First Parish Sermon

Emerson's response was to say, "I will lift  up  my  hands  and  say  Kosmos."  What  would Emerson have thought of our even  greater  expanded cosmos? His cosmos was still confined to one milky-way galaxy  and  millions of stars. Our cosmos is now comprised of billions of galaxies and  gazillions  of  stars,  and the theory that they all derive from one source and one moment of conception, the Big Bang. 
 
 "I  will  lift  up  my hands and say Kosmos." Emerson's universe has now become  for  better  or  worse  Carl  Sagan's  cosmos.  And that cosmos has yet another  notion  that  neither  Emerson  nor  any  previous  generation ever thought of:  namely,  if  the  universe  as  we  know  it  issued  forth  from  an  absolute  singularity  wherein  time,  space  and  matter  were  all  compressed  into an  infinitesimal  point  which  suddenly  burgeoned  forth in an initial explosion  known  as  the Big Bang, then it may be that there are billions of universes in  other  space-time  dimensions that  came forth from yet other singularities, a  veritable  Big  Bang  Bang  Bang  Bang  Bang, ad infinitum. Next time you watch  another  4th  of  July  Fireworks  display  put  on  by  the Boston Pops at the  esplanade  think of that possibility. Of course, that is something we can never  know,  but  the  mere  thought of it is absolutely mind-blowing. 

Years ago J.B.  Phillips  wrote a book called, IS YOUR GOD TOO SMALL? It may be that our God is  too small for even a universe of a hundred billion galaxies. The  poet,  Mark Van Doren, captured something of this staggering notion in his  poem "The God of Galaxies":

          The god of galaxies--how shall we praise him?
          For so we must, or wither. Yet what word
          Of words? And where to send it...?
          Let us consider it...And say it without voice. 
          Praise universes/Numberless. Praise all of them.
 
Carl  Sagan  refers to an apocryphal story about a Western traveler who asks an Oriental  philosopher  to  describe  the nature of the world. He tells him that  the  world  is  a  great  ball  resting on the flat back of an enormous turtle.  "Ah,"  his  questioner inquires, "but what does the world turtle stand on?" "On  the  back  of a still larger turtle", the philosopher tells him. "Yes, but what  does  he  stand  on?"  And  the philosopher says, "It's no use to continue with  your  questions,  it's  turtles all the way down." Well, in Carl Sagan's cosmos  we can say it's galaxies, quasars and quarks all the way up and down.
 
Carl  Sagan  credited his parents, (who were not scientists themselves, and only  one  step  out  of  poverty),  for  encouraging  him in his desire to become an  astronomer,  even  though  "they  had only the most rudimentary idea of what an  astronomer  does."  They  helped plant the seeds of his future career by taking  him  to  the  1939  New  York World's Fair which "offered a vision of a perfect  future  made  possible  by science and high technology." 

Though that vision has  yet  to  be  realized  it  marked the beginning of Sagan's lifelong love affair  with  science. Sagan had a gift for being able to relate the concepts and ideas  of  science  and  astronomy  to  the  average  person  in  ways  that were both  understandable  and  exciting.  His  enthusiasm for the world revealed to us by science  was  infectious.  His PBS series on COSMOS was watched by millions. He often  wrote  pieces  for  PARADE  magazine that were easy to grasp. And he was working  on  the  film adaptation of his novel, CONTACT, starring Jodie Foster,  when he died.
 
Those  of  you  who saw the movie will recall that the main character, a female  astronomer,  Ellie  Arroway, takes a journey in a mysterious machine (the plans for   building  it  having  been  transmitted  to  earth  from  an  intelligent  civilization  in  the  region  of the star Vega). The machine takes her through  worm  holes and space warps faster than the speed of light, to Vega and beyond.  Her  encounter  with  the  wonder of the universe is a truly numinous spiritual  experience.  Not  only  does  she  see galaxies and star clusters of incredible  color  and  beauty,  but  she encounters the physical likeness of  her deceased  father  who  relates  to  her  the wisdom of the higher intelligence and beings  that brought her to this point. 
 
In  the  novel  Sagan alludes to "an intelligence that antedates the universe",  something  he  never  came  to  affirm  in  his  real life as an astronomer. He  remained  an  agnostic  all of his life. Nonetheless, he believed strongly that  there  was  no inherent conflict between science and spirituality and that only  in  the  wedding  of  skepticism  (the impulse behind the quest for truth) with  wonder  (the sense of awe for the mystery of life and being) could a scientific  and   religious   orientation  grounded  in  truth  be  won.  

Speaking  of  the  relationship between science and spirituality Sagan wrote:

In  its  encounter  with  Nature,  science  invariably elicits a sense of  reverence  and  awe.  They  very act of understanding is a celebration of joining,  merging,  even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of  the Cosmos....Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a  profound  source  of  spirituality.  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. The notion that  science  and  spirituality  are  somehow  mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

Sagan  loved  the  story  about  the  British  mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand  Russell,  who,  after  participating  in an illegal peace protest, was asked by  his  jailer  what his religion was. Russell replied, "Agnostic", and spelled it for  him. The  jailer  shook  his  head  and  said,  "There's  many  different religions,  but  I suppose we all worship the same God." Russell commented that the remark cheered him for weeks.
 
Sagan  never  lived  to  see  his  novel  made into a film, but along with his  scientist  wife, Ann Druyan, he had met with Jodie Foster and the film crew and offered  his advice and contagious enthusiasm for the project. All of them were  caught  up  in  his  vision. I  appreciated  the  dialogue between science and  religion  that  the  movie and the novel and Sagan's other writings have opened  up. Sagan often said there is no necessary conflict between science  and  religion so long as both are intent upon the pursuit of truth. 

Sagan once  asked  the Dali Lama what he would do if science was able to disprove a central  tenet  of their Buddhist faith, and he replied, "Tibetan Buddhism would have to  change." Sagan  pressed  him further. "Even if it were a really central tenet,  like  reincarnation?", he  asked. "Even then," said the Dali Lama. However, he added  with a twinkle, "it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation." Which  Sagan  readily acceded. Reincarnation and God, concluded Sagan, are "difficult alike to demonstrate or to dismiss."
 
Sagan's  metaphysical  position  might  better  be  characterized  as that of a  reverent  agnostic. What  Sagan  argued for on the part of both scientists and religious adherents  was  a  sense of humility  in the face of such profound  mysteries  as  the  origin and end of life and the universe. He quotes from the  Hindu Rig Veda which asks: “Who  knows  for  certain?  Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence  came  creation?  No  one knows whence creation arose; and whether god  has or has not made it. He who surveys it from the lofty skies, only he knows--or perhaps he knows not.”
 
I  think  it  could be argued that science, at least biological science, should  at  least  have  the  humility  to admit  that evolution might not just be the result of  pure accident and  blind chance, but could be the expression of a hidden divine purpose. Increasing complexity of life forms leads to increasing  levels of consciousness which reaches its apex in the human. Is this all due  to  mere  chance  or  is  there an underlying implicate order that aims towards  cosmic  consciousness? 

Science rules the idea of cosmic purpose and meaning out  of  court  from the very beginning. Since the data can be read both ways should  not  science  at least admit it could be mistaken in its view. How does science  know  that  evolution  has  no  underlying  spiritual  purpose or plan? That is  something  that  science as science cannot know, it can only assume. Carl Sagan  at  least  had  the  humility  to  admit  that  the  cosmic  process  could  be  interpreted  and understood with or without the assumption of a divine purpose.  Sagan put it this way:

I   see   the   emergence  in  our  consciousness  of  a  Universe  of  a magnificence,  and  an  intricate,  elegant order far beyond anything our ancestors  imagined.  And  if  much  of the Universe can be understood in terms  of  a  few  simple laws of Nature, those wishing to believe in God can certainly ascribe those beautiful laws to a Reason underpinning all of Nature.

That's not entirely true, at least not  at  the moral level. The prophetic tradition, which is common to all three  western  faiths--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--has a self-critical tradition for calling  both religion and society to moral accountability in terms of how  we  treat  the  poor,  the  oppressed and downtroden. When it comes to love and  justice  the  prophets  want  nothing  to  do  with  mere rites and rituals and  ceremony.  They  want  to  see  compassion  and  justice  put into practice and  action.  "Let  justice  flow  down  like  waters and righteousness like an ever  flowing stream."
 
It  could  be  argued that science as such has no moral perspective in terms of  what its knowledge and technology are used for. Science, after all, made the H- bomb,  the  most horrific weapon ever made. It should never have been made. But  now  that it is made, it should never be used. Science as science cannot decide that question. It  is  a  moral question and any moral sense which scientists  have  in  this  regard they got from their culture, and the culture got it from  religion. Science  needs  the  ethical  critique  of religion just as religion  needs  the  truth telling critique of science. Even Pope John Paul II has said,  "Science  can  purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science  from  idolatry  and  false  absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a  wider world, a world in which both can flourish."
 
In  his  last book Sagan referred to an alliance between science and religion—the  preserving  and  cherishing  of  the  earth—which  both  can embrace with  knowledge  and  commitment.  "Science  and  religion," noted Sagan, "may differ  about  how  the  Earth was made, but we can agree that protecting it merits our  profound  attention  and  loving  care." He  was  heartened to see an emerging  interfaith  response  between different faith traditions, known as The National Religious Partnership for the Environment", and the scientific community, to  the  cause  of  environmental justice and integrity. It was a cause dear to his  heart.
 
Like  Emerson,  Carl  Sagan  came face to face with death, not the death of his  wife  or children, but the reality of his own impending death. He was diagnosed with  "myelodyplasia",  a  preleukemic condition. He struggled for two years of  treatment  for  his illness including bone marrow translplants from his sister,  but  eventually  his  immune  system weakened and he came down with a resistant  strain  of  pneumonia  that  took  him  to his grave. He had been in and out of  Hutchinson  Cancer  Research  Center  in  Seattle numerous times in those two  years. Many people of all faiths prayed for his recovery which he took note of  in his last book published after his death:

Five thousand people prayed for me at an Easter service at the Cathedral of  St.  John  the  Divine  in  New  York  City,  the  largest  churh  in Christendom. A  Hindu priest described a large prayer vigil for me held on the banks of  the Ganges. The Immam of N. America told me about his prayers for my recovery. Many Christians and Jews wrote me to tell about theirs. While  I  do  not think that, if there is a god, his plan for me will  be  altered  by prayer, I'm more grateful then I can say to those--including  so  many whom I've never met—who have pulled for me during my illness.

What  mattered  to Sagan in facing his death, as he had tried to face life, was  not  what  would make him feel better, but what was true. And the truth was that his wondrous and fulfilling life as a husband, father and brilliant scientist was  drawing  to  a  close at age 62. His wife, and now his widow, Ann Druyan, takes comfort  in  the fact that so many people, who wrote to her, credit Carl  Sagan  for  their awakenings and that his example inspired them to work for  science  and  reason  against  the  forces  of superstition and fundamentalism. "These  thoughts",  she  says,  "comfort me and lift me up out of my heartache. They  allow  me  to  feel,  without  resorting  to  the supernatural, that Carl  lives."
 
"I  will  lift up my hands and say Kosmos." Unitarian Universalists have always  believed  that  the truths of science and religion must be ultimately consonant  with  one  another.  God  cannot  be less than truth, truth cannot be less than  love,  and  love  cannot be less than life. Source of all being, you who extend  to  galaxies  and  universes without end, and who resideth no less in the human  breast,  help  us to feel and to know that all our beginnings and endings begin  and  end  in  thee,  and that we are no farther from you than our latest breath  and the beating of our hearts. Amen.