Essay - Week 2

The following essay is my commentary on the 1979 paper by Carl Sagan:

"Can We Know the Universe?: Reflections on a Grain of Salt"

---

In the universe we live in, we are constantly awed by the never-ending complexity and depth of our surroundings. Ralph Waldo Emerson made an excellent observation when he said, “Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep.” (Sagan 1) This is an interesting quote indeed, which brings us to the question: Can we know the universe in all its complexity?

Carl Sagan raises many questions in his paper, many of which simply cannot be answered with full confidence. He mentions that some people live in fear that one day there will be nothing left to discover, that all of the intricacies and secrets of our universe may be unlocked (Sagan 2). Sagan takes the safe answer and says that these people are wrong, the expanse is too great, and there will always be new things to learn. Rightly so, for we mere humans have barely scratched the surface of knowing the value of a fraction of the things on our own planet, much less the entire universe. Every year, new plants and animals are discovered in the rapidly shrinking rainforests, and each year, hundreds of undiscovered species of flora become extinct even before their uses are known.

Sagan delves into the capacity of the human brain and conjectures that even the brain in all its power, really could not “know” each intricacy of a single grain of salt without compensating for the unchanging pattern of its makeup (Sagan 3). But really, do we even know the potential of the human brain? The human brain is not merely a raw fact-storing machine, or unknowing computer, but it bubbles with consciousness; in other words, it provides the ability for a person to have a perceptive and aware thought process, likes, dislikes, memories, and emotions. Not to mention its subconscious capability to carry out all the functions of the human body.

Some neuroscientists have even estimated that the average person uses only about 1/100th of 1 percent of the brain’s capacity in a lifetime (Watchtower 62). If in one lifetime, a human doesn’t even have opportunity to even strain the brain’s potential, then why would we need all of that excess? An interesting question indeed, and one that I’m sure most professors of the evolutionary theory would have trouble explaining.

Sagan marvels at the laws of nature, calling it “astonishing” that there are such precise rules that so perfectly govern all the goings on in the entire universe (Sagan 3). He is amazed at the fact that the universe is “built in such a way as to limit rotation.” (Sagan 3) In other words, the planets in our solar system don’t crash into one another or ram into the sun in their planetary flight, and nor do they get slung off course into the depths of space. This is an undeniably perfect system, but a coincidence? I don’t see how. Sagan said that the universe is “built” in this flawlessly balanced way. In anyone’s everyday experience, there is no machine, even simplistic in design, existing that can be said has been built by nobody. In truth, calling the big bang theory, or any theory about the self-construction of the universe, a fact is a violation of the scientific method. The scientific method looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the theory to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.

5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.

6. Go to step 3. (Latura)

Put simply, an event that can’t be observed cannot be called a fact. Of course observations can be made and tested to infer as to the beginnings of mankind, and the origins of space, time, and matter, which of course is why we are fortunate to have brilliant men like Sagan and others who dare to pry open the secrets of the cosmos. And more so, we are also fortunate to live in an ideal universe that will never cease to amaze us, because living in a world where all is known, as Sagan so rightly put it, would be static and dull (Sagan 4). Many people see the idea of creatorship as beneath them, maybe because people naturally don’t like the idea of not being their own superior, or at the top of the intellectual food chain, so to speak. There are many weak-minded theologians, but there are also weak-minded evolutionists. Anyone who takes someone else’s word for it and doesn’t question what they see is less deserving to know the truth than one who digs for answers.

---

Sources:

Latura, Bill. "The Scientific Method" sci.skeptic. 1995

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

(31 January 2002).

Sagan, Carl. “Can We Know the Universe?: Reflections on a Grain of Salt” 1979.

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/sagan_science.html

(31 January 2002).

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1998.