The Bruno Segment (Off-Topic)

by ckamp, Friday, March 14, 2014, 14:39 (3910 days ago) @ SonofMacPhisto
edited by ckamp, Friday, March 14, 2014, 15:15

Great post! You inspired a semi-rant in me.

I read some criticism that they shouldn't have included that [Bruno} section, as it's just a shot across the bow of relgiously minded folks, and that Sagan wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

So what do they think Sagan was doing in the original when they discussed the Library of Alexandria? If you listen even a little closely, there's some real anger in his voice. The book didn't pull any punches either in basically accusing authoritarian, which in antiquity were often religious, power structures from holding back human development thousands of years.

You make a really good point. As a religiously-minded person who is a fan of both, I think you are absolutely right: both the Bruno and Alexandrian segments carry the same tone and force, so people really shouldn't be surprised that there is a subtle polemic against religion. Furthermore, if people are upset, they are failing to look at history honestly. Sure, there were historical simplifications in the Bruno segment, but that doesn't change the fact that a Church, who worships a God whose main mode of operation is through sacrificial love on behalf of others, decided to kill someone who thought differently. Christians should look at that segment soberly because the scientific community rightly perceives the threat that religions have posed to scientific inquiry.

Sagan, and the new writers, expose the way that religious institutions have often operated out of fear and have suppressed ideas throughout history. If anything, religiously-minded people should be thanking them for the critique. If they want to prove Sagan's, often justified, fears of religiously oriented thinking wrong, they should take the critique to heart. I don't happen to agree with Sagan's rigid dichotomy between the religious community and scientific inquiry, but I totally understand why he has arrived at conclusions he has.

I loved the original show because Sagan was so good at communicating complex ideas thoughtfully and with a sense of wonder. In addition, he brought excellent moral concerns to the discussion table. He was such a rare gem in that regard (plus, if you add Vangelis to anything, it automatically gets like +1000 points added to its spacey wonder and awe-ness factor). As a pastor, I'm encouraging people in my community to watch this show and I hope that this new installment eventually approaches the quality of the original. We'll see...