COMMENTARY: Learning about faith from Carl Sagan

c. 1997 Religion News Service (Robert A. Seiple is President of World Vision U.S., one of the largest privately funded Christian relief and development organizations in the world. He lives outside Seattle.) UNDATED _ Are science and faith mutually exclusive? For three years, I was privileged to debate that question with one of the 20th […]

c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Robert A. Seiple is President of World Vision U.S., one of the largest privately funded Christian relief and development organizations in the world. He lives outside Seattle.)

UNDATED _ Are science and faith mutually exclusive?


For three years, I was privileged to debate that question with one of the 20th century’s best-known scientists, the late Carl Sagan. Through our correspondence, his questions challenged me to recapture a sense of wonder and curiosity _ to allow my faith to be so strong that I could work through doubts from a position of strength.

Our first meeting in 1992 created controversy in the Christian community. Sagan had been invited to speak at World Vision’s inaugural Washington Forum, which brings World Vision supporters together with leading thinkers from a variety of fields.

Sagan _ who wrote the novel upon which the current Jodie Foster film”Contact”is based _ sent me a note in March 1993 to formally thank me for the invitation.”I know you received some criticism for inviting an infidel,”he said,”and I hope that whatever benefits attached to my appearance outweighed the deficits.” He also corrected reports that described him as disbelieving in a creator God.”As a scientist, I hold that belief should follow evidence, and to my mind the evidence for the universe being created is far from compelling. I neither believe nor disbelieve. My mind is, I think, open, awaiting better data,”he said.

That began a correspondence that ended some months before Sagan’s death from bone marrow disease in December 1996. Each of our letters included at least one provocative question that kept the dialogue going.

We began by discussing the universe and how it might have been created. I asserted:”It’s easier to accept a created universe by faith rather than by incidental chance.” He replied by questioning the dichotomy I had drawn between a”created universe”and one made by”incidental chances.” Alternatives, he said, included an infinitely old cosmos in which the”Big Bang”was merely the latest incarnation, and one in which the observed universe is just a newly formed backwater in a much more vast, infinitely old, and wholly unobservable cosmos.”How can we make a choice (among these theories) merely by faith?”he asked.”What if one person says `a created universe’ and the other `an infinitely old universe?’ They each have equal claims to faith. How shall a neutral observer decide _ if not by considering the scientific evidence and putting aside the fervor of faith?” Sagan’s correspondence was full of intriguing questions.

Why give credence to the testimony of Jesus’ disciples, but not to the testimony of the authors of the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Maya or other sacred books? What kind of God would require us to rely on faith when evidence could have so easily been provided? While belief in life everlasting might be comforting, how can we be sure?

In our third exchange of letters, Sagan asked me the most important question:”You say that `a person of faith should never preclude scientific evidence.’ Let me ask you a question which I’ve asked many world religious leaders: Suppose a central tenet of your religion was clearly contradicted by a finding of science? What would you do?””The most important article of my faith is the reality of the resurrection,”I replied.”The apostle Paul said it best, `If there were no resurrection, we would be of all persons most miserable.’ For me, quite frankly, I’d go out and eat, drink and make merry if I felt it all came to an end, on average, at 78 years.” I asked Carl how science could find evidence contradicting the bodily resurrection, and asserted,”if an infinitely old universe is possible, then an infinite future is possible.” Sagan countered with historical questions: Where is the evidence? If the disciples had trouble believing in the resurrection, why, then, should we? Could Jesus’ body have been stolen? Why was there no record of the resurrection in Roman or Jewish writing?”If we are scrupulous disciples of the truth,”he wrote,”if we are aware of human fallibility, should we believe this story? Or course, we need not disbelieve it either.” Sagan’s letters forced me to think more deeply about my faith.”I think all Christians should be forced to continue to articulate their faith as if their lives depended upon it. Actually they do,”I wrote.”I am putting all my chips in one pile for a faith that I profess. I should be constantly revisiting that faith, and your letters have allowed that to happen.” We exchanged other ideas and questions. We drew parallels between nature and theology _”order emerging out of chaos.”As Sagan’s illness progressed, his letters became more brief and less frequent. We spoke by phone. I asked how I could pray for him. His answer was appreciative, but noncommittal.

I don’t know how the relationship affected Carl, or how he answered the question of whether faith and science are mutually exclusive. But the relationship had a tremendous impact on me.


Curiosity is missing among many Christians because we somehow want to have it all said, have it all done. We have to have all the answers, and if they fit on a bumper sticker, so much the better.

It took someone from outside the church to suggest to me that this faith that I hold so dear can be greater if I struggle with it.

As a scientist, Sagan’s discipline not only allows for doubting, but demands that he question. He prodded me to a place where my faith is strong enough to allow for doubt, for it to become more than the singular event of accepting Jesus.

MJP END SEIPLE

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!