ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Hope on a pale blue dot

Posted: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:32 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA
 Voyager's view
 of Earth as a
 pale blue dot.

Are you celebrating Christmas? Observing Hanukkah? Marking Sunday's winter solstice? Commemorating Carl Sagan's legacy?

Across the spiritual spectrum, this is the season of hope on our pale blue dot - even if you don't believe in God (or gods).

During the buildup to Christmas and Hanukkah, the news media tend to turn more attention to matters of faith, delving into the historical context for millennia-old beliefs. For example, this month's National Geographic's cover story focuses on what archaeologists and historians have found out about King Herod, the bad guy in the biblical Nativity story. (We recently posted an article about the wonders within Herod's tomb.)

But the Christmas season isn't just for Christians anymore: Even atheists are picking up on the holiday spirit, with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and like-minded deep thinkers putting on a show called "Nine Lessons and Carols for the Godless." The London show looks at marvels such as the big bang, evolution and the nature of consciousness from a totally secular perspective.

Dawkins told the Telegraph that he was taking part in the show because he was "fed up with atheists being portrayed as Scrooges, trying to rain on Christmas."

Whether you're more concerned about the soul or the solstice, December provides a good opportunity for reflecting on cosmic themes. You don't have to be a religious believer to get into that reflective frame of mind. "You just have to be an astronomical believer," Ann Druyan, the widow of the late astronomer (and agnostic) Carl Sagan, told me today.

Even before Jesus' time, ancient cultures marked the winter solstice as a time when the world was at its darkest, a time when each succeeding day brought more light, and more hope for renewal. "It's very human to feel that way about this time of year," she said.

The fact that this weekend also marks the 12th anniversary of her husband's death adds to Druyan's reflective mood. So does the recent passing of two of Sagan's colleagues: Steven Ostro, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and Cornell astrophysicist Ed Salpeter.

"There's a sense of sadness, but also tremendous hope - more hope for the future than I've had for a long time," Druyan said.

One big reason for that is last month's election of President-elect Barack Obama - the candidate for whom Druyan went doorbell-ringing this year. Obama's recent choices for science-related posts have added to her optimism. "I think Carl would have worked to get Obama elected," Druyan said. "I think he would have been very excited."

Although it's been 12 years since Sagan left this life, his legacy is, if anything, more lively than ever. Druyan is tickled to hear that people are selling WWSD (What Would Sagan Do?) T-shirts and that there are thousands and thousands of Carl Sagan videos on YouTube. (It hasn't gotten to the "billions and billions" level ... yet.)

Here's a holiday treat: Carl Sagan delivers the Royal Institution Christmas
Lectures in 1977, on the topic of the planets.

One video that Druyan is especially proud of was posted by NASA just recently, focusing on the creation of the Carl Sagan Exoplanet Fellowships. She sees the fellowship program as a vindication for Sagan's long-held belief that astronomers would discover alien planets beyond our solar system, and perhaps alien life as well.

In the old days, the idea that astrophysicists might be studying the prospects for extraterrestrial life was "kind of scandalous," Druyan recalled. Now that quest is part of the scientific mainstream.

Sagan's contributions went beyond the purely scientific sphere: His deepest insights had to do with humanity's place in the cosmos, and the immense array of wonders surrounding our celestial home. It was Sagan who persuaded NASA to place a record of Earth's sights and sounds on probes heading out from the solar system. And it was Sagan who suggested that Voyager 1 take a family portrait of the planets as they receded in the probe's conceptual rear-view mirror.

When the pictures came back, Sagan rhapsodized about the smallness - and the largeness - of the "pale blue dot" where all of human history has taken place:

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we’ve ever known, the pale blue dot."

This mash-up is inspired by Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" lecture.

With that, I'll open the floor for your own reflections on the interplay of science and spirituality, of faith and skepticism. For additional inspiration, here are links to online symposia from past years:

This year, I ask that you be respectful of others' comments when you make your own. After all, this is the season of hope.


For still more cosmic food for thought, check out Druyan's latest posting to The Observatory blog, the "Closer to Truth" Web site, this Voice of America remembrance of Sagan and this previous posting on the "gospels of science."

Update for 1 a.m. ET Dec.20: As fortune would have it, Clark Lindsey's Space for All blog is linking to the Voyager Golden Record Web site, which offers the images and audio clips that were placed aboard the Voyager probes. Any aliens who come across Mozart's "Queen of the Night" aria and the other masterpieces would have to realize that humanity wasn't all bad.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Maybe something is out there that can't be explained by natural, logical causes.

I doubt it.

If God does not exist, then why do so many belive?

If so many beleive, then why don't I?

There is no conflict between good science & true religion. Each is an approach to Truth. It is imperative to keep in mind that we are finite beings & will never emcompass in our minds the whole truth, even though we will live through eternity. Therein lies the joy of both science & religion: an eternal life of knowing God better & better; of learning more about both scientific, philosophical & spiritual truths. It is the journey that fulfills our human nature.
Even it there was a god, why would he be so bored as to create a universe just to look at?  Bored enough to play games with the human race?  I cannot belive in a god, because if he were real, I would have to hate him for his evil.
Science? Religion? Both have one very big thing in common------ They are man's search for the truth! Truth can only be found with an open mind. To those who believe that your answers are right and others are wrong, lighten up and open your minds! The truth is everywhere for those open enough to search for it
Hello all. Good thing that time doesn't exist. If you can understand that, than you can understand that God does exist, but we don't have even the faintest of what God is really about. Imagine an atom or a molecule or a particle of such trying to understand just what that particle is a part of, what is its function, and what created it. We don't have a clue.
About this time, 2000 years ago, a young Jewish boy was becoming a man. His message is this: "We are not only sons of God but we ALL are God. We are all we have for each other so, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love one another as I have loved you." The Jesus message was that and no more. God became man to tell us that all the good that will come from God comes from within us. As in the Eden message, we are the caretakers of this world and we are the caretakers of our brothers and sisters. As we comtemplate our status as that "mote of dust in a ray of sunlight" as "a mote in God's eye" we should know that if we do not give God's love to each other, He will not give it to us. Think how every good deed you did, for every help you gave someone, out of spontaneity, out of pure immediate kindness, think and know THAT was the God in you acting on your fellow man. God bless you and rest you, Carl Sagan.
Don Knudson, Earl Sunnarborg, Carol Nutter:  Excellent posts -- reinforcing my faith that there is a voice of true reason among mankind's chaotic thrashings enroute to ultimate Life or Death.  

Science and religion are not separate.  Scientists understand the contradiction of excluding possibilities for convenience.  God is only impossible for those who hate the idea of God.  Think bigger than mankind.  Seek God.  CHOOSE LIFE!!!
Thank u Don Knudson. 4 explaining your non accusing astronomical view of Don Knudsons world.
To Paul in Norcross, GA:  Thanks for one of the most sane and kind posts I have ever seen on a site like this.  Merry Christmas to you, too...in a non-denominational courteous greeting sort of way. :)

We cant' know in this life what is "Truth" and what is opinion.  But, we can know what is true in each moment, and lovingkindness trumps being RIGHT.  I don't think science and faith have to be mutually exclusive. No matter what else, I'm sure we can all believe this beautiful planet is awe-inspiring, and I have faith that science can help to solve some of the problems it has created (like CFC's and the Industrial Revolution, for example).

Whether mankind's thirst for knowledge is instinct or god-given, I celebrate it every day!
I think Carl Sagan was a great man and I admired his pursuit of truth through science. Religeous people should realize and give credit to "true scientists", who through hard, sincere work are slowly breaking down the silly superstitions that have controlled Man through the ages. However, a "true" scientist will also admit that there are vast limits to their knowledge and not dismiss so cavalierly a faith in a Supreme Designer....and unfortunately I think Carl Sagan even though able to experience this Creation more closely than most of us, was unwilling to admit that.
In the beginning, consciousness, digital consciousness.

All That Is~~
what is?~~
Consciousness.
I find it totally funny that the people here espoucing religion and God as a response to Carl Sagan don't realize that Sagan was extremely careful not to include religion and God in his Cosmos. I would have to say that Sagan was never involved with religion which makes him atheist. However he did maintain a respect for what religion attempts to do without involking his own personal belief.
The only thing good about the winter solstice is the fact that the sun begins it's labourious climb into the sky. Too bad the northern latitudes won't see any real benefit until into February.

"Everyone has faith in a god, whether it be Christ, Buddha or themselves.  I hope you pick the right one."

First, no, not everyone does. (and that's okay)

Second, logically it would indeed seem that they can't all be right, and it may be that none of them are.

Or maybe everyone *is* right, their particular deity(ies) exist and it's only atheists and monotheists that are wrong.

That simple logic is why I consider myself an agnostic, and get on with my life, knowing that some things are logically provable/disprovable and some aren't. Science only works with the ones that are. The rest is philosophy and religion.

And wisdom, perhaps, is knowing the difference.

How are you (or I) treating your fellow man? That's what really matters, not the route by which you come to that question.

And...

"Don't worry about man destroying the world Jesus (The Word) Made the world and only he will destroy it."

Then why do we have free will, if not to live with the consequences, good and bad, of our choices and actions? I prefer not to take the chance on divine intervention coming over the hill (whose solution might be like that in the new 'The Day the Earth Stood Still.' If you're devout and literal enough to believe in a Great Flood, then you know there's a precedent for wiping away the source of the planet's problems. I'm reminded of the poster that read; "Jesus is coming, and boy, is he pissed!"), and try to preserve Earth to begin with.

For all the scientists out there and for all the students who have a hard time convincing people regarding the truth of the Bible, here's something that shows God's awesome creation and that He is still in control.

Did you know what the space program had been calling "myth" in the Bible is busy proving it to be true?

Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development. "I think one of the most amazing things that God has done for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland. They were checking out where the positions of the sun, moon and planets would be 100 years and 1,000 years from now. We have to know this so we won't end up a satellite and have it bump into something later on in its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down.

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries, and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong with either the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said, 'What's wrong?' Well, they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time.

They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer." Finally a Christian man on the team said, 'You know, one time in Sunday School we talked about the sun standing still.' While they didn't believe him, they didn't have an answer either, so they said, 'Show us.' He got a Bible and went to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with 'common sense.' There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, 'Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.' "Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy, and if darkness fell, they would overpower him. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right…'The sun stood still and the moon stayed and lasted not to go down about a whole day!' (Joshua 10:12-13)

The astronauts and scientists said, 'There is the missing day!' They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes ... not a whole day. "They re-read the Bible and there it was 'about (approximately) a day.' These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes, you'll still be in trouble 1000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits.
As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went BACKWARDS. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings that told of the following story: 'Hezekiah, on his death bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said, 'Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?' Hezekiah said. 'It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees.' Isaiah spoke to the Lord and the Lord brought the sun ten degrees BACKWARD! "Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes!

Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in 2 Kings make the missing day in the universe!” Isn't it amazing?

References: Joshua 10:8 and 12, 13 and 2 Kings 20:9-11.
If it were not for the wonderful Being we all pray to and that gave us superb minds we wouldn't even be talking about science!!!!!!!!!
all cultures seem to have some ritual associated with the passage of time. if we have no guide to aspire to then why try?  i think it's called evolution.  if we are god's chosen then it stands to reason we must change for the better over time.  not science or religion.  just because.  suffer the children for such is the kingdom of heavon.
I have always and always will admire Carl Sagan for his writings and lectures which were a major part of the reason I pursued an education in the sciences. So I will keep my comment short and just say this...
Nature is always beautiful why not strive to understand and explain it, which is best done in the language of science. God has no place in that because god can never and will never be proved or disproved that is the nature of a god so leave people to their own beliefs and let science press on with the good work of making our short times on the earth better and a little more interesting.
HBO did an excellent series called Rome. It's kind of amusing to watch them make offers and prayers to the untold number of gods they worshiped. But you know, THEY truly believed in it.

As for ET's  -  good grief! If they have any brains at all, they packed up within an hour of landing and made their way right on out of this self-made disaster. Fighting. Killing. Stealing. Cheating. Lieing. I suppose those special human traits would provide them all the reason they need for annihilation!

I'll go with a line from an old Clint Black tune:

I sure hope there is intelligent life in space cuz we've sure been cheated here on Earth.
Dean Wankel (12/21, 1026) talked about the changing science as the flavor of the day.  He’s absolutely right.  There was vanilla, someone added cocoa to it and we got chocolate, then someone through in marshmallows to give us Rocky Road.  Almost without exception, and certainly in the mainstream sciences, the new “flavor” is just a reflection of the deeper understanding that we got from yesterday’s.
Atheists and agnostics do really stupid things like try to get people to take down their Christmas trees, Mangers, Menorahs and whatever Muslims put up to celebrate their holidays (Ak-47's?).

But Atheists rarely lob rockets at your neighborhood because some group of guys who lived a couple thousand years ago inspired folks to write things about their lives that make other folks lob rockets at your neighborhood.

I think Sagan would read all the sudden religion on this blog, remove his glasses, rub his eyes and say something artfully profound.  Wouldn't he?
uh yeah, the December solstice may be when YOUR world is darkest, but newsflash- it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere.
Alan, thanks for a great topic with so many possibilities for discussion.  It is interesting to think back to when Carl Sagan presented his Cosmos series.  Astronomers I knew poo-pooed it as popular astronomy for the masses.  They mused that it didn't have enough scientific rigor and that he wasn't a real astronomer.  Well, thanks to creative scientists such as Sagan who were endowed with and used their capacity as interpreters of what seems arcane we have a larger portion of the public thirsting after explanations of scientific discovery.  This popularizing of a scientific endeavor is likely to have paid dividends in higher levels of funding for science than would be granted otherwise.  Since Cosmos, other scientists seem to have realized that a dialog with the public, who pays many of the bills, is essential.

Concerning religion and science: It seems to be a one-way street for criticism.  Religion is frequently criticizing or trying to impose limits on science.  I don't recall science placing limitations on religion.  Religion and science can exist in a mind that is open and constantly evolving with new information.  Minds closed off, in effect, hundreds of years ago, can not cope with the revelations since that time that science has produced.  It is downright scary to see individuals charged with administrating a public office talk of "end times", creationism and curbs on scientific inquiry with reference to their religious leanings.  More disturbing is the number of voters similarly inclined.

Concerning the soul and what is beyond our current level of understanding:  Why ascribe a god or religious quality to phenomena we do not understand or may never understand?  The idea of a soul may come up frequently in religious discussion, but why must the concept of a soul imply a god?  It may just be another phenomenon we haven't come to understand.  Ancients didn't know better in many areas.  We've come to know a great deal and appreciate that we have much more to understand.  Classically practiced religion will not contribute to that growth in understanding.

Several comments written earlier indicate that others, the religiously inclined and disinclined, have experienced the awe that scientific inquiry can cause.  From that experience we ask ourselves even more questions about our place in such a vast universe and one so detailed at the atomic and sub-atomic level.  To sit back and think we have all the answers in a tidy package is to shrivel and die.
I'm one of those ones who just finished celebrating the Solstice.  :)

Looking over the comments, some people would do well to remember that not all people of faith are part of organized religion, nor are they necessarily hostile to science.  :P
Around 30 years ago, there was a disussion in the Astro&Aero department at MIT about TV signals reaching extraterrestrials.  Someone there (K. Eric Drexler? Gerard O'Neill?  I forget...)  did a little math and came to the conclusion that the first television signals with enough power to reach distant galaxies consisted of...... Drum roll here......

Milton Berle's "Uncle Miltie" character.

It was agreed by all present, that following their 'first impression' of our planet,  it would probably be quite a while before we got any visits from ET....

-bob
I didnt read the whole article. Or many of the comments. But i did read some. Some about religion. Some about science. I belive in god. I do not belive in religion. I really came to say this. There is a movie called Contact. In this movie the scientist tells the man of religion that she does not belive in god. He asks her why. She says she only belives in things she can prove. He then asks her if she loved her father. She says that she did. With all of her heart. And that she has never stopped loving him. The man of religion asks her to prove it. This has always stuck with me. Peace be with you all.
This time of year always reminds me how small-minded so many people still are. Particularly at the suggested nexus of science and religion. Let me explain my point.

In 1965, Manucur Olson wrote a book called The Logic of Collective Action. He argued that aggregation of individuals, acting for their own benefit, will produce results are not beneficial for the group as a whole. One of the situations in which he said thiswould not happen, though, was in small groups. In these small groups, individuals can observe each others' behavior and exert pressure on each other to take actions that end up benefitting everyone.

But this solution was not unique, and in fact had already been discovered thousands of years before. To make the idea translate to large groups, though, you had to convince everyone that there was this all-powerful father figure watching that would punish you if you behaved badly. In that sense, then, inventing religion was a brilliant solution to a tragic problem of collective action.

But what has religion brought us these days? Division? Hate? Disrespect for anyone who doesn't believe in the faith you believe in? Sure, any religion by itself would be collectively better if everyone followed it than all these different competing interpretations, but the competition in ignorance of the logic leads ultimately to tragedy.

I, for one, don't feel the need to make Pascal's wager. I don't think that my life will have been better for living as if there is a god because that is ignorance of the basic point. And beside, which god, or more importantly, which interpretation of what god wants of us, should I live by? I'll tell you what, my life will be better if I live my life secure in the knowledge that doing the right thing will ultimately benefit me, too. You do the right thing, and you inspire the people around you.

But I guess that begs the question, what is the right thing? I can't trust that religion will tell me, since any one I choose will ultimately contradict itself as much as it contradicts other religions and interpretations - you pick and choose, Prop 8 the musical, anyone? I think the only sane and logical choice is to live by the only two good rules I ever learned when I ent to church as a kid: 1) Do unto others as you would have others to unto you; 2) Love one another. When you care how your behavior impacts other people as much as you care about how your behavior benefits you, then you don't need god: that heaven you seek will be made here on earth.

Oh, and there is one other thing. Why is it that religious nuts - yes, nuts - insist that science prove that there IS NOT a god when they are equally incapable of proving that there IS a god? That sounds like either hubris, delusion, or both. Just to emphasize my point, the proposition "there is a god" ultimately can't be proved or disproved, that's why it's called faith. With that said, pointing back to the nuts again, it's mean to look down on someone for not believing something that can't be proved.
I feel the reason most people reject accepting the fact there is a God and He came to redeem us, is due to the simple fact that mankind is frightened to look inwardly and actually see how sinful we all truly are.
Let me give some of the ones that don't 'believe' something to chew on.  Blaise Pascal put it quite bluntly:  "If there is no God, and you bet your life there is, you've lost nothing.  But if there is a God, and you bet your life there isn't, you've made the greatest mistake imaginable."

Keep Christ in Christmas! Merry Christmas.
Even if God existed she would not expect to be prayed to. God would be the perfect parent and as such would be unwilling to have her children demean themselves by pressing their hands together in supplication for some service she might render. If there truly is a God then such a God would leave no finger prints.  Such a GOD WOULD BE TOO CLEVER to let her children care more about her than each other. The only proof that a Creator might exist has to do with the weight of hydrogen. A little less or a little more than nothing would exist. But if you accept that we live in a "bouncing Universe" than there are infinite chances to get the weight of hydrogen just right. Undeniably the Universe could not exist unless it was founded on logical rules. The rules themselves denote rationality or a rule maker. Nothing in them requires us to ascribe to dogma or a creed. The study of science is the highest form of worship. It pays true homage to the rule maker. She has written the ultimate computer program and just let it run. Science's functions is to understand the majesty of that amazing program.
God created science in order for us to find the way to HIM, the creator of everything, the absolute!
I hope that everybody will ignore their differences and be a part of this wonderful winter solstice.

Have a safe Christmas everybody.
For those who believe religion causes dissension - more people have been killed or had atrocities committed against them in the 20th century by non religions fanatics such as Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Idi  Amin, Joseph Stalin, Emperor Hirohito of Japan etc than have ever been killed because of religion.
We must remember that there can only be one Truth, and it is a mystery that has been revealed by God’s mercy and grace to millions in the world. The Bible says ‘The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.’
God has revealed himself to all humanity, and we have chosen to reject him. There will be no excuse for that. He does exist, He is in control of everything, He is not a woman and we will all be accountable to Him. In love for my fellow human I would urge people to do the research yourself.  Make an informed decision. Don’t just listen to those who would tell you what you would prefer to hear. Humbly ask God to reveal himself to you and he will if you are sincere. All he wants is for you to walk with Him and be in relationship with Him. There is nothing weird about it. As for science, God created it as well. No surprises there.
You know, it all comes down to this : it doesn't matter one whit what we believe or not. Evolution, God, seeds from outer space,whatever. If you stop and look at the big picture, we all, ultimately, still come from the same place.
I love that we as a whole on this planet celebrate Christmas in Dec. when Jesus was born in the summer June/July time frame lol its comical
We lost Majel Barrett Roddenberry this year too. She and her husband also did much to popularize science and enlighten our conciousness about our pale little blue dot. Whatever religion or faith you have, please take a moment to think about Majel and Gene too.

Merry X-mas
I have noticed, in my short time on this earth. That mankind is always looking towards the next great calamity, to shake the very foundations of our faith and well being. We are always troubled by these things that is always looming in the mist; weather it be a great war, natural disaster, or divine destruction and restitution. For those who look to science to prove their beliefs or fears of distruction; they will be left wanting, and have misconstrued the point and purpose of scientific progress. Science is not a great prophet or religious institution. It is simply the manifestation of the curiosity of the human spirit. The question of god and morals are not in the realm of science. Science is the study of our environment and how we are able to adapt and manipulate things to better help us survive. The idea that god does or does not exist has no bearing on the progress of human knowledge. God is an idea of faith and shouldn't need to be proven, but is based on you ideologies and perspective. Since I can not view things from your point of view and ideology, I cannot scientifically prove or disprove them.
Aren't the laws of science temporal and open to the changes necessitated by new information? If so, then we have universes yet to discover. If not, then the world is flat.
...the universe wastes nothing...change is the only constant...seek and you will find!
The puzzling thing to me about Carl Sagan is this: here we have a tremendously intelligent, educated person, with no religious hang-ups, and yet he made no attempt to preserve his life beyond what current medicine could do for him -- that is, he didn't make use of cryonics.  Similar bafflement applies to Isaac Asimov, and a number of other forward-thinking people who, quite frankly, should have known better than to simply allow their bodies to rot or burn.

Of course, he wasn't a biologist and may have held the common misbelief that cryonics is hopeless.  But from reading his books, I have the clear impression that he tried to look at things clearly and objectively, and avoid holding common beliefs just because they are common.  And surely he would have liked to have seen the day when we do either contact aliens, or learn why there aren't any.  The world lost a luminary, and it's all the more tragic to think that this might have been prevented.
Please, please, please, never again post such nonsense in a science oriented blog.
 the 66 years i have been on this great earth has taught me that there is positively a creator. a science mag i was reading about 25 years ago and still today had info about what keeps us humans together and not be blown off this wonderfull pale blue dot. this scientist said that the atomic breakdown of our physical make-up much like all carbon based creatures has three parts. these parts if they could be shorted out like crossing a positive to negative termanil on a battery should eventually destroy itself. yet according to the scientist we are crossed or shorted out in all three directions all the time and still don,t blow up.  his reply,  GOD,S glue keeps us together. now what more could you need to believe???   hey, GOD bless ALL  happt holidays   DS liberty, nc  
Proof of one (or more) supreme beings?  We ARE the proof.  I would find it almost impossible to believe that life exists, if I wasn't part of it.  The leap to believe in self-aware/intelligent life is even more difficult to imagine.  As a scientist for more than four decades, I submit that if we, the trillions of lifeforms on this planet, are proof that life exists, then we are circumstantial proof that far more developed lifeforms exist.  Perhaps evolved to an unimaginable level (for us) because they started on their journey billions of years before we did, were much more caring/benign toward each other and the universe we all share, and as a result have the ability to create, nurture, protect, etc. lower lifeforms.  By our definitions, this entity(ies) would be considered God(s).  And yet they would be an integral part of what we consider to be science.

I therefore find it humorous to think that we set parameters for what is proof of what is real, when we are barely self-aware (only for thousands of years).  Imagine a living being that does not kill others of its own kind for power, possessions, etc. and does not destroy its own supply of resources, insuring its survival.  Only then should it be considered "intelligent" and "civilized."  If we (or some other species) becomes true examples of these terms, they will be on their way to an understanding what we cannot yet comprehend.  Then, maybe, these inhabitants of our world would also be able to prove to themselves that there is an even greater presence in this universe that exists within the rules of scientific understanding and yet is representative of the self-awareness and capabilitiies of all that exist in what we call the universe.

Many of the comments displayed here about the certainties of the past which have since been disproven or modified are the clues that we are far from capable of decifering the whole story.  Our arrogance, fueled by the fact that we have not evolved to a point where we can free ourselves of the paradigms that "guide us," makes us incapable of solving the mystery.
Joe, I agree, though in Asimov's case he had overpopulation concerns (personally, I doubt that more than a thousand or so people will ever be cryonically suspended, and even if I'm off by a factor of 10, that's hardly going to make a sudden baby-like population 'boom' in the future, even if all of them can be successfully revived, and at once.), and resource consumption concerns (of course, liquid nitrogen is an inexpensive substance that naturally returns to the atmosphere when it evaporates, is produced in large quantities for industrial purposes [cryonics providers are a bare sliver of that market and is hardly a Manhattan or Apollo size project])

I remember being somewhat saddened when reading an article of his in Penthouse magazine in the late 1970's wherein he laid out his arguments against personally being suspended, including doubts that one could be successfully restored, but that he didn't want it, even if he were *sure* it would work. As he also had no belief in an afterlife, the last line stuck out in my mind; "As for me, I prefer oblivion."

What can you say?

Mr Sagan is one of many voices. Does it really matter?
If you are a evolutionist, its the survival of the fittest.We are told cockroaches will inherit the earth.
If you are a creationist,God is in control, and in Him we trust, and the meek will inherit the earth.
David Morris...yep those cockroaches are pretty meek.
I can't say that that tribute to Carl's "Pale Blue Dot" is my favorite YouTube vid.  It's so fictionalized, so consumerist, so darn Hollwood.  Aren't there real-life examples to go along with the words of Sagan?

If you search Youtube for PALE BLUE DOT and then sort by ratings, you get better Pale Blue Dot tributes than the one offered by the author.
Thomas Ashby,
Lol, meek cockroaches?!? You need to visit a trailer park in Georgia or a dormitory in Texas.  Cockroaches have already "inherited" those parts of the earth and are anything but meek.
I have a question and I dont know where to ask it. If the Bible tells about the creation of the Earth and its inhabitants why are the dinosaurs not mentioned? The dinosaur fossils are proof they existed yet where do they fit in the Bible? One more question if I may. If God exists, and many people say he does, where is he from? If he is not from Earth he must be extraterrestrial. If he is extraterrestrial then do "aliens" exist? Please forgive if these questions appear silly but I just would like some kind of answer. Thanks
Manual..there is nothing silly about your questions. The only silliness would be if someone actually gives you an answer ! Now "behemoth" is mentioned in the book of Job and there are people out there deluded enough that will say this is a description of dinosaur in the bible. And that it lived with people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

As for God and aliens? Purely fantastical.



Dean wankel remember this Christians have a closed up Bible meaning God said that the anyone changing one word of scripture word be punished so the fact that a Scientist is taught  that if his or her theorys prove to be incorrect they have to in good scientic manner dismiss them as false  Religions dont do this they will stick to these ancient theorys regardless what is the truth  Do you really believe this Universe that is 14 billion years old was created for 2 people  who wouldnt listen to the Supreme Diety who made them. the earth is 4.6 billion years old and can be proven to be so anyway look at the nearest star alpha centari which is 275.000 AUs from here 4 light years an AU is 93 million miles the distance from here to the sun and there are around 200 to 300 billion stars in the milky way Galaxy and then on top of that maybe a trillion Galaxys!!!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1721815

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google