Sure, but isn't it a scientist's way of trying to explain "heaven" through this kind of theory? And I'd think "heaven" is supposed to appeal to whoever is there, so making it scientific (download, etc.) would make her most comfortable. Still, the symbolism really can't be denied - "heaven" was portrayed as paradise and she went to the "other side" and communicated with her dead father. I don't see that Sagan was consistent in his presentation of Religion, though. There was a priest trying to console Foster's character as a child (and failing), the whacko that blew up the machine (dangerous!), a guy with a sign "God is an Alien" (loony?) at the "tailgate" party outside the facility that became the HQ for investigating the signal, and Matthew McConaughey's character who was slick and hip.
I thought Contact was boring, and I felt jipped at the end when I didn't get to see the aliens. All that buildup and it's her dad? Lame. Very lame. Super lame. And then they don't believe her. Maybe I should read the book.
Agnostic means he didn't "embrace" religion. What those quotes say is that he uses the terms the same way I do: that atheism is essentially strong atheism: a belief in no God or gods, and that agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknowable and therefore there's no reason to believe in one.
Not proof. Evidence-based models. Any good scientist will say that nothing outside the field of mathematics can be proven. Science is all about the best predictive models, and new models replace older ones if it does a better job of describing what we observe and making predictions. While faith is a good differentiator between the missions of science and religion, truth is also. Religion is after truth. Science isn't, because ultimate Truth can never be known for certain, since future discoveries can change our understanding.
Extraterrestrial life is difficult to prove or disprove. Seems to me he's saying that he's skeptical, but willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist. Which is pretty much my view of it as well.
Actually, proving extraterrestrial life would be easy... signals that we can decode, or a planet we can see with lit-up continents, or skeletal/fossil remains on Mars. Of course, proving God's existence would be easy, too. He/she/they just need to let us know more clearly. Ed O.
Extraterrestrial life will always be impossible to disprove, but is theoretically possible to prove...finding it. God, as most major religions frame it, will always be impossible to prove or disprove. It's very nature makes it impossible to observe, as a matter of definition essentially. Sure. I think anyone is willing to accept evidence/proof that some supreme being does exist...it just has to be produced. I don't think I would take Sagan's comments that there is no way to prove/disprove a God existence as an "embrace of religion."
First you say God will be ALWAYS be impossible to prove or disprove. In your next paragraph, you say "it has to be produced," as if it theoretically could. That it theoretically could is why Sagan said he didn't know enough to be an atheist. "Know enough" means "know there is no god with 100% certainty." Or it means "know there is a god with 100% certainty." There are plenty of accounts of God showing himself or gods showing themselves or performing feats that only a god could perform. Recorded by numerous people at various points in time. Granted it's been a while since one of these accounts seen as credible by people of our time, and the sources are certainly dubious at this point. The point being that it might be quite possible to prove.
It can't be produced, as religious leaders present God (that is why I qualified my first paragraph with "as most major religions frame it.") However, if God actually exists, he/she/it may not actually be as major religions claim and could choose to reveal itself/herself/himself. So, it is impossible as religions frame it, but theoretically possible if the religions are wrong. Yes, that's a fine job of repeating my definition of an agnostic. Saying that it's not possible to know either way for certain is not really an "embrace of religion."
He didn't say it's possible to know either way for certain. He said he doesn't know enough. HUGE difference. In the second quote, he specifies that an infinitely old universe would make it less difficult to prove (god exists). Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.
Calm down, my man. I meant (in that particular sentence) not possible based on current information. I think that's pretty much the same as not knowing enough. Maybe it will be possible in the future, if god stops being so shy.
Religious dude: Are you an atheist? Atheist: Yeah. R: No you're not. You're not saying you can prove that God doesn't exist. A: Well no. I just don't believe in God. I can't prove it. Can you prove he exists? R: Don't get off track. We're here to grill you, not me. So you're really an agnostic, not an atheist. You can't prove that God doesn't exist. A: No, I can't. R: So you admit you're not an atheist. So I beat you. I sure feel good. A: I guess there are two definitions of atheist. 1) Someone who doesn't believe in God. 2) Someone who thinks he can prove there is 0% chance that God exists. Your trick is to shift from the common definition to the ridiculous definition and then claim victory. R: Quiet! Quiet! I already got you to admit that you're wrong and I'm right! A: No you didn't, but I'm tired of arguing with a nincompoop. R: That's how I win everytime! Using my twisted definition, I can continue saying that hardly anyone is an atheist, most of the Founding Fathers were not atheists, etc., etc.!!!
