Louisville Process Theology Network

Carl Sagan's Search, II

May 11, 2009

Atheists and Agnostics, p.174


?“You figure you can be a Christian and not believe in God. Let me ask you straight out: Do you believe in God?

----- The question has peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I?’m convinced God doesn?’t exist, or do I mean I?’m not convinced God doesn?’t exist, or do I mean I?’m not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions.

Let?’s see if they are so different, Dr. Arroway. May I call you ?‘Doctor??’ You believe in Occam?’s Razor, right? If you have two different equally good explanations of the same experience, you pick the simplest. The whole history of science supports it you say.

Now, if you have serious doubts about whether there is a God ?– enough doubts so you?’re not willing to commit yourself to the Faith ?– then you must be able to imagine a world without God, a world that goes about its everyday life without God, a world where people die without God. No punishment. No reward.

All the saints and prophets, all the faithful who have ever lived ?– why you?’d have to believe they were foolish. Deceived themselves, you?’d probably say. That would be a world in which we weren?’t here on Earth for any good reason ?– I mean for any purpose. It would all be complicated collusions of atoms ?– is that right? Including the atoms that are inside human beings.

To me, that world would be a hateful and inhuman world. I wouldn?’t want to live in it. But if you can imagine that world, why straddle? Why occupy the middle ground? If you believe all that already, isn?’t it much simpler to say there?’s no God?

You?’re not being true to Occam?’s Razor. I think you?’re waffling. How can a thoroughgoing conscientious scientist be an agnostic if you can imagine a world without God? Wouldn?’t you have to be an atheist?

----- I thought you were going to argue that God is the simpler hypothesis, Ellie (Arroway) said, but this is a much better point. If it were only a matter of scientific discussion, I?’d agree with you, Reverend Joss. Science is essentially concerned with examining and correcting hypothesis.

----- If the laws of nature explain all the available facts without supernatural intervention, or even if they do as well as the God hypothesis, then for the time being I?’d call myself an atheist. Then, if a single piece of evidence was discovered that doesn?’t fit, I?’d back off from atheism. We?’re fully able to detect some breakdown in the laws of nature. The reason I don?’t call myself an atheist is because this isn?’t mainly a scientific issue. It?’s a religious issue and a political issue.

----- The tentative nature of scientific hypothesis doesn?’t extend into these fields. You don?’t talk about God as a hypothesis. You think you?’ve cornered the truth, so I point out that you may have missed a thing or two. But, if you ask, I?’m happy to tell I can?’t be sure I?’m right.

I?’ve always thought an agnostic is an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

----- You could say just as well that an agnostic is a deeply religious person with at least a rudimentary knowledge of human infallibility. When I say I?’m an agnostic, I only mean that the evidence isn?’t in. When I say I?’m an agnostic, I only mean there isn?’t compelling evidence that God exists ?– at least your kind of God ?– and there isn?’t compelling evidence he doesn?’t.