published them in the present book. Her choice of the book's title, of course, is a play on William James' own Gifford Lectures which were published as The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Sagan's nine chapters traverse a broad and diverse intellectual terrain, from the size of the cosmos, the nature of science, extraterrestrial intelligence, UFO's, proofs for the existence of God, environmentalism, and the threat of nuclear war. Sagan does not believe that the proofs for God are very impressive, nor that there is any definitive evidence for the existence of God, but like Einstein and Spinoza to whom he appeals, he acknowledges a reverence for the sum total of the laws of nature. In interviews he has described himself as an agnostic rather than as an atheist, and whatever the case it's clear that he is far from any traditional notion of God or the afterlife.

Central to Sagan's program is an aggressive rebuttal of "anthropocentric arrogance." Given the unimaginably vast size and complexity of the universe(s?!), says Sagan, humanity should not claim any privileged status either in space or time. He thus wants to demote humanity from any central position in the universe to a mere incidental status. But if religious believers should not draw any "positive" conclusions about the deity or humanity based upon nature, it seems contradictory for Sagan to draw "negative" ones. At one point he seems to admit this, as when he writes that "there is no particular theological conclusion that comes out of an exercise such as the one we have just gone through" (p. 28). At other times he admits when his opinions are no more than "speculations" or even "wild guesses."

Many of Sagan's descriptions of religion stoop to shallow caricatures: "What about the idea that we are all made in God's image? Is that also a failure of the imagination? Do we, for example, imagine that God has nostrils and breathes? If so, what does He breathe? Air? Where is the air? Air with oxygen in it? No other planet in the solar system has oxygen except the earth. Why restrict God to very few places? Why would He need nostrils? What about a navel? What about hair?" (p. 122). Is it really a "perfectly typical tenet of modern religion" to believe that "if you only have enough faith, you can levitate"? (p. 143). Straw man arguments like this are demeaning for one of the most brilliant intellectuals of our time. Furthermore, when Sagan discusses proofs for the existence of God, the nature of miracles, the problem of evil, and the like, he never interacts with serious Christian literature on the subject (eg, philosophers like Richard Swineburne and Alvin Plantinga, or scientists who are believers like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne or Owen Gingerich). The result is a brilliant version of science pitted against a ridiculous presentation of religion. Guess who wins? A final and important area that Sagan does not address is the possibility of knowledge that the scientific method cannot verify, like aesthetics or ethics. What might a Mozart symphony tell us about the nature of ultimate reality? Or what are the implications for science that it can build a nuclear bomb, but not tell us whether, when, or under what conditions to use it? The "is" of scientific description, as many people have observed, does not by itself address matters of "ought."

What a great piece of literature. Carl's Gifford Lectures are a truly wondrous work, and you can only imagine how mind-blowing it would've been to sit in on these lectures back in 1980-whatever. Here, he displays the evidence for or against a God, and allows you to draw your own conclusions. This is a must-read.

I have long been a fan of Carl Sagan. His lucidity and compassion, his focus on issues of central importance, his boundless curiosity about the cosmic and spiritual, made his voice a timeless and important one. Thus, when I stumbled upon this elegant volume, one that resuscitated Professor Sagan and allowed him to teach some final lessons, I was enthusiastic, particularly since this tutorial addressed an issue with which I personally am obsessed: the juxtaposition of science and religion. But, ultimately, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, while enjoyable, disappoints. It purports to haromize the devine and secular, but this is a classic bait-and-switch. Lecture after lecture, Sagan does nothing other than deconstruct religion, explaining how it had become less relevant over time, with its domain conquered by scientific thought and inquiry. No longer does religion explain earth's place in the cosmos. No longer, Sagan suggests, can it even explain the origin of life. Rather, Sagan argues, religion is but a psychological crutch, something on which we lean when confronting the vastness, the loneliness of time and space. It is something to be hawked by charlatans, and purchased blindly by the ignorant, by those who shun empiricism. But Sagan's discussion gives short shrift to the fact that there are enduring mysteries that science has not begun, and apparently cannot begin, to explain. Why are the laws of physics and nature so precise, so finely calibrated such that any slight change in their properties would make life all but impossible? What caused the big bang? Don't the answers to these fundamental questions at least suggest the existence of a creator, a grand designer, or God? Sagan's failure to confront these existential issues leaves his superficially erudite discussion seeming both tendentious and even half-baked. The lectures continue to lose steam toward their end, when they shift away from both the scientific and religious to the political. In the end, Sagan's lectures devolve into a threadbare and tired appeal for nuclear disarmament, one in which his fear that mankind will destroy itself becomes something of a hobbyhorse. Not only is this discussion uninspiring and trite but it is hopelessly out-of-date. When Sagan gave his lectures in 1986, the world was a bi-polar place fixated on dangers presented by the cold war. Today, with barbarism and radical Islam ascendant, the threats posed by the Soviet Union, a rational entity, seem almost quaint. All that said, in beseeching us to elevate scientific, fact-based methodology above mysticism, Sagan speaks of timeless truths, ones well worth remembering in this new age of fundamentalism.

As in so many of Sagan's other books, he showed himself to be narcissistic, arrogant, and intolerant.
Those who believe God created the universe are held in extreme contempt by Sagan the agnostic.
He alternates between outright contempt for Christians and patronizing us.

His many scientific errors are inexcusable ignorance.

"Imagine a device with a dial for changing the law of gravity (I wish there were such a device, but there isn't)." - page 55

Indeed, one small fiddle with Sagan's imaginary device, and planets would fly from their orbits, forever. Retuning Sagan's dial would hardly bring the planets back.

"Consider the molecules we have just talked about: CN, C2, C3, NH2. What are their parent molecules?" - Page 76

CN, C2, C3, and NH2 are not "molecules." They are charged radicals.

Sagan questions the Holy Bible, asking why there is not a commandment for getting knowledge.
He overlooks the many verses encouraging precisely that, including of course "The fool hath said in his heart There is no God."

Sagan's expressed ignorance is terribly compounded by his agnostic intolerance. I believe he was a devout atheist, but sought to ameliorate his beliefs in order to sell more books to Christians. In this, he did quite a poor job.

Finally, consider Sagan's personal life. He claimed the earth was overcrowded, while breeding five of his own children to contribute to the problem he lamented so hypocritically. His eulogy was held in St. John the Divine Catholic Church in New York City.

Carl Sagan says that if any of the radio telescopes receives the transmission of just one intelligent signal, that will be sufficient to prove that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Yet, he says that the intelligent design in nature, such as DNA (which is a program on how to build all of our protiens) or the fundamental physical constants (the slightest alteration of which would destroy the universe as we know it -- read P.C.W. Davies on this) or the anthropic principle in biology, is insufficient to prove intelligent design and hence insufficient to prove Creationism. He should be consistent with his own standards. Selectively applying standards shows he is not faithful to those standards when they yield information that contradicts his secular world view.

What a wonderful book. It would have been a unique experience to be present during these lectures at the University of Glasgow. The way Sagan deals with difficult and controversial issues is unique and enriching, but more than anything logical. Sagan at its best!