The mystery of comets is explored in the all-new "When Knowledge Conquered Fear" episode of COSMOS: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY airing Sunday, March 23 on FOX and Monday, March 24 on Nat Geo. Photo courtesy of FOX Broadcasting

The mystery of comets is explored in the all-new “When Knowledge Conquered Fear” episode of “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” airing March 23 on Fox and March 24 on the National Geographic Channel. Photo courtesy of Fox Broadcasting


This image is available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

(RNS) Many viewers may be hoping that “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” lives up to the original series created by astronomer Carl Sagan 35 years ago.

But no one will watch the program, airing Sunday (March 9) on Fox, with greater anticipation than nonbelievers — atheists, agnostics, humanists and other “nones.”

Among this group, many credit Sagan and the original “Cosmos” with instilling in them skepticism of the supernatural and a sense of wonder about the universe. Both, they say, encouraged their rejection of institutional religion.

Humanists are especially eager. They claim Sagan as their own, and see in the “Cosmos” series — a multipart journey to the outer reaches of our universe — and in his dozen books a vibrant strain of their own philosophy. That philosophy favors reason over religion and holds human beings as both good and responsible for the Earth’s plight.

 Chris Stedman's tattoo, which includes a Sagan quote. Photo courtesy of Chris Stedman

Chris Stedman’s tattoo, which includes a Sagan quote. Photo courtesy of Chris Stedman


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

“In my eyes, Carl Sagan represents the ‘yes’ and possibility of Humanism rather than just the ‘no’ and the disagreement,” said Chris Stedman, assistant Humanist chaplain at Harvard University and a blogger for Religion News Service. “For that reason I think he occupies a special place among humanists and atheists.”

In fact, Sagan — who died of a blood disorder in 1996 at age 62 — is so important to Stedman, 26, he has the scientist’s words inked on his right arm. “For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love,” it says.

Some groups have named awards for Sagan, while others celebrate “Carl Sagan Day” on his Nov. 9 birthday. Sunday Assembly, a growing movement of nonbelievers, has begun weekly meetings with his quotes. Some nonbelieving parents have named their children after him.

“His idea of the immensity of the universe and how small we are just impressed me so much as a teenager,” said Amanda Knief, managing director for American Atheists and owner of a 3-year-old Yorkie named Sagan. “It really led me to look beyond the religion I was raised in and shaped my Humanism.”

[READ: Carl Sagan’s most memorable statements about the universe from a nonbeliever’s perspective.]

Yet Sagan never publicly proclaimed himself a humanist or even an atheist — though he enthusiastically accepted the American Humanist Association’s Humanist of the Year Award in 1981, the year after the original “Cosmos” broadcast. Instead, he called himself an agnostic because, he said, he could not disprove the existence of God.

Carl Sagan

Astronomer Carl Sagan called himself an agnostic because, he said, he could not disprove the existence of God. photo courtesy of www.jp.nasa.gov


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

How did this man — a scientist by training, a teacher by profession and a poet at heart — bring so many people to nontheism, a position he never publicly professed?

“Here’s where Humanism comes in, because it’s not as though he was some hard-core atheist activist,” said Paul Fidalgo, communications director for the Center for Inquiry who first encountered Sagan through his parents.

“He showed us that to marvel at life on our planet was to cherish it and work to preserve it. For that, we have to reject bad, old modes of thinking, look at the world as it really is rather than how we’d like to believe it is, and tackle the crises that face us.”

One reason Sagan was such a great science communicator — the Library of Congress named the print version of “Cosmos” among the most influential American books — is that unlike many of today’s prominent atheists, he never denigrated religion or its adherents, his fans say.

That’s something Owen Gingerich, a Christian, Sagan friend and consultant on the original “Cosmos,” learned firsthand.

“He never criticized me for being a believer or disparaged my belief system,” Gingerich said. In private, “Carl could get off on a tangent about how much trouble religious beliefs had caused, but he was certainly no Richard Dawkins.”

Carl Sagan with a model of the Viking lander.

Carl Sagan with a model of the Viking lander Photo courtesy of JPL via Wikimedia Commons


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

In fact, it was Sagan’s embrace of the language of religion in “Cosmos” that many nonbelievers think made it as moving and memorable as it was. In the first episode, Sagan calls the cosmos “the grandest of mysteries.” Later he intones: “The cosmos is all that ever is or ever was or ever will be.”

“Sagan took scientific facts and wove a kind of spiritual connection between us and the cosmos,” said Daniel Fincke, a philosopher and blogger who first encountered Sagan through the 1997 film version of his book “Contact.” “He has this notion that we are made of the stars, they are not separate from us, we come from them and we’ll return to them. It is a way to re-appropriate people’s feelings of religious wonder and connect them to our scientific origins.”

For Sagan, that connection was personal. “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality,” he wrote. “When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”

Not all nonbelievers are comfortable with that assessment, but James Croft, training to become a nontheistic Ethical Culture minister, agreed. He has given talks on Sagan’s science as a source of spirituality at Carl Sagan Day celebrations.

“Sagan juxtaposes the best of the religious and scientific world views,” Croft said. “It is his generosity of spirit and his willingness to understand what is appealing in religion while rejecting its claims that has most affected me.”

Was Sagan aware “Cosmos” was so charged with his own nonbelief that many humanists and atheists today see it as almost a manifesto of that philosophy as much as it is of science?

James Randi, another Sagan friend and associate and a prominent skeptic in his own right, says the answer is probably not.  Nonbelief was just an essential part of who he was.

“Carl was quite committed to that attitude (nonbelief),” Randi said. “There was no other way that he could look at the world.”

YS/MG END WINSTON

90 Comments

    • Yes, and science is what Sagan should have stuck to, instead of wandering off into pop mythology about history and popularizing that silly story about Christians burning the Library of Alexandria–which was already destroyed before Christ was ever born.

        • According to the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, the Library of Alexandria was accidentally set on fire and destroyed by the armies of Julius Caesar during the Alexandrine War. Marcellinus, moreover, was quite familiar with Alexandria and lived to see the AD 391 incident with the Serapeum, which the uninformed have confused with the Library of Alexandria. Neither he nor any other ancient historian mentions the Library as being in existence after the 1st century BC.

          • As already stated, Roman historians recorded that the Library was destroyed by Caesar’s armies. Sorry.

          • Godo, Shawnie you are both correct. It was burned by Caesar AND Christians, several centuries apart from each other.

    • It’s strange that the opposite effect seems to take place in the ones who are making the discoveries of science. What possible natural mechanism could we discover that makes you believe in supernatural mechanisms? Which god is science making you believe in? Just one of the millions we’ve made up or all of them?

    • @Frank,

      You say discoveries of science makes you believe in God.

      Curious. Which God does science point you to?
      Allah? Yahweh? Hercules? Zeus? Zoraster? Osiris? Isis?

      If it doesn’t matter which God – then how do you connect the next dot to Jesus?

      Does science answer the question? or is it just your own emotions doing the answering?

        • And of course, the only one god is the one that you believe in. (This remark is not only to you Frank, but to everyone in the history of mankind that has ever claimed to have been a monotheist)

          • There is but one truth. Why is that so difficult for some to accept? Your next breath will consist of air you cannot see, yet it sustains your life. Gravity is not seen, either, yet it keeps you from floating off into space. Both are unseen but truth. It is the same with God. Evidence of His existence is everywhere your eye can see. Is it easier to accept that an unseen omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator designed and made all this to work together, or a completely UNscientific macro evolution? Which requires more faith?

        • It’s not “prideful” to think and reason, Frank. It’s the sensible, moral thing to do. Issuing vague threats that anyone who thinks differently from you will be getting their comeuppance in the afterlife is just being a bully.

          • You are right. When I see cogent thinking and reason from an atheist I will acknowledge it. Still waiting.

        • @Frank,
          So for you religion is just a sport of one team vs. another team. :-/

          Like Democrats vs. Republicans. “My team is #1. Your team is nothing.”
          Loyalty, like for the Yankees.

          That shouldn’t warm your heart. because instead of thinking for yourself, you are letting your team decide for YOU whether you are up or down – and it is all emotions not thought – your pride comes from how well your team is doing.

          As religion fades, rooting for a losing team will just become anger. The harsh RULEBOOK of your team will re-emerge to score points!

          Yet, isn’t it clear that none of these teams is All-knowing, All-perfect, All-powerful?
          I mean, if one team had such power, would the other ‘teams’ even exist?

        • on that day he will be dropped on his knees, sadly theres nothing we can do to help those un-willing to submit themselves to the truly wonderful God they are missing out on

          • @Frank – To think that you have direct connection to the one true god is only narcissism cloaked with humility. (It’s an emotional trick). To claim that giving in to uncertainty, the vastness of space, and the reality of how minuscule our lives are and how little we actually matter is somehow more egotistical?

            p.s. I’m wise enough to know I’m not wise enough.

          • @Katherine – That’s a horrible thing to say to anyone, especially an Atheist. It’s hard being an Atheist. We have to live through bouts of intense suffering, hopelessness and worry and you get to use your imagination.

            And when you screw up, “your forgiven”. Please be kind to Atheists.

      • I am sorry for you. Maybe some day you will understand. To be honest you do seem bitter in your comments.Somethings are to believed if you allow it. You will know in your heart. I don’t have any other way to explain it before you ask. Its like when you meet the right person in your life you just know. Good luck.

        • It’s funny that the people touting their one religion over thousands and thousands of years of countless ones, think that by having your own chosen beliefs through self-discovery and contemplation, is prideful. Or bitter. Know what’s bitter? Telling people they are wrong in their beliefs and that yours could be the only right one. And that they will go to hell for not believing in what you do.

          Or is it stupidity and ignorance bred from brainwashing? Yeah, I think so. (there is some bitter for ya, nutjob)

          BTW I love science. But I believe in God. Not your beliefs or anyone’s “God”, but EVERYONE’S “GOD”. Just because you have some stories passed down by people trying to control the masses, doesn’t mean you have the word of God. God ordained the Universe. He created us through evolution. We are animals all the same, and we can be repeated elsewhere in the Universe. But we do matter, there are objective morals out there and not just subjective ones. Is it so prideful to admit humans are ignorant and egotistical? I suppose your pride will tell you that you aren’t ignorant or egotistical. Well, your offense taken at the notion your God is merely a fictional character, that we have no way of relating ‘him’ to the real God, means your pride and ego can’t stand the thought that you are simply repeating what you were fed. You silly, programmable being.

    • Then you are delusional sir.
      It completely baffles me why otherwise seemingly intelligent and reasonable people would be so gullible as to believe in something, in this case an ancient mad-made myth, without any evidence at all.

      Not less a myth about a man who lives in the sky and made everything, loves us all, but doesn’t mind killing unbelievers (although he seems to be taking a break from that now), is supposedly all powerful but can’t kill Satan, which presumably he also made (by mistake?).
      It’s a fairy story and if you believe it then you should also believe in Cinderella.

    • I’m sorry but there is no evidence whatsoever from antiquity connecting Hypatia to the Library of Alexandria. Nor surprisingly, since it did not exist when she lived.

      • Other than the histories compiled by Gibbon, the accounts of Socrates of Constantinople, Paulus Orosius, clear evidence of Emperor Theodosius ordering all pagan temples and works to be destroyed, empire-wide.

        Plus an additional destruction a few centuries later when the Muslims conquered Egypt.

        • Nothing in the accounts of either Socrates or Orosius connects Hypatia to ANY library, let alone the long-destroyed Library of Alexandria. Gibbon made up the entire legend about Hypatia being involved with the Library, and about Christians having anything to do with its destruction.

          • Take it up with the sources in the wikipedia article.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

            The fact is, anyone who can say with absolute clarity what is and what isn’t in the record when it comes to antiquity is usually full of it. Ancient histories are never known to be objective and it is always trying to put together a puzzle which is missing numerous pieces. Modern studies usually tend to be the most reliable due to the practice of trying to incorporate as much information about the mundane world of the writer as possible.

            The fact that you rule it out so unequivocally is not credible and points to personal bias against criticism of the history of Christianity.

        • Personal bias? lol…pot, kettle, etc.

          In any case, even my elementary school-aged daughter knows that Wikipedia is not an acceptable authority on anything–sorry you didn’t get the memo. Marcellinus, who actually knew Alexandria and the Serapeum well, spoke of its libraries in the PAST TENSE, going on to explain its destruction by Caesar. Aulus Gellius and Seneca also wrote of this. Nobody else ever mentioned it existing after the 1st century. The first mention anywhere in history of Christians burning the Alexandrian Library is Gibbon in the late 18th century. The only “missing piece” of this fable is the actual ancient evidence of it.

          • @Machi4velli:…..Sigh…Again, the references in Wikipedia have NOTHING TO DO with the Library of Alexandria. Socrates of Constantinople wrote about the destruction of the Temple of Serapis; he made no mention of a library at all. Orosius wrote of some books having been plundered (not necessarily destroyed) from existing temples (obviously not the Serapeum because it was already destroyed when he wrote this). All that leaves is Gibbon, who; as before stated; fabricated the whole story about the LIbrary citing only the two above sources which; as we can see; are not sources at all. John Julius Norwich is only a modern-day English historian and since no link to his work is provided on Wiki it can only be assumed he took his cues from Gibbon (as Sagan unfortunately did as well), there being no other ancient sources to go on.

            Why all the resistance to a bit of critical thinking and investigation of the facts? Are the myths just too appealing to let go of?

          • There is no pot/kettle scenario here as I see it. I feel that sometimes people think there is a bias AGAINST Christianity. Like the whole goal is to make Christianity look bad. Science and history does not care about Christianity any more than other religions. It is indifferent towards it. That’s why it uses all available information and is not biased by protecting anything, like Christianity. Also Wikipedia was unreliable in like 2007. It’s not directly sourcible but overall can be a valuable tool for basic knowledge. The sources use to comprise Wiki are sound.

          • @Andrew: The sources in Wikipedia are sound, but they do not in any way support the notion that Christians burned the Library of Alexandria.

            Science and History do not care about making Christianity look bad, but that of course was not my implication. Larry cares about making Christianity look bad. Which is why his accusing me of “personal bias” is so utterly absurd. He is the pot to my kettle, so to speak.

            Is reading comprehension a dying art or something?

  1. Susan Humphreys

    I heard that Neil deGrasse Tyson, the current and popular science/space guy will be the host of this new version. I didn’t realize it was being sponsored by Fox and don’t trust Fox news programs. That gives me mixed concerns. I like what Tyson has done on PBS with his space and science programs. I know there are many fundamentalists that will never watch a PBS program simply because they think the programs are to left leaning (all lies). So maybe they will watch something on Fox and get hooked!

    • Yes, it is on Fox, but I have no concerns about Tyson’s leanings, and as indicative of the separate programming vs. news is the fact that it will be shown on Discovery and eight more networks as well as worldwide. Additionally, Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, wrote it and Seth MacFarlane (Family Guy, etc) is an executive producer. It sounds like a wonderful production. Here is an article with other links and the trailer: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-watch-a-cosmos-qa-with-neil-degrasse-tyson-and-seth-macfarlane-20140305,0,4338432.story

    • Ann Druyan said in a Q&A the other day that they were actually never approached at all regarding “uncomfortable” content by Fox in the entire course of developing the series.

    • And where did this “Creator”, “Intelligent Designer”, or “God” get the universe from? Why do you think the universe had to come from nothing? Have you read the book by physicist Lawrence Krauss showing how the universe could conceivably have come from nothing without magic?

    • If you believe in God then you still have to believe something comes from nothing. Not only the ‘where did God come from’ paradox but how did he ‘magic’ things into existence.
      The ‘nothing’ you refer to isn’t ‘nothing’ in scientific terms.
      This ‘nothing’ has weight (thanks to quantum particles). It’s understanding sciences version of ‘nothing’ that you need to understand.

      For a more practical guide without all the confusing quantum theory bits.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJT_beZiGgQ

      • not getting into this but…

        have you ever wondered about how the laws of physics landed on what they did so perfectly for us to exist? and your ‘nothing’ isn’t really ‘nothing’… lol. where did quantum physics come from? what sets those values? is what sets those values also from something that came before it?

  2. martin fowkes

    You can’t get something from nothing, thats why God doesn’t exist. At least we know the universe exists. If I was American, I would be extremely proud of Carl Sagan, and James Randi. I am proud of Richard Dawkins.Hope we get this programme, we did get the original but I missed it.

    • Susan Humphreys

      For both of you this something from nothing argument is simply DUMB. We don’t know what is in the black hole that our Universe spilled out of. HOWEVER, it is obvious that everything that we see came from it so even though we couldn’t see what was there doesn’t mean that it was empty space, a void, NOTHING. It contained EVERYTHING.

    • God didnt come from nothing, he always was and always will be. I love how you guys fall for this scientific bull crap yet not to the evidence that God has given us, this earth and this universe. He MADE science so he understands it better then an of you guys ever will and more then you guys think you do.

  3. I couldn’t be happier that Tyson is at the helm of the new Cosmos. He’s by far the best clarifier of The Real World since Carl died — a tragedy from which I’ll never recover. I’m a little leery about Fox being involved, but I suggest that if we all keep an eye on the quality of Cosmos, and report shadings or errors, we’ll serve our species well. And isn’t that what it’s all about?

    Go, Neil….!

    James Randi.

    • I wouldn’t worry too much. They are using one of the co-producers of the original series and Executive Producer Seth McFarlane is a big fan.

      Its a labor of love for everyone involved. Their hearts are in the right place. Hopefully the execution will do the subject justice.

  4. Carl has been a hero since I was a child. I nearly went to Cornell University simply because of him. I miss his luminous presence every time I think of him. We held our first Human Light Celebration this year. Our theme was “perspective” and we started off with a reading from “Pale Blue Dot”. AI am planning on starting off all our future celebrations with his wisdom. I am really looking forward to the new COSMOS and wish it great success. I hope that it does for a new generation what Carl’s COSMOS it did four ours.

  5. Cosmos was indeed transformative and a large part of the beginning of my ongoing fascination with reality. I watch it with my kids when each of them gets to about the age of 8. Every family should have it on DVD or other format – it’s a much more fitting baby shower gift than many things that are often given, it gives the child the Universe. It’s available on Amazon. I hope that the new one comes even somewhat close to the grandeur, power, and awe of the first one. http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/B000055ZOB/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1394115413&sr=1-1&keywords=cosmos

  6. It’s also worth pointing out how great it is to get a comment from James Randi. James, thank you for all the wonderful work you’ve done to help people today and especially future human generations! I may never get a chance to meet you in person, but you, like Dr. Sagan, are truly a human treasure.

  7. My “magical theory” about how the Universe came into being is just as valid as yours. Neither of our positions can be proven by the “scientific” method. By the way, do most agnostics/atheists subscribe to the “magical” theory that they just go back to the Universe when they die? Does that go for everyone, “good” or “bad” alike, or is everything just relative? When you die “is that all there is”? Do many of you subscribe to Reincarnation?

    • The problem with the “God did it all” theory is that it is not a theory in any kind of sense beyond the layperson definition of “blind guess, making crap up”.

      Scientific theories, unlike just blind guesses (such as “God did it”) have the bonus feature of being capable of providing a framework for interpreting research, data and giving room for further study and exploration on a subject. The best thing about a scientific theory is it requires absolutely no faith. They live and die on the basis of available evidence. They invite questions and challenge instead of avoiding them.

    • Essentially you do go back to the Universe. Obviously not in corporeal form.
      Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, the atoms that make up your body will, depending on if you are cremated or buried, be absorbed back into the Earth or space.
      You can become nutrients for a tree so some of the atoms that made up your body will be in that tree. You can, if cremated, have some of your atoms float off into the atmosphere where some may hang around and float back down or some will make it into space and who knows you might end up back into a star.
      I would rather that, than this silly weak-minded ‘heaven and hell’ idea. Two eternal prisons with eternal watchers for good and bad people.
      And the notion that you will see all your old family members… I mean why do people buy this stuff in the 21st century ?

    • We understand quite well how bodies decompose though scientific means. So, sure, the atoms that make up our bodies would seem to behave in such a way once we’re dead.

      I don’t like the phrasing of “going back to the universe,” because that supposes we’re somehow outside the universe when we’re living, which doesn’t seem to make much sense. If the universe is the collection of things in existence, we are already part of the universe.

      As for reincarnation, no one is making any claim that an instance of human consciousness survives to be reincarnated, only the materials making up our bodies go on to make up new things.

  8. In the years before September 11, 2001
    people like Carl Sagan could calmly dismiss religion and not make a big fuss about it. Theocracies were rare enough and rather powerless.

    Today, however, religion threatens the world in countless ways. Stirred up by Bin Laden, Al Queda, Bush’s War on Terror and revved up even more by the Evangelical Christians in the USA.

    Religion is the danger.
    Carl Sagan described it as a “dragon in the garage” but today it is let loose and multiplying in ways we never thought possible.

    • your comparing different religions but in what way is Christianity dangerous? billions of people on this planet believe in God and its always been getting stronger since the planet was created. if Christianity is so horrible then why does Vladimir putin want to put more Christian values in Russia after being a communist country full of atheism for so long? Because he sees Obama and how messed up the U.S is today that he doesn’t want us to go downhill like they did. the Catholic Church was a huge contribution to western civilization in the development of Europe where the first universities, hospitals and orphanages were built so I don’t know where your getting this from and its the most charitable organization in the world. What do atheists do for the world but waste their whole life searching trying to discover what’s outside of this planet and drift away from the real reason why we were put in this world?

      • Religion like Christianity is good, for the most part. Westboro Baptist Church kinda folks are examples of how religion goes wrong. And Russia? Yeah, hating gays, invading countries, that’s all great use of religion, right?!

        We need religions like Christianity. Not because they are true, but because they give people ‘objective morality’. If they aren’t brainwashed to believe in this objective morality, are left to their own device, then they very well might become atheist and believe morality is only subjective. Then you have mall shootings and whatnot. Sure, this happens anyway, but what if humans were as humans are but religion never existed? We’d like to think we’d have reasoned our way to where we are now, to have built the societies exactly as we did, but no. We needed religion to push us to where we’ve made it now. And we still need it to keep some people in line. Because they are too stupid without it to comprehend any of these discoveries WHILE ALSO maintaining the idea that WE STILL DON’T KNOW!

        IMO God exists, just not one under any man made religion.

    • They are two things that even the most brilliant scientists and atheists cannot comprehend: Faith, and the idea that human knowledge of the universe and its purpose might be limited. Ask one of these geniuses this question…why does the universe and time even exist? There is no answer to that question other than it is part of an intelligent plan. Until God is unequivocally disproven, atheism is as much a religion as any other religion…guided by beliefs, not proof. No scientific discoveries have disproven God. Not even the Higgs Boson.

      • That’s fine and dandy, but to claim Christianity is the one true religion, or any religion is, would be ‘you’ (or whoever) showing just how brainwashed you were as a child.

  9. lifeafterdeath

    “Carl was quite committed to that attitude (nonbelief),” Randi said. “There was no other way that he could look at the world.”
    In other words he Carl was quite biased, and would not really examine all the evidence. What a shame, and now it is too late. Science does not answer lifes most important questions, Where did we come from? and Where are we going? He already had a biased conclusion, without real evidence to support that conclusion. What a shame.

    • Actually Carl Sagan spent a lot of time trying to prove that god was real and he even said he had no proof of his existence but also could not deny that he may be there. Carl learned from many different angles and then went towards science because it actually had answers for him.He was not a man who could easily be swayed by faith unless it had some sort of evidence to support it. Either way even if he spent no time studying religion he inspired people to learn and motivated people to learn history and science and space. All things which have helped us build our nation.

    • A shame? He did more for peace on this planet than you or I will ever do.

      He was compassionate, driven and intelligent and transformed the lives of many people. If God was real, and he put a man like Carl Sagan anywhere but front row for not “worshipping him” yet still living a charitable, humble life, I want no part of it. The cruelty of a divine leader like that would be like living in North Korea.

      You are an example of when religion warps people into being unkind. Which by the way, is an unnatural state.

  10. The similar controversies over the new series are understandable to see that creationists don’t like it at all. I have nothing against that but trying to get it off air is what i am against. Why should Fox take off Cosmos when there are many many channels that are solely in support of different beliefs and they are not forced to take down there best documentaries or speeches. Everyone should have the chance to learn any view for them selves and decide from there what they believe to be try. Another issue I don’t believe fox itself needs to give anytime to opposing views for the same reason I just gave. Fox is not a religions driven channel and a religious channel would never show the opposing view so why should fox?
    I will say this about every religious book I have ever read. Each one had amazing moral values. Do not kill, love those around you, Do not hate even if others hate you, treat others the way everyone should be treated. Many people benefit off of the morals they teach myself being one of them.

    The new Cosmos has sparked even more interest into studying for myself and many people I know. Since it came out I have studied more and better with more motivation. I have read twice as much as I ever had and have even lessened how much I watch television. I find nothing wrong with what Carl, Neil and Ann have attempted to do and that is to teach.

    Even if you don’t believe what they have to say you should still watch it and try to think of it as someone from neither side and just someone watching to learn what little bit you find relevant and anyone who is completely for it should watch different documentaries supporting religions and creationism that way both sides can try to understand the opposing side instead of just attacking each other.

  11. I continue to wonder why people continue to create conflict with science and spiritual belief. I am an engineer and I have a spiritual side that helps me deal with the concept of life and death as well as the loss of love ones. Also, I use religious structure to provide the blue print on how to live with my fellow human beings.

    I use science when I want to understand how the universe works based on evidence. It is clear that science has improved our understanding of the world around as our knowledge increases gives us the means to continue to prosper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.