I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.

— Albert Einstein

The late carl sagan is remembered today as the friendly face of science. He took us through the wonders being discovered by science, and explained their importance, with an unmatched wit and wisdom, as exemplified in his numerous books and the documentary series Cosmos. Ten years after his untimely death, which left a huge chasm in the interface between science and society, we now have a reason to smile — a new Sagan to read, The Gifford Lectures, delivered in 1985, its centennial year.

The timing is serendipitous. A fierce controversy has been raging between the scientific community and religious elements; as well as between scientists with religious beliefs, and scientists who scoff at them. The focus has been the existence, or otherwise, of a God. The forces of the Anti-God, as it were, have been led by Richard Dawkins, one of today’s most renowned and influential scientists, through his recent bestseller, The God Delusion. There is a wry acknowledgment of a previous Gifford lecturer in Sagan’s title — the psychologist William James, who spoke on “the Varieties of Religious Experience”. As we will see, this tip of the hat is very important.

Both Dawkins and Sagan conclude that there is no God. But unlike Dawkins, who is combative, in the case of Sagan there is no thunder and lightning — he lets logic do the job in crystal-clear prose. Also, Dawkins, after proving that God does not exist (QED), consigns religious experience to the heap of scientific irrelevance; Sagan tries to show that the experience (a la James) is more appropriate in the case of science. Another important difference between the two is that while Dawkins is certainty personified, Sagan admits that, however couched in scientific terms, his views are also “speculations”. At one point, he says that they may be just “wild guesses”. While scientific methodology is taken to show that there is no God, Sagan says that it is entirely possible that there is an entity not subject to the rules of science and physics. To a scientist such candour is possibly anathema.

... contd.