Ian’s comment > Likes and Comments

2 likes · 
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller With the usual definition of "cosmos", a substitute of "Universe", by definition it cannot be within us. We can be made of parts of it, but most is outside us. We appear to disagree that the universe is sentient.


message 2: by Adam (new)

Adam Meek You nailed it Ian-- Sagan, a committed atheist, was trying to make Science into a New Age Religion. His "Cosmos" is an atheist substitute for God.


message 3: by Juan (new)

Juan Well, if we are simply part of the Universe -and this is not a contradictory sentence- the first sentence is only a poetic way to say that. And the second is also too: We are sentient, we are part of what the Universe is, hence the Universe is (in part) sentient.


message 4: by Arose1980 (new)

Arose1980 Thecryptile - Sagan wasn't an athiest, he was agnostic. The two are not the same. "In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views:
“My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it . . . An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”"


back to top