Absolutely beautiful.

Fantastic *talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Very inspiring.

made me cry

Great sift.

It was the chicks that wanted to know. Us dudes were content to sit naked in our paradise having our orgies.

^ Which pillock downvoted that? Hope she/he downvotes this too, fuck you lack-of-sense-of-humour-bot.

I would also like to know who overdubbed this with the LOST music. Good choice. At least i didn't feel let down by the end of this video!

If the universe is an accident then why should I, an accidental creation of chaos, seek purpose? How is my purpose anything more than an accidental coming together of molecules into a pattern that seems to indicate design but is argued to be mere science?

Hi Maeric. (Sorry I accidentally sent this to you privately I think.) Think of the last 200 years of progress and what vast changes in thought that has brought. Then think then of the next 1000 years and how differently people will see this mystery then. Who knows what will be common knowledge then. For the mean time, my personal response to this mystery is to learn as much as I'd like about whatever I want, enjoy my life, stay out of everyone else's way, try to help eliminate suffering and try to promote general education so that the human race as a whole gets smarter over time, even if I miss out on the future revelations. That sits fine with me and I enjoy tripping on the mystery.

Sagan was such a great man. So unfortunate he died so young... that was a wonderful piece by him.

"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." -Albert Einstein

>> ^maeric2000:

If the universe is an accident then why should I, an accidental creation of chaos, seek purpose? How is my purpose anything more than an accidental coming together of molecules into a pattern that seems to indicate design but is argued to be mere science?


2 parts to my answer to your question.

First part - who told you that you should seek a purpose? If you feel you should have one or that you need one, you must ask that question of yourself; don't burden others with the responsibility to give you what you decide you need. Some people drive themselves to utter depression, despairing of the fact that there IS no purpose and no meaning, and let's hope there is a god to help you if you reach that conclusion because it's a terrible bottomless pit. Like douglas adams more or less said - the very last thing a human needs is a true universal sense of perspective.

Second part - i think you've answered your own question as to what a human's purpose is - and that is to question "why?" But never be satisfied by any answer, only keep on asking.

very powerful clip

No doubt Sagan is right about the origins of most religions (to explain and control external forces), but that isn't a valid reason to dismiss religion. Science exists for the exact same reason. Religion got things wrong, to be sure, but so has science throughout history.

Furthermore, all of the current major religions have evolved greatly over time from trying to literally explain the physical world to metaphorically explain how we can live happily in it. So, claiming that we shouldn't believe in religion because it originally was a way to explain the physical world we live in seems like a straw-man argument to me. The whole "it's either science or religion" thing is a false dichotomy (though granted there are people--both scientists and fundamentalist religious folk who propagate that false dichotomy).

I have no problem with Sagan's closing remark that we find out as much about the universe we live in as possible. I do have a problem with believing all there is to this life is collecting knowledge. Knowledge without wisdom can be both useless or dangerous depending on how it is used. Both philosophy and religion--neither of which can rely on the objective knowledge that science so highly prizes--are the only ways for us to explore HOW to live. Science tells us what happened up to know and possibly what might happen in the future. But it doesn't give us a clue as to what to do with ourselves in this very moment (which @maeric2000 very aptly pointed out).

"mere science"??

You should seek a purpose, because that's what you were built to do. Thinking is little more than randomness put together with simple rules which define how the randomness is interpreted by the body.

Think of an hourglass - from a distance, it's a fairly simple process: sand falls down through the pin hole and lands on the bottom - simple laws of physics, coming together in a cacophony of randomness. To be able to predict which grains of sand falls first, in which order they fall, the exact time it takes, etc etc. is incredibly complex and to be able to predict all details of the falling sand you would need a complete simulation of the universe, to make up for background radiation, quantum flux and whatnot.

The hourhglass cares not for all the reasons it does what it does, it just does it. Simple causality. Our brains function the same way, albeit with more complex rules determining our reactions to the causal forces. These "simple" rules present a virtual reality comprised of senses and interpretations in our brain which essentially create our consciousness, not a homonculus, but as a meta-software running in all parts of the brain, some places storing information, some places interpreting visual input and so on.

Your consciousness is desperate to observe its place in the world which is why all sorts of theories are created. "Purpose" is something we make up as we go along.

"I live for my kids", "I live for myself", "I live for soccer", etc etc. There is not universal purpose, other than potentially continuing the species, which is the underlying evolutionary effects, but they don't always work with us - we are one of the few species who actively work against natural selection, and thank goodness for that.

Uhm, gonna stop rambling.
>> ^maeric2000:

If the universe is an accident then why should I, an accidental creation of chaos, seek purpose? How is my purpose anything more than an accidental coming together of molecules into a pattern that seems to indicate design but is argued to be mere science?

Unacceptable, Gundam. Religion is almost ENTIRELY used to explain the inexplicable. Religion's sole purpose is to convince people that a) there is an afterlife and b) the afterlife is infinitely superior to the current life. That's the only reason idiot-morons buy what these preachers are selling.

And as for religion and science not being diametrically opposed? The scientific method tells us that when confronted with something we cannot explain, we are to observe and test until we can explain it. Religion tells us to simply accept things as they are. "Because god says so" is not an acceptable answer for "why does XYZ happen?"

Anyone know where you can find that version of the audio book? I checked out one audio book version and it was just unlistenable due to the reader. I could live with someone besides Sagan reading it, but this guy was unbelievably irritating. Just non-stop nasal whining, like Wallace Shawn without the charisma.

>> ^PHJF:

Unacceptable, Gundam. Religion is almost ENTIRELY used to explain the inexplicable. Religion's sole purpose is to convince people that a) there is an afterlife and b) the afterlife is infinitely superior to the current life. That's the only reason idiot-morons buy what these preachers are selling.
And as for religion and science not being diametrically opposed? The scientific method tells us that when confronted with something we cannot explain, we are to observe and test until we can explain it. Religion tells us to simply accept things as they are. "Because god says so" is not an acceptable answer for "why does XYZ happen?"


I understand your hostility to religion, but I'm curious which religion you are referring to in your post--because there are many religions in the world and not all of them are concerned with an afterlife. Even those that are concerned with an afterlife such as Christianity and Islam are much MORE concerned with how we live right now than with explaining the cosmos. In fact the Catholic church has gone so far as to state that the Book of Genesis, which ostensibly explains the origins of everything, is to be read metaphorically, not literally (I can't find the link now, sorry, but it's official doctrine--a little more Googling than I have time for right now should turn it up).

I'll quote Stephen Barr, a physicist at the University of Delaware: there is no war between science and religion. There is, however, most certainly a war between atheists and religion--with both sides attempting to use science as both a sword and shield.

>> ^SDGundamX:

Furthermore, all of the current major religions have evolved greatly over time from trying to literally explain the physical world to metaphorically explain how we can live happily in it.


Two things: First of all, in what sense isn't the evolution of religion from being a source of all knowledge and wisdom about the universe to being a vague, wishywashy and extremely confusing guide to happiness, just a long, sad retreat for a worldview that doesnt make sense anymore? You say the official doctrine of the Vatican is now to view Genesis "metaphorically", and I believe you. But do you seriously believe the church came to such a stance voluntarily?

So how did they get there? By chanting latin verses over and over and turning crackers into god-flesh enough times to suddenly see the error of their previous interpretation of Genesis? No, of course not. The move was all involuntary, and resisted by the church for the longest time possible. For example, the church didnt officially recognize evolution before 1996 (and it still seems a bit confused about it). The truth is that religion has been on the run from reality from its own birth. The only reason churches like the Catholic church now accept scientific findings (like evolution) and chooses to reinterpret religious scripture that contradicts it, is because the alternative has become truly insane and bizarre, too bizarre even for most forms of religion. Through the use of science, we have uncovered, discovered and unearthed so much evidence that we can now safely account for the the origin of our own existence (admittedly leaving gaps that religion can irrationally fill with gods and magic) far, far better and more accurately than any religion has ever done.

Secondly, now that we agree that religion is useless at explaining the physical world, please enlighten me how it can "metaphorically explain" how to live in it. What wonders and wisdom about the big "how" have we gotten from the Catholic church lately? Unless its "How to move a child rapist from perish to perish while avoiding the authorities", I cant really say I trust the Church's expertise in any area of "how". Just like it's difficulity with the physical world, the religions of the world seems to be increasingly struggling on the metaphorical how side of things.

To be perfectly honest, I dont think Christianity or Islam (or any religion of your choosing) can tell us jack shit about how to lead a better life, and there is a very simple reason: its because we created these religions. in fact, strike that. Our ancestors, in confusion, ignorance and desperation created these religions, because they had no better answers. it was the first, and worst attempts by humans to understand their world. We now have vastly superior methods, and I suggest we put them to good use, both on the physical and abstract how and why's

@BicycleRepairMan

I don't understand your arguments. For example, I'm not sure what your point is about "change." Religion changes because society changes. This is no different than technology replacing jobs that used to require manual labor. Do you think the guys who used to work on the assembly line "voluntarily" learned new job skills when automation replaced them? No, of course not. So, why is there something wrong with adapting to current circumstances? Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical. A few radical Muslims rammed jets into the World Trade Center, so all Muslims are terrorists (and Islam is evil)? A few priests molested children, so all priests are are child molesters (and Catholicism is evil)? A few black people have committed crimes, so all blacks are criminals? You strike me as an intelligent guy (judging from our previous conversations), surely you can see the problems with those arguments.

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have anything relevant to say about our current lives right? Well then, how about the U.S. Constitution? There's a document that was written by our ancestors. Should we scrap that too? Couldn't possibly be relevant, right? After all, it hasn't changed in since it was written (though it has, of course, been added to).

The reason why we still cherish the Constitution is because of the wisdom it contains. That wisdom has been reinterpreted many times since the constitution was originally written--reinterpreted based on changes in both technology and society but never changed. In a similar manner, all of the religions have collected wisdom of what it means to be a human being and how to live happily. That wisdom too has been reinterpreted many times based on changing conditions.

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. Certainly people have mis-used and abused religion to further their own ends. Certainly people who claim to be religious have done terrible things. But in almost all cases you find that these people are not actually following the teachings of their own religion when they do these things--that they have hijacked the messages, distorted them, and used them for their own ends. I don't blame religion for that. I'm sorry to hear that you do, because like I said I think you're missing out.

Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.
Nor did I draw that conclusion from that argument. My point was that religion has been on a constant retreat in the battle against science and reason over truth claims about the world. Every battle has been fought with the intention of winning ground, and every battle has been lost by religion. "God" has been relegated back to more and more diffuse gaps in our knowledge. Later in my post I argue that the same is true for the moral wisdom contained in religion, it ought to be subject to the same beating as religions claims about the natural world has been, because I cant see religion excel in any area of moral wisdom.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical

Oh not this shit again. Nowhere in my post did I say so, and you know it. If you are referring to the comment about the Catholic child-rape, you fail to see my point completely. YOU claimed, and keep claiming, that religion is, or can be, a useful guide to leading a moral life, finding happiness and so on. Well, if what you say is true, institutions like the Catholic church ought to be beacons of light for the rest of us. Countries ruled by the likes of Taliban and the top clerics in Iran ought to be countries with the best possible human rights records, because after all, the laws they govern by are taken directly from the sources of wisdom themselves, our cherished holy books. Show me a society that has positively benefitted from adopting a more, not less, religious stance, and your claim might have some merit.

My point about bringing up the disgusting actions of the current leadership of the catholic church, is that obviously, religion hasn't helped at all. Perhaps it didn't make things worse either in this case, but we have to remember that its not ME who claims the catholic church is to be seen as a source of profound wisdom and morality, nor do I think adhering to catholic doctrine will help you make better moral decisions. it is the church itself who make these claims, and you, by saying things like "religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives"

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors.

Wrong again. I didn't dismiss it because it was written by our ancestors, I dismissed it because it quite obviously doesn't live up to the reputation you are trying to give it. But if it was truly, say, inspired by an eternal , real god, it really ought to live up to at least some degree. So when it doesn't... Why? Because it was manmade. made by people with flaws like you and me, and even worse, it was made thousands of years ago, by people who knew so little about the world they lived in. In a time where the world map was probably the size of maybe Israel and Egypt combined. And considering the circumstances they lived in, I dont blame them for being less then perfect, and much of what they wrote is certainly interesting, and stories like Genesis are fascinating insights into their minds and how they thought about the world. But as far as shedding light on the actual origin of our universe, it is as useless as Deuteronomy is in moral guidance.

And no, you shouldn't dismiss the constitution because it was written in the past, you should judge it like anything else on its actual contents and its track record.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, July 8th, 2010 1:51pm PDT - doublepromote requested by NicoleBee.

OH MY GOD! It's SO BEAUTIFUL! What does it MEAN!?

Great sift. Could have used some bewbs, but great nontheless.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, July 18th, 2010 11:47am PDT - promote requested by Fletch.

I read Cosmos at the age of four. Carl Sagan was always a favorite of mine, but I don't agree with his views on religion (of course he is mostly talking about Christianity). So, while I maintain my fondness for his invoking of the wonder of creation, I can't say I agree with anything he said in this video. It's really just one straw man or gross misrepresentation after another..

He asks, why is man similar to God? Yet, it is written that God created man in His image.

He said the size of the Universe rules out our having any particular significance. That just doesn't follow. God is omnipresent, and can give equal time and significance to any part of His creation. No matter how small we are in comparison to the rest of the Universe, the Universe is small compared to God. He can give significance to any part of His creation, so how would we know what He considers significant?

He says religion was an attempt to explain origins, but now we know better..

Yet, science doesn't know better. On origins, science knows exactly zip. In fact, most of the evidence science has found in the last century points towards a Creator and not away from one.

He says religion makes mistakes; if he is talking about scripture, I don't agree, but in any case science is not omnipotent, and it makes mistakes all the time. On the objectivity of science, I like this quote:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

He said religions contradict each other, and so they should, since only one could possibly be correct.

He said there is nothing to say that the Universe was made for us, yet the evidence shows that the universe is fine tuned for life

He said life has no purpose, which shows the nihilism inherent in the naturalistic materialist worldview. Carl Sagan would probably agree with this statement by Richard Dawkins:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

He said there is no proof of origins, which I agree with, if we're talking about the story that scientists tell us about abiogenesis and evolution from common descent

He said there could be more advanced beings, so why not God?

He said we need to get over not being important and embrace being tiny. Yet, this desire to be tiny and unimportant is actually desire for total autonomy, apart from God. It is a desire to take God off His throne and take His place on it. That's not a tiny idea, that is sinful mans greatest desire.

He said religion arose because of fear, yet Christianity arose because of Jesus Christ

He also turns around the story in the garden, saying man was kept ignorant, starving for knowledge. What he failed to understand was that God wanted to teach us His way. He knew the difference between good and evil; all we needed to do is follow His instructions and we could have spared ourselves all of this suffering and death. Yet, He gave us a choice, because He didn't want robots. Why do you think He put the tree there in the first place? People reason it as if it was just incidentally there and we broke free of God..yet, God deliberately put it there, to give us a choice, and we abused that choice.

He wants to believe order comes out of chaos, but there is no such thing as chaos. There always must be an overriding order for anything to arise at all. Science cannot explain the uniformity of the nature; it is actually *the* fundamental assumption of science, that science could even be done at all. You can't say that the Universe will operate the same way even 10 seconds from now. Another case of sitting in Gods lap to slap His face.

He said we determine the significance of the planet and ourselves..

Again, this is man wanting to put himself in Gods shoes. Man is not wise, has never been wise, and would utterly destroy Himself if not for God maintaining order on this planet. The heart of man is filled with violence and depravity. God is the only good in this world, and all good things come from Him.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by eric3579.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #7927 (supplied by member eric3579) - video declared dead by member eric3579.