tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634493651432799061.post4764848422777402702..comments2023-03-20T09:30:33.447-05:00Comments on Delight Springs: Cheers to the Irish, and to Carl SaganPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634493651432799061.post-72611748647035185762007-03-30T08:06:00.000-05:002007-03-30T08:06:00.000-05:00I don't think it is useful to put Sagan in the Jam...I don't think it is useful to put Sagan in the Jamesian camp and Dawkins, Dennett and Harris in the other. For all practical purposes, they are all atheists in the sense of not believing in a traditional, personal God. What they might differ is in their temperament in presenting the issue, i.e. advocating a naturalistic worldview. Dawkins and gang might appear more militant while Sagan more persuasive. But this only reflects what has been said. Sagan does not advocate traditional religion as way to truth any more than Dawkins does. And Dawkins does not deny the feeling of awe and religious inspiration that one gets from pondering on the wonders and beauty of the world any more than Sagan does. Dawkins states this very clearly in the chapter on Einsteinian religion in his God Delusion. In fact he is himself a fan of Carl Sagan's writings. What they share is their intellectual honesty in respecting the findings of science and their epistemological viewpoint that only science can tell us what exists (Quine advocated a philosophically more rigorous version of this but essentially they are all in the same boat). All other differences are secondary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com