Posted on 11/06/2019 7:56:25 AM PST by fishtank
Saganism Lives On in Futility
November 3, 2019 | David F. Coppedge
Carl Sagan’s daughter picks up where her dad left off, adding an unexpected twist for creatures on a pale blue dot.
Space.com reviewed Sasha Sagan’s new book, For Small Creatures Such As We. Basically, Carl Sagan’s daughter thinks that since humans evolved to be ritualistic, we should come up with some secular rituals that atheists can enjoy during their brief, meaningless lives on a speck orbiting a speck in a speckless universe. Reviewer Chelsea Gohd sums it up in her subtitle: “People are born and people die. We’ve all got to get through it one way or another.”
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
"Contrast Sagan’s despairing view of human life to one that recognizes beauty as the work of a loving Creator God.
That’s where us tiny humans in a pale blue dot can rejoice in true awe, because beauty has a purpose, to draw us to the Creator.
Darwin admitted,
“Beauty for its own sake… would be fatal to my theory.”
Let Illustra Media show, in its short film Beauty, Darwin and Design, how we are surrounded by a superabundance of beauty that not only is fatal to Darwinism, but lifts us to genuine awe, hope and meaning."
Atheists develop their own rituals. They generally parallel the seven deadly sins with their resultant harm. Yet they often don’t just reject religion, but science and common sense as well.
In short, theirs is a path of de-evolution, I suppose it could be called. Its ritual is harm to themselves and others.
They already worship chaos as the creator. Is it any wonder they are lost and confused?
Shouldn't that be "...Such as Us?"
The preposition "for" (with takes the Accusative) acts on "creatures" and "we." The Accusative Case of "we" is "us."
Regards,
The verb “are” is assumed at the end; therefore, “we” in the nominative case is correct.
I don’t believe in atheists.
“use symbols meaningful to non-human species”
There’s no such thing as “symbols meaningful to non-human species”. Closest you are going to get is when we manage to train a great ape to use some simplified sign language to tell us they like bananas.
Exactly my point, the parent article uses beauty as a construct in non sentient species, I conjecture it is a null concept.
“the parent article uses beauty as a construct in non sentient species”
Where?
All I see is a reference to beauty in regards to human life and consciousness:
“Contrast Sagan’s despairing view of human life to one that recognizes beauty as the work of a loving Creator God. That’s where us tiny humans in a pale blue dot can rejoice in true awe, because beauty has a purpose, to draw us to the Creator.”
I see what you mean, when thinking about Darwinism and behavior in certain birds, juxtaposed with “beauty” I couldn’t make a connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.