Writing my first

Hello, I am writing my first comparison/ analogy paper on the Cosmos by Carl Sagan. I have rewritten it several times because it came across as a report. I am hoping that someone could read it and let me know if this is more like a comparison/ analogy and does it make sense.

In chapter seven of the Cosmos, Carl Sagan does more than just attempted to educate us on the founding fathers of Science and Philosophy. Throughout his chapter, Sagan focuses on depicting a vivid picture for his audience to better understand the concept of the universe. Taking legend along with myth and further evolving it into scientific fact thru the use of discovery and experimentation throughout the ages. The main focal point of this chapter was the detailed dissection of the origins of religious beliefs, how it established the foundations of scientific explanation and the relevance of this information to further our understanding and exploration of the cosmos. Even though Sagan does a spectacular job in teaching a lesson regarding the history of science, is he attempting to discredit religion by interjecting his own opinions as facts? How does he take advantage of our innocents as an audience to taint our first encounter with the cosmos?

Starting off Sagan denotes how “for thousands of years humans were oppressed… by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are being pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable.” (Sagan 180). According to Sagan different cultures gave distinct and unique names to their “Creators”, such as; Oden, Zeus, Yahweh, Jehovah and even God. Each generation gradually refining the rules and regulations of their beliefs, eventually molding modern religion into what we know it as today. He believed that religion was born of early attempts by our ancestors to explain the cosmos. Although Sagan makes sounding historical claims, his is obviously making an assumption that religion is solely defined by the following of a deity that doesn’t exist. For example, In the study of Buddhism, Buddha is not a God, but a man who believed in the clarity of nature as a guiding force. Also, it follows the belief that one is always in control of his or her actions, not a predetermined or uncontrollable fate. Sagan merely makes a generalizing statement about our ancestor’s beliefs and tries to pass it off as fact.

In the following passage, Sagan’s takes another stab at religion by stating “And so it was that the great idea arose, the realization that there might be a way to know the world without the god hypothesis…” (Sagan 182). A hypothesis is a good guess, but lacking proof. How is this any different then Sagan’s accounts of scientific history? In his many epilogs, he makes for powerful stories but fails to present the solid evidence of said instances occurring. The majority of documented information supporting his claims from early civilizations has long been lost or destroyed. This reigns true for both scientific and religious beliefs. Sagan leads his audience into believing a hypothesis as true, all while claiming God is all but an idea. He stipulates that the reason humans questioned the universe was because they didn’t believe in a God. Does Sagan in fact not believe that science and religion can support each other?

Ultimately, I believe it is important to understand Sagan’s personal beliefs regarding religion to truly understand his underlying motives behind the chapter. In an interview with Ann Druyan, by the Washington Post, she states “He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'” In the true spirit of being a scientist, Sagan didn’t leave himself closed off to the possibility of there being a God should the evidence arise. But I believe that in his book, Sagan does not take a neutral stance on the subject, and reflects his true beliefs. In the Cosmos, he focuses solely on deepening the credibility of science, at the expense of discrediting religion.

All in all, it is an important lesson on how we must choice our words wisely when educating an audience. Had Sagan taken a much less bias stance on the subject matter, could he have achieved the buy-in of many more viewers? Or, if he wanted to include his, made it clear to his readers that such was being done. Regardless of Sagan’s biases, he understood the importance of our foundation as scientific explorers. That each lengthy, historically, detailed paragraph in his chapter had a purpose. As he genuinely stated, “We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers” (Sagan 205). We started small with a single thought, with time it spread and eventually flourished into the branches of science we study today. Regardless of our beliefs, it is through our common passion for learning that we all fall together into the cosmos.