If Carl Sagan had lived (he died at the young age of 62), he would have been 78 yesterday. What a venerable old man he would have been: an elder statesman of science, still with that that deep and booming voice! Although I didn’t put anything up about the anniversary yesterday, it’s always a good time to think back on his contributions, including his television show Cosmos and his 30 (!) books, one of which won a Pulitzer Prize. (Can you remember which one it was?)
Here are two videos to help us remember. The first is the initial segment of a wonderful three-part interview with Charlie Rose. It took place on May 27, 1996; Sagan died seven months later. It was his last interview.
Sagan is thin and wan, already suffering from the myelodysplasia that would kill him and the multiple bone-marrow transplants he received. But his voice and opinions are as strong as ever. Note that, at the end, he discusses the difference between religion and science, defining “faith” as “belief without evidence.” Note, though, that near the end he takes a NOMA-like stance, saying (at about 8:02) that religion has contributions to make in areas like morality, compassion, and literature. This is a bit too much for me, since I don’t agree that faith has anything to add to morality, and precious little to literature.
Here are the other two parts:
Part 2 of 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDKSZO-aACk
Part 3 of 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxeN6Wf7mbU
And here is a video I find unspeakably sad: the news announcements of his death on December 20, 1996.
The lacuna he left, like that of Hitchens, can’t be filled.
h/t: P.
It was The Dragons of Eden that won the Pulitzer, if I’m not mistaken.
Correct.
I always tear up when I listen to Sagan’s breath-taking words on The Pale Blue Dot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
“This is a bit too much for me, since I don’t agree that faith has anything to add to morality, and precious little to literature.”
The part about religion contributing to literature may not be true today, but was certainly true in the past: I don’t think the Indian, Greek or Norse mythologies would exist without the religious traditions around them. A few other examples i can think of where religion was instrumental (or perhaps even the main ingredient) in the creation of great literature include the various Sufi poets (Rumi, Amir Khusro etc.) the Sanskrit epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, and some of the best Hindi poets (Kabir, Surdas and Tulsidas).
Of course, the above list is coloured by my “Eastern bias”: I am sure one could reel off such examples in any other culture.
And people are still playing off of mythological traditions today in writing, drama and music. Hell, a good chunk of fantasy fiction owes its roots to the epic poem or saga.
Though these often aren’t written by believers. And it doesn’t sound much like ‘modern’ theological work is shaping modern literature. (Well, unless you count that IIRC a lot of the modern apocalyptic fever is actually putting a lot of new elements into the classical Christian myth, despite it supposedly being a Real Literal Reading of the Bible. And most writers I know will totally borrow inspiration from anything that isn’t nailed down — if you don’t like religious ends of the world, there’s plenty of secular conspiracy theories to riff off of.)
I think if that claim is to be extended to the tradition which created these mythologies in the first place then a lot more evidence is warranted.
This happens to be precisely what I said in the first sentence of my comment. 😀
I am no expert on “apocalyptic fiction” but, for what it is worth, the Christian apocalypse is not the only (or even the most “apocalyptic”) ancient apocalyptic myth around.
I think you’re missing the point.
Literature is not written in a vacuum. It will take in the surrounding culture. If that culture is steeped in a particular religion, that’s what it will take in. That doesn’t mean religion itself is in any way especially potent in driving or influencing literature.
You wouldn’t say that seafood is especially influential in cooking because it dominates the cuisine of a small isolated island.
Cooks build recipes on the ingredients available, just as writers build stories on the ideas available.
“Cooks build recipes on the ingredients available, just as writers build stories on the ideas available.”
I entirely disagree with your implication that this renders the source of the ideas involved redundant. In the first place, many of the things I listed above are the kind which were not written by one single “writer”: they were products of traditions, many of which were religious in nature. Secondly, even in the individual works (the works of Kabir or Tulsidas for example), the role of the religious convictions of the author is central. If you are then going to say that “religion has contributed precious little to literature”, then you might as well apply the same argument to any other source of ideas and say that “X has contributed precious little to literature”: after all, like religion, this hypothetical source of ideas is also part of the cultural ambiance of the writer, and deserves no credit as having been important in the conception of her writings.
I doubt that’s what you want to do though.
When Cosmos first aired in the fall of 1980, I would sit holding my breath, anticipating seeing and hearing the beautiful first 20-30 seconds of the opening credits. And I would watch intently, trying to retain as much as I could, not knowing when I would get to see it again.
Of course now, in The Age of Distraction, I can access it at my convenience, though not appreciating it any less, having had that initial experience.
I loved him. And Richard Feynman. I can’t even talk to you about what their loss meant to me.
Wasn’t I lucky to live in a world where they existed? And aren’t you?
“The lacuna [Sagan] left, like that of Hitchens, can’t be filled.” -JC
So true; ’nuff said!
I was a ninth grade earth science student in 1980 when the “Cosmos” series aired. My teacher was a fan of Sagan, so the show became a regular part of our class. My family enjoyed it too. Even then I recognized how rare it was to find a scientist who was willing to devote so much energy to educating the public, and Sagan did a magnificent job of that.
Incidentally, my earth science teacher (age 35 at that time) was primarily an astronomer, but he was fascinated with geologic time and the then-emerging study of plate tectonics. He also self-identified as a born-again Christian, a rare designation in my public high school where a third of the students came from Jewish families, and nobody took much notice of religion. What an odd little enclave of secularism it was, though I didn’t realize it at the time.
As a member of Facebook, a message went around the various atheist groups to remind us that it was Carl Sagan Day. As its my birthday too, I had a scientific tingle. I think Carl was reaching out to help religions begin the step by painful step from the literal belief in their Book to seeing it as a series of tribal collections. The place to begin this journey is Genesis, and evolution is the truth that will set them free (to paraphrase JC).
Unfortunately, I neither saw nor heard anything of Carl Sagan in his too-brief stay here on the planet (I was busy wasting 23 years as a YEC fundamentalist); now he’s one of my personal heroes, and his book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” is the first book I recommend to anyone who happens to show any glimmer of interest in matters scientific.
In as much as I have heroes, Carl Sagan is on my ‘A’ list. The content together with, the tone, the cadence, the mannerisms of his speaking were all perfect for fascinating me. A rare confluence of rational content and oratorical talent. Listening to him now engenders a feeling of deep comfort, like coming home to a warm haven of gentle rationality after a grueling day of dealing with a largely reality denying society.
Wow, would The Hitch ever distance himself from a comparison with Carl Sagan!
I’m confused. Is that a straightforward statement, question, rhetorical question to express that Hitch would be happy to be compared to Sagan?
Sagan’s Pulitzer book is ” The dragons of Eden- speculations on the evolution of human inteligence”, which coincdentaly, I m reading this very week.Long live to Carl Sagan, a marvelous human being. best wishes joao, from Brazil Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:45:20 +0000 To: jromulobc@hotmail.com
I didn’t think I’d heard of Sagan before reading The Dragons of Eden in 1979, but then realised that Schlovskii and Sagan’s Intelligent Life in the Universe had been on my brother’s bookshelf (which I constantly browsed or raided) for years already.
Cosmos ran on Sunday nights in 1980, and I was gratified that he put a fair amount of biology in it because the family friends I usually watched it with – at their place or ours, after evening Mass – was a bit too narrowly focused on physics and astronomy.
It was arguments with those people in the next few years that made me realise that ‘faith’ is just pretending to believe stuff that is unbelievable.
I’ve been watching Cosmos on YT for only the second time over the last few weeks, and started a re-read of Contact just last night. Thanks Carl.