I suspect that when religious types have a spiritual moment that they really do feel like they are in the presence of God. A sense of awe, rapture and love not achieved normally in everyday life. I think also that many of the great communicators of science (most of whom are atheists) have had exactly the same feelings when contemplating something wonderful that science has revealed to them.
Myself, I get this too. It comes in a few different flavours, and this depends largely on the subject of my awe and wonder. Love, awe and even rapture really are emotions that I feel (not all of me is a scientific robot). But my subject is reality and the natural (or at least my perception of stuff, lets not even go down that psycho-philosophical path!).
Sometimes, I look out into the cosmos on a clear night, and I am struck with my puniness on that vast scale. I am almost overwhelmed with the span of time that it all represents. That light, that speck of illumination that teases the rods in my retina; it has been on such a spectacularly long journey that it seems almost whimsical that I should be there to see it. To think that after their journey of millions of years my eye is a few photons’ final resting place.
Other times, I have looked down through a mineralogical microscope, and have simply been amazed at what a few crystals have to tell, heaved through the Earth in that grand geological story.
I even sit in my garden and watch the wind rustle the leaves of a nearby tree and contemplate the brief little example they provide of the forces of nature at work.
If it were simply beauty that moved me, there would surely be enough in all that to sustain me. But there is more! As those photons excite my eyes and the electrical impulses course through my neurons to alert me to all the activity in the world, I am doubly moved by my ability to understand. To understand what is going on. That knowledge, itself made from the stuff of my brain, is an additional layer of beauty. An embellishment of wonder that has no parallel. My education, and particularly the discoveries of science over the ages that have fed that education, is the source of that wonder, that understanding. How can I not be moved by this? How can I want for more, other than to escalate the majesty through more knowledge and more understanding? It is not overstating the matter to say that this is the stuff of poetry; the very core of wisdom to be had.
So now, as we celebrate Carl Sagan Day, in honour of one of the great communicators of science, a man who brought the cosmos into the living room, I want to quote part of Pale Blue Dot, and I know I break no new ground here. However, it bears repeating. Before I do that though, I want to grab a little part of The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It’s at the end and it shows how its not just science that understands, but art also. Lest there be any idea that science and art are not good bedfellows, compare the two passages and see how, in literary mode and in scientific mode, we are united by a sense of the unknown, and a sense of what might be known.
And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors’ eyes — a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby’s house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.
And from Carl Sagan:
Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.
Amen to that!




13 comments
Comments feed for this article
08/11/2010 at 10:39 pm
Daniel
It amazes me that this awe and wonder of the complexity and order of the universe does not lead you to a creator. The truth is plain before you, but the ideology of the day has blinded your eyes.
08/11/2010 at 10:53 pm
mikekpr
Firstly, my entire post was about opening eyes and seeing, so I have not been blinded by any ideology. Indeed, I made mention of the eye-opening experience that education and particularly science has been.
Complex, yes, the universe is. Order, only in the sense we give it. Remarkable it remains. There may be more in Heaven and Earth that can be dreamed of in your philosophy, to quote an old Bard. This doesn’t mean that anything super-natural exists.
Awe and wonder are normal human emotions and feelings. These are a product of ‘being human’ as we perceive the world. So, one does not need a ‘god’ to be in awe and wonder, let alone a creator.
I’m glad I was able to amaze you.
08/11/2010 at 10:58 pm
Daniel
If your starting point is you then you don’t need god for awe and wonder. If your starting point is god then you realize that you feel awe and wonder because he gave you the ability to. Your argument that because you feel you do not need is a logical fallacy. Feelings are a product of being human, but the gift of life is the issue.
We don’t give the universe order. It exists aprt from us. Order would still be here if we never existed. It’s an arrogant assumption that we give order to something that we did not make.
08/11/2010 at 11:15 pm
mikekpr
Yep, I agree, the order that we perceive exists apart from us (it has to otherwise it wouldn’t have taken the plethora of scientific tools to understand it). But then we are ordered objects, so it exists in us too. The special thing is that we are able to perceive it and to discuss it. That is wonderful, and it is a product of the evolution of our remarkable brain.
The difference is that introducing God into the equation is a product of our minds.
The starting point is neither ‘me’ nor God. I didn’t discuss a starting point. I was saying that the feelings we have of awe and wonder and the like are merely feelings that can be inspired by a range of things. Apparently we can even construct worlds and concepts that enhance those feelings, which is what happens in religion. I am saying that it is not God that inspires those feelings.
The gift of life means no more nor less than your very birth and your life up till now. What you do with it in this wild world, that is up to you.
If you are starting down a line of argument that relies on an original creator, or that presumes that God exists as a first premise, then please, give me the full argument rather than attempting to sneak up on me. I can see what you are doing here.
08/11/2010 at 11:29 pm
marius
One fallacy is to conclude there has to be a creator based on the observation there is order. Another is to start with a supernatural (or unknown) starting point and then deduce that the supernatural (or unknown) starting point has to exist.
In any case, the single observation that humans can be in awe with their surroundings can never support the existence of any particular supernatural entity. However, the awe can be expanded with further (scientific) understanding.
08/11/2010 at 11:24 pm
Daniel
“The difference is that introducing God into the equation is a product of our minds.”
The theory of evolution was a construct of our minds as well. I develop God, you develop evolution. Both provide answers of our origins.
It doesn’t have to be god that inspires your feelings. You feel awe because of your own intellectual ability. God is freely chosen or not chosen.
I disagree if you say he is irrelevant. I can call a theory irrelevant just as easily.
08/11/2010 at 11:35 pm
marius
As all hypotheses, evolution has been posited to explain a number of observations. It has subsequently proven to be a better hypothesis than any other we could come up with and has hence been promoted to a theory. God is neither observed nor needed to explain observations.
08/11/2010 at 11:40 pm
mikekpr
@Daniel
Well at least we know where we stand.
We have an entirely different understanding of the meaning of ‘theory’ it seems.
I didn’t develop evolution any more than you developed your notion of God. You got it originally from your parents and community. What evidence do you have other than a book? Or is that enough for you?
I got my understanding of evolution through an education system that provided the tools to both understand how science operates (that was at about year 9) and then to understand how evolution basically works (a year or so later). I have since read about it, and seen how science has come to understand this ‘theory’. It’s about as contentious as whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow.
I have never said God is irrelevant to people. To some people that notion is extremely important. I fully understand that religion is very important in some people’s lives.
God, however, is irrelevant to me and I happen to also think there are benefits in rejecting God as an answer to anything, but that is a different debate.
09/11/2010 at 12:46 am
Daniel
“I didn’t develop evolution any more than you developed your notion of God.”
In this you are wrong. I did not get God from anyone. He found me. My evidence now is within me, and it’s more than I can say for you after reading what you wrote. You have no first hand knowledge of the evidence that scientists use to further their claims of evolution. You require faith, just as I do. However, I have first knowledge of God within me, and useless man-made constructs of the origin of man cannot measure up to the reality within. It does not void my faith, but confirms it. Faith and intellect walk side by side, and with faith, intellect reaches higher understanding than he could have reached alone. God is relevant to you. Take the hand of faith and explore what you cannot see.
09/11/2010 at 12:57 am
mikekpr
I think I have no more to add here, I’m afraid. This is beyond my powers of reason, it seems. I take it these “useless man-made constructs of man” could by extension include such things as medicine, planes and automobiles; but this is childish. Oh and I didn’t start this blog to go to church. I did that for years and years as a child.
I will kindly draw a line under my debate with Daniel.
09/11/2010 at 1:15 am
Daniel
I wasn’t talking about church. I do not call science useless. I call scientists who further humanist claims which lack the mountains of evidence needed to support it uselss. Medicine, planes, and cars do not oppose the knowledge of God, and neither does science. People do. Here we are since the time of Darwin and we have even less evidence in the fossil record. Even if we had more, it would have to be millions of transitional fossils to be any foundation for the theory of evolution. Never mind the fact that the only good mutation we have witnessed, if we can call it that, is sickle cell anemia. Scientists have to suppose a time in the past when there were good mutations. That is the pure act of faith.
09/11/2010 at 4:05 am
marius
What constitutes evidence?
14/11/2010 at 4:30 pm
Science is made by people; people! « Traversing the Razor
[...] my haste and sleepiness at the time, I missed an argument in the comments, by Daniel, on my last post. I don’t mean to single Daniel out for this, however he made the comment and in the interests [...]