Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?
~ Ann Druyan, widow of Carl Sagan.
I love this photograph taken by Voyager 1 twenty years ago when it was 4 billion miles from earth. Earth is that beautiful, exquisite pale blue dot.
To answer Ann Druyan's question, I would take their claim no more or no less seriously than I take any of her claims. If I fail to take a claim seriously, by the way, does that make it false?
Two questions follow from any claim. Is it true? How do you know?
Whether Ann or myself take a claim seriously is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim. So is the likelihood of the claim.
In fact, it is unlikely that out of billions of earth's inhabitants, and the billions of things they could be doing, that any of them would be reading this blog post right now. Yet, here you are.
Let's be honest. There are far more unlikely things that have happened than that. Unlikely things can and do happen. Just because they were unlikely, it does not follow that they did not happen.
While we are at it, from 4 billion miles away, Ann or any of us appear as a speck. Does the fact that she appears as a speck of dust mean her claims or my claims are false? Or, that we ought not take them seriously?
"Just because they were unlikely, it does not follow that they did not happen."
Like human evolution from the original single-celled life forms over the last two and a half billion years or so? :)
*ducks*
More seriously, though, you once again seem to be devolving into defending your beliefs by disparaging our ability to weigh the relative merits of /any/ beliefs.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 18, 2010 at 10:25
In other words:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four
In addition:
"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it."
-Maimonides (1135-1204)
Posted by: The Interface | February 18, 2010 at 11:59
re: "More seriously, though, you once again seem to be devolving into defending your beliefs by disparaging our ability to weigh the relative merits of /any/ beliefs."
Au contraire.
I am promoting the evaluation of truth claims. That is all about weighing relative merits.
It seems odd to me that someone would promote otherwise, especially someone who thinks highly of education like I believe Druyan does.
It seems that is Ann is promoting that we ought not take some claims seriously because she considers them absurd and / or improbable. I guess I understand that kind of thinking is attractive in politics, but it does not seem like very enlightened thinking for someone with a high view of truth and knowledge.
Posted by: Mr. D | February 18, 2010 at 14:11
I think she's saying that we shouldn't take claims seriously if they /don't make sense/, or if they defy credulity. I find it hard to disagree with her on that. Heck, on our pale blue dot we have five or six major religious categories, and countless sub-sects of those, and no way to confirm or deny who's got it right (or even if /anyone/ does). So when somebody claims they have the inside track on the One True Religion, can we say with certitude that they're wrong? Of course not, but without more than their say-so, there's no reason to take them seriously, certainly not any more seriously than the countless other people of differing religious backgrounds who are making precisely the same claim.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 19, 2010 at 00:19
re: "I think she's saying that we shouldn't take claims seriously if they /don't make sense/, or if they defy credulity."
In other words, if your worldview isn't naturalism like Druyan's is, then your views automatically don't make sense and defy credulity and one doesn't even need to consider them.
That is quite convenient. It also doesn't get you very far if you are interested in true truth.
There are many who use Druyan's approach in reverse. In other words, they choose to not consider naturalism because of the absurdity of naturalism.
I don't think that kind of dissing gets us very far or closer to truth. It is a conversation stopper, not to mention, hypocritical and arrogant.
Posted by: Mr. D | February 19, 2010 at 07:36
"In other words, if your worldview isn't naturalism like Druyan's is, then your views automatically don't make sense and defy credulity and one doesn't even need to consider them."
I'm not sure why you're so keen on knocking down straw men, but if it makes you feel better, then I suppose you should go right ahead.
"It is a conversation stopper, not to mention, hypocritical and arrogant."
Perhaps you should consider this sentiment the next time you're thinking about dismissing someone ELSE's point of view as "self-refuting."
Posted by: tgirsch | February 21, 2010 at 17:30
re: "I think she's saying that we shouldn't take claims seriously if they /don't make sense/, or if they defy credulity. I find it hard to disagree with her on that."
...so you affirm dissing some views on the grounds that they defy credulity, and then you diss my point of view on the grounds that dissing other people's points of view is considered rude.
I think we are done here.
Let's quit while we are ahead.
Posted by: Mr. D | February 22, 2010 at 18:03