Carl Sagan's Son

[Beady]

A few days ago, I was telling a cow-orker about the DVD set of Cosmos. Another cow-orker, the one who's really into woo, overheard and decided to stick his oar in, claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book (orker couldn't remember either the son's name or the title of the book) claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos.

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

 

[ohms]

According to his website, Nick Sagan has had 3 novels published, all fiction.

The list also agrees with his list of works on Wikipedia.

I expect you are correct about the deathbed conversion thing.

 

[CBVan]

Call the co-worker on it. See what he/she says. Post it here. Please?

 

[Jekyll]

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

That sounds like an awesome story:

*Cough* *Cough* "I was just kidding about the big bang. It started as a little joke, but it all got out of control. Tell Hawking I'm sorry." *Urrgh*

 

[Dave1001]

A deathbed conversion is a highly rational move. Think about it. No downside to it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

A deathbed conversion is a highly rational move. Think about it. No downside to it.

There certainly is. For one thing, which delusional religion should a dying person chose? There are so many, and they're all so sure they're right. For another, Sagan was quite sure they're all hornswoggle, so there's nothing to be gained by doing so.

 

[Hawkeye]

Complete utter horsesh*t.

The following passage is from the epilogue to Sagan’s Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, written by his wife Ann Druyan. It’s beautiful, you can read it here: http://www.2think.org/bab.shtml
(scroll down to the section labeled epilogue)

Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each others eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever.

As others pointed out, your coworker’s claim is ridiculous. Why on earth would Sagan ever "disavow" Cosmos? Does this guy have any freaking idea what cosmos is even about?! Carl spent his life trying (successfully I might add) to popularize science and increase scientific understanding and critical thinking within the public. Cosmos, which is among the best selling science books ever written, was intended to educate people about astronomy and astrophysics. It’s essentially bout mankind’s place in the universe, and the story of how we came to understand this perspective. To say Sagan disavowed Cosmos is to suggest that he rejected his life’s work and abandoned his most fundamental philosophies.

These woo-woos are free to believe in any of the ridiculous fantasies they want to in their free time, but if they dare to defile the life and death of a man like Sagan to further their own agenda… that’s not going to fly with me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's funny how it's always the atheists and agnostics who are said to have made deathbed conversions. I never hear any apocryphal stories about famous religious leaders converting to atheism in the end.

Steven

 

[switchtech]

Conversion too late...

It's funny how it's always the atheists and agnostics who are said to have made deathbed conversions. I never hear any apocryphal stories about famous religious leaders converting to atheism in the end.

Steven

I once read a description of Hell described not as the Inferno Dante describes (actually, he described more than the fashionable blazing lake of fire) but as a separation from God, that is, to be not in God's presence. So the true fate of all believers is Hell, in the sense they are not in the presence of their god. A non-believer doesn't have that "problem." We just eventually go back to being star-dust (or what ever fate awaits the Earth at the end of our solar system) - and truly be a part of the heavens (in the sense that the Universe is the heavens) as we always were.

So in my ironic way, I've implied that all atheists exist all their lives and all their after-life in Heaven, and all believes exist eternally in Hell. Seems right to me.

jbs

 

[mumchup]

I'm always a little bit amused that prayers and conversions on deathbeds and such are considered proof of a god. If I am in a foxhole with bombs falling all around, frightened for my life and terrified; is that my most reasonable moment?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.

 

[Hawkeye]

Or maybe evidence that people are afraid of death and take comfort in the thought of an afterlife.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.

Some people talk about it, yes.

Do you have a better explanation?

God exists, and we merely discover him?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A few days ago, I was telling a cow-orker about the DVD set of Cosmos. Another cow-orker, the one who's really into woo, overheard and decided to stick his oar in, claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book (orker couldn't remember either the son's name or the title of the book) claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos.

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

Hawkeye's quote from Billions and Billions is great and I might add that unless said co-worker things Anne Druyen was just shilling for the DVD, you might mention that she appears on the first disk speaking about how proud Carl was of the series and how it had stood the test of time in the last 20ish years. There's also the little "science updates" added feature which says when you click on it that very little revision is needed since Cosmos first aired.

And how does one disavow that Schiaparelli was not referring to "canals" or the Tlingits greeted La Peruse on his voyages around Alaska?

 

[Dave1001]

There certainly is. For one thing, which delusional religion should a dying person chose? There are so many, and they're all so sure they're right. For another, Sagan was quite sure they're all hornswoggle, so there's nothing to be gained by doing so.

Once again, there's no downside to it. A subset of religions will damn you if you convert to the wrong religion. But as far as I know the same ones also damn you if you choose no religion. So converting to one of those on your deathbead costs nothing, but its like getting a free an afterlife lottery ticket to a lottery that probably won't pay off. But who turns down a free lottery ticket?

 

[Gilmar]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

 

[Beady]

In fairness, I have to tell you that woo-ish cow-orker seems to have similar views to myself on religion, so we're not discussing a religious conversion. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what kind of conversion or disavowal is intended. I think I may go back (on Monday, we're now into the weekend) and get him to be more explicit.

BTW, I did tell him about Druyan's epilog to B&B (although I misremembered it as being from a Skeptical Inquirer article). The conversation ended with him saying something on the order of, "So, Sagan's wife says he didn't and his son says he did." It's progress of a sort, I suppose.

(There are two problems with having these discussions at work: 1) you occasionally have to break off and earn your paycheck, and 2) you've got to be really careful about getting too heavily into some subjects.)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Some people talk about it, yes.

Do you have a better explanation?

God exists, and we merely discover him?

One of Stephen J. Gould's many valuable reminders to his readers was that the cultural context inevitably affects the view of writers, and that scientists are not exempt.

The widespread belief that we might be hard wired to believe in gods is very much a meme of our times. Before the universality of PCs, very few of us would have used terms like "hard wired" of people at all.

Pre genetics, while many people believed behaviour could be inherited (Good breeding will out, old boy! It's in the blood) this wasa rather different thing from saying "Homosexuality may be a hereditary condition".

There is, so far as I'm aware, little solid anatomical evidence to support the notion that we are hard wired to believe in gods. There are several suggestive hints from biology / ethology, notably the very universality of the behaviour. Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here. A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

 

[Beady]

Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

Define "easily." In my own case, I first began toying with rationality while attending a Lutheran high school (the English teacher was foolish enough to allow us to do one of the courtroom scenes in Inherit the Wind). It took another 30 years or so before my skepticism and rationality attained some sort of coherence and, even at this point, I find it emotionally and intellectually difficult to completely disavow all religious faith.

 

[CFLarsen]

One of Stephen J. Gould's many valuable reminders to his readers was that the cultural context inevitably affects the view of writers, and that scientists are not exempt.

The widespread belief that we might be hard wired to believe in gods is very much a meme of our times. Before the universality of PCs, very few of us would have used terms like "hard wired" of people at all.

Pre genetics, while many people believed behaviour could be inherited (Good breeding will out, old boy! It's in the blood) this wasa rather different thing from saying "Homosexuality may be a hereditary condition".

There is, so far as I'm aware, little solid anatomical evidence to support the notion that we are hard wired to believe in gods. There are several suggestive hints from biology / ethology, notably the very universality of the behaviour. Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

"Hard-wired" is simply a term (slang, even) for evolutionary traits. It has nothing to do with cultural context, other than it makes it easier for people to grasp the idea quicker.

What we are hard-wired for is a less-than-perfect ability to discern between coincidence and correlation. This, we know for a fact. We can test it - e.g. via the Challenge.

This (in)ability results in a belief in the supernatural. It is a consequence of it.

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here.

Why, thank you!

A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )

What I see as the most common trend is the desire to find out what is real and what is not. Plus, of course, a desire to see the harm done eradicated, or at least diminished.

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

It takes critical thinking, which is something that needs to be learned. Hence, the existence of this forum.