Book Review: The Demon Haunted World
If religion were to limit itself to questions and pursuits that were based purely on the internal change of the soul, would religion not find itself in a better place than it does now, where it purports to speak for political affiliations and unknowable doctrines? Religion, properly placed within the human experience, inspires one towards the noble ideas of service, charity and forgiveness. And to the question of whether or not religion provides a crutch mortals lean upon in the face of the vastness of the universe and the singular aloneness of eternity; yes, it also provides safety as we attempt and answer the questions of ultimate truth and origins.
The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Sagan’s much lauded book, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a manifesto for the primacy rationalism should play in life. In order to make his point that rationalism should be given a higher priority than religion, Sagan makes his point on the back of UFO abductees, the religion of those who burned witches at the stake as well as supposedly religious people who advocated slavery on the basis of what they saw as the God ordained superiority of certain races. When talking about racism specifically, Sagan is careful to acknowledge that not all religious people advocated these beliefs and that many were responsible for changing the laws and turning the tide of prejudice; however, this quiet balancing between the religions of hate and justice is poorly maintained throughout this book. In order to argue that religion should take a secondary seat to science (Sagan could be more appropriately be said to present the case that religion should be set aside entirely), he refuses to acknowledge those within the religious community that advocate a broader sense of pluralism, or who see the Bible (or any Sacred Scripture) as needing to be subjected to certain standards of rational thinking (namely the idea that truth must be cross-cultural and trans-historical or it is not truth), or who believe that religion must be careful to project which areas it claims primacy in. By overlooking these more balanced examples of religion and holding up instead religious people of the most extreme variety, he makes the same mistake that he has written about - he allows emotion to encroach on his rationalism. Were he to take a more nuanced and balanced position on religion he would be able to argue more persuasively that today’s religion speak about areas they were never intended to. He does not do this probably because such a position would require him to view some that is within religion as legitimate, a position he wishes to avoid.
Where Sagan’s book is at its best and most brilliant is when he is proposing clear ideas on how we are to think rationally. His list of ten questions to ask in the proper spirit of skepticism is very good and represents much needed critical thinking. His repeated appeal to mankind to educate itself was particularly poignant to me. Too many of our founding fathers recognized the danger of an uneducated democracy, a fear many realize is becoming reality in contemporary America. I found this book functioning best on a very profound sociological basis, primarily during his treatment of UFO abductees, the dangers or regression-based therapy and the charismatic religious movement. In these areas he and I would agree that the simplest tests for rationality are immediately abdicated by those who have a desperate need to believe and use their beliefs to manifest experiences that are not real. Sagan is right that religion needs to view rationalism as a friend in the pursuit of ultimate truth; what I believe he discounts is that science should hold a similar view of religion. The problem that remains unresolved today is that neither discipline fully respects the areas of knowledge and expertise each speaks for best.
One of the mistakes Christians have made, and continue to make, in their response to rationalism is to assume that it can be deconstructed on a purely philosophical basis. The tenacious hold rationalism has on our world is due in large part because it has actually made human progress possible; people view religion as having too many times intervened inappropriately in an effort to stop human advancement. While the emphasis on the philosophical role of rationalism in religion is an important question, it needs to be judged against the more pragmatic question of whether or not rationalism versus religion actually makes a difference in the world. It is here, in what is ultimately a question of pragmatism, that religion is being found wanting. Theologians are reluctant to concede that we live in a world where rationalism is victorious; the world of medicine, science, engineering, and economics has given the gifts of antibiotics, safe air travel, reliable energy sources, and economic stability. Sagan’s book does not ask this question, but I will as I feel it is a better point to ask than resorting to one-dimensional condemnations of religion on the basis of past mistakes: if religion were to limit itself to questions and pursuits that were based purely on the internal change of the soul, would religion not find itself in a better place than it now does, where it purports to speak for political affiliations and unknowable doctrines? Religion, properly placed within the human experience, inspires one towards the noble ideas of service, charity and forgiveness. And to Sagan’s question if it provides a crutch mortals lean upon in the face of the vastness of the universe and the singular aloneness of eternity; yes, it also provides safety as we attempt and answer the questions of ultimate truth and origins.
Sagan’s love of rationality, his faith in the humen ability to reason all answers to life, places him at odds with me as to the limits of rationalism: while I agree that the science Sagan so loved is a beautiful part of the human experience, I see science as the best answer to how our world works, but a dismal answer to why we feel and love, or better yet, why the world exists at all. If we allow science to speak for us in every forum of life, as Sagan’s embracing of rationalism would force us to, we would be forced to see love between spouses as anthropological (almost tribal) and not something deeper. To make the love of another nothing more than the result of inherited sociological impulse is to ultimately rob mankind of its ability to know empathy, feeling and relationship. Sagan’s world, a world that has stripped all that is lovely and beautiful down to simple scientific causalities would, I suggest, result in a world he would be ashamed to call his own. It would be a cold world, a world composed of the calculating bartering of services in place of the free giving of love. I believe that science substituted for religion will ultimately rob man of his humanity and force him to the basest of living. This position, as we will see later on, does not mean that science does not have a place or that science should not be allowed primacy in certain areas of life.
Perhaps the simplest way to see this is in our own lives: a fine line exists between reflecting on internal changes I need to make in my life and becoming so withdrawn that I am so fixated on myself I can not help others. For some people like Sagan, science inspires a wonder that does not make it necessary to incorporate the question of a Creator. This ability to bifurcate between the wonder of science and the question of God transfers into Sagan’s world a humanity than is much smaller, finite and limited that the humanity of religion. Religion, at its best, inspires mankind to believe in the potential for something more, the belief that acts of selflessness and empathy will return to you in the form of a reformation of the soul. Ultimately, Sagan’s reality collapses mankind into another animal whose sense of being is no more enlightened than our stone-age ancestors; as much a mindset of “fight or flight” as they ever knew. For science and religion, a fine line exists between where each attempts to speak for the other. Science, in the hands of those like Sagan, is purported to answer all of the questions of life that are worth asking including those of life, love and meaning. Religion, in the hands of fundamentalists, is purported to be above history and culture, to be inerrant in its advocacy of eternal truths - including those of science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science and religious fundamentalism are mutually exclusive; but so is dogmatic rationalism as the end-all be-all answer to meaning in life versus a holistic, mystical and open theology of religion.
To accept the rewards of science, but to set its internal logic aside when it forces us to conclusions we do not agree with, is a tenuous position to hold because it ultimately accommodates the disavowing of truth. Similarly, to tell man that he must simply die without reflecting on the unanswered questions of origins - the “why” this world exists - is to rob mankind of its ability to find meaning in these questions. My proposal is one of balance and tension, one that can be accommodated only in a world of mutual respect and trust between religion and science. Religion has nothing to fear from science and science has nothing to fear from religion in its purest forms. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for too much of history; for most of history science has had much to fear from religion. But these moments in time were religion gone bad - more about the preservation of political power than the pursuit of truth. Similarly, the past two hundred years have born evidence of science harshly reacting to its past suppression of truth. The way forward for humanity is, ironically enough, seen best in the religious truth of forgiveness; forgiveness will be the only lasting foundation upon which science and religion can build a mutually compatible future. If people of religious persuasion can appreciate that nothing in science can threaten their core beliefs (yes, they may have to pare down that which they hold as dogma and submit Sacred Scripture to tests they find uncomfortable but necessary) because all truth is God’s truth, and if advocates of scientific rationalism can appreciate that their deconstruction of the biology of life and the order of the universe only increases people’s belief in a Creator and the questions of how we respond to this reality, then I believe humankind can find a productive balance that will only further enrich our lives as science reveals the tools for us to cure illnesses of the human body, and religion reveals those to cure us of the sickness of the soul.
previous post: Question #3: Can you set aside your own homosexual stereotypes?
next post: January 2004 Bookshelf
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data