- Carl Sagan is one of the preeminent

astronomers of our time.

He is known for bringing the heavens

to our living rooms with
his PBS series Cosmos.

His latest work is The
Demon-Haunted World,

Science as a Candle in the Dark.

It explores the country's
growing fascination

with pseudo-science,
astrology, faith healers,

the supernatural and the
like, all superstitions

that he says threaten to
undermine true science.

I am pleased to have him here

and I also take note of the fact

that he is a David Duncan
professor of astronomy

and space sciences and
director of the Laboratory

for Planetary Studies
at Cornell University,

distinguished visiting scientist

of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

California Institute of Technology

and co-planner and president
of The Planetary Society,

the largest space interest
group in the world,

and a former Pulitzer Prize winner.

Welcome back today.

- Thank you Charlie.
- It's great to see you.

Listen to this, I hate to
read too much, but this is,

it's almost like they've
been reading your book.

This is from the New York
Times for Friday, May 24.

Americans flaunt science, a study finds.

Less than half of all
American adults understand

that the Earth orbits the sun yearly,

according to a basic science survey.

Nevertheless, there's
enthusiasm for research

except in some fields
like genetic engineering

and nuclear power that
are viewed with suspicion.

Only about 25% of American
adults get passing grades

in a National Science Foundation Survey

of what people know about
basic science and economics.

I mean, this is singing
your song, isn't it?

- Well, it's certainly
what I'm talking about

in The Demon-Haunted World.

My feeling, Charlie, is
that it's not pseudo-science

and superstition and New
Age, so-called, beliefs

and fundamentalist
zealotry are something new.

They've been with us for as
long as we've been human.

But we live in an age based
on science and technology

with formidable technological powers.

- Science and technology are propelling us

forward at accelerating rates.

- That's right. And if
we don't understand it

and by we I mean the general public

if it's something that
"oh, I'm not good at that.

"I don't anything about it,"

then who is making all the
decisions about science

and technology that are going to determine

what kind of future our children live in?

Just some members of Congress?

But there's no more than a
handful of members of Congress

with any background in science at all.

And the Republican
Congress has just abolished

its own office of technology assessment,

the organization that
gave them bipartisan,

competent advice on
science and technology.

They say "we don't want to know.

"Don't tell us about
science and technology."

- Surprising, because Gingrich
is genuinely interested,

I think--
- He is, no question.

- Out of his own intellectual curiosity.

Does the president still
have a science adviser

at the White House?
- He does,

he does, John Gibbons

and the vice president is
scientifically literate.

- He's well known for being
scientifically a science maven.

I mean, you blast them all,

creationists, Christian Scientists
who you say would rather

allow their children to suffer

than give them insulin or antibiotics.

Astrologers come in for
particular scorn on your part.

(laughing)

- Well, I wouldn't say
scorn, just derision.

- Derision.
(laughing)

A more generous version of scorn.

But what's the danger of all this?

I mean, you know, this
is not the thing that--

- There's two kinds of dangers.

One is what I just talked about,

that we've arranged this
society based on science

and technology in which
nobody understands anything

about science and technology,

and this combustible mixture
of ignorance and power,

sooner or later, is going
to blow up in our faces.

I mean who is running the science

and technology in a democracy,

if the people don't
know anything about it?

And the second reason that
I'm worried about this

is that science is more
than a body of knowledge.

It's a way of thinking, a way
of skeptically interrogating

the universe with a fine
understanding of human fallibility.

If we are not able to
ask skeptical questions,

to interrogate those who tell
us that something is true,

to be skeptical of those in authority,

then we're up for grabs
for the next charlatan,

political or religious,
who comes ambling along.

It's a thing that Jefferson
laid great stress on.

It wasn't enough, he said,
to enshrine some rights

in a Constitution or a Bill of Rights.

The people had to be educated
and they had to practice

their skepticism and their education.

Otherwise we don't run the government,

the government runs us.

- Jefferson was amazing in
his devotion to science.

- Absolutely.
- We think of Jefferson

as this man who was literate

and who was a passionate
articulator of freedom,

but if you go to Monticello--
- Exactly.

- What you appreciate is he
was at heart a scientist,

a botanist, an architect, geologist.

And if you, Meriwether Lewis,

as we now know from Steven Ambrose,

he wanted him to go out
and do experimentations

and explore and be skeptical

and find answers to passages
and explore the West.

- Exactly right.

And there was also an economic grail

there if the northwest passage was found.

Jefferson said that he
was at heart a scientist,

that he would have loved
to have been a scientist.

But there were certain
events happening in America

that called to him, and
so he devoted his life

to that kind of politics.

- A revolution.
- Indeed.

So that generations later
people could be scientists.

- Yeah.

Have we, the point is made,
and maybe by you, you know,

is that when's the last
time we had a president

who made a speech about science?

- I say that.
- Yeah.

It is this notion that science

is not of great interest
to us in some sense,

that somehow we don't want to learn.

- You see, people read the
stock market quotations

and financial pages.

Look how complex that is and--

- [Charlie] Because they
know the direct connection

to their own--
- There's a motivation.

But they're capable of it,
large numbers of people.

People are able to look
at sports statistics.

Look how many people can do that.

Understanding science is not
more difficult than that.

It does not involve greater
intellectual activities.

But the thing about
science is first of all,

it's after the way the universe really is

and not what makes us feel good.

And a lot of the competing doctrines

are after what feels
good and not what's true.

- Okay, but you've got to make,

I'm not sure you'll go this far with me,

but I mean there's, a lot of
that is about feeling good

and there's a lot of that
that's about hocus pocus.

But at the same time, there
are millions of people

who understand science
does not prove religion

because religion is faith-based.

Therefore, you should
not deny the value of it

because it is faith-based
and not science based.

- But let's look a little
more deeply into that.

What is faith?

It is belief in the absence of evidence.

Now, I don't propose to tell
anybody what to believe,

but for me, believing when
there's no compelling evidence

is a mistake.

The idea is to withhold belief

until there is compelling evidence.

And if the universe does not
comply with our predisposition,

okay, then we have the
wrenching obligation

to accommodate to the way
the universe really is.

- But I think you, but I
mean, so you step forward

to say "I deny all religion

"because I can't see it
proved scientifically?"

- No, no, no, no no no.

- You see the value of
religious experience

and the value of reaching
for higher experiences?

- Let me say, religion deals
with history, with poetry,

with great literature,
with ethics, with morals,

including the morality of
treating compassionately

the least fortunate among us.

All of these are things that
I endorse whole heartedly.

Where religion gets into
trouble is in those cases

that it pretends to know
something about science.

The science in the Bible, for example,

was acquired by the Jews
from the Babylonians

during the Babylonian captivity of 600 BC.

That was the best science
on the planet then.

But we've learned something since then.

Roman Catholicism, Reform Judaism,

most of the mainstream
Protestant denominations

have no difficulty with the idea

that humans have evolved
from other creatures,

that the Earth is 4.6 billion
years old, the Big Bang.

They don't have any trouble with that.

The trouble comes with people
who are Biblical literalists

who believe that the Bible is dictated

by the Creator of the Universe

to an unerring stenographer.

- [Charlie] And so therefore they--

- And has no metaphor or allegory in it.

- And from there, they
make their political

and economic choices, and social choices.

- And scientific.

- And scientific choices and scientific.

And that's part of your
problem with that idea.

- [Carl] Exactly.

- It is that because
for the wrong reasons,

we make the wrong choices about science.

- That's right.

So who is more humble?

The scientist who looks at the universe

with an open mind and accepts

whatever the universe has to teach us,

or somebody who says
everything in this book

must be considered the literal truth

and nevermind the fallibility
of all the human beings

involved in the writing of this book.

- Okay, I mean, I accept that, but I also,

the argument that would be
made by many is that, you know,

you don't have to, whether
a specific scientific act

took place as described by
some Biblical writer is not,

is not at the heart of the religious faith

and the religious experience.

- Some people agree with
you and some people don't.

Some people think that every jot

and tittle in the Bible is essential.

You throw one thing away
to allegory or metaphor,

then it's up to everybody
to make their own decisions.

- Then are we, this,

a lot of this has to do with
science in the United States.

Are we different than other nations?

- No, absolutely not.

You can see this worldwide.

In India, there's a
madness about astrology,

in Britain, it's ghosts,

in Germany, it's rays
coming up from the Earth

that can only be detected by dousers.

Every country has its own specialties.

We seem to be fascinated
by UFOs right now.

But one thing.
- What is that,

before you leave UFOs.
(laughing)

Tell me about you and Professor Mack.

- John Mack is a professor
of psychiatry at Harvard

who I've known for many years.

We were arrested together at
the Nevada Nuclear Test Site

protesting US testing in the face

of a Soviet moratorium on testing.

And many years ago, he asked me

"what is there in this UFO business?

"Is there anything to it?"

And I said "absolutely nothing, except,

"of course, for a psychiatrist."

He is a psychiatrist.

Well, he looked into it

and decided that there was
so much emotional energy

in the reports of people
who claimed to be abducted

that it couldn't possibly be
some psychological aberration,

that it had to be true.

He believed his patients.

I do not believe his patients.

Many of these stories are about
waking up from a deep sleep

and finding your bed surrounded
by three or four short,

dour, gray and sexually obsessed
beings who then take you

to their spaceship after they
slither you through your wall,

and perform a variety of objectionable,

sexual experiments on you.

- But here we have Dr.
Carl Sagan, astronomer,

versus Dr. John, I mean
Doctor, what's his first name?

- John Mack.
- John Mack, MD.

- No question.

So what's the problem?

- He's a scientist.
- How can scientists disagree?

- He's a scientist.
- Is that what you're asking?

- Well, no. I'm asking how could,

I mean what do you think of this man

coming to these conclusions?

- I think he is not using
the scientific method

in approaching his issue.

- And were you constantly, I mean,

I assume you come at him with
both barrels in conversations.

- And in The Demon-Haunted World.

- [Charlie] And he says?

- He says I don't appreciate
the emotional force--

- You don't?
- Of these reports.

But many people awaken from a nightmare

with profound emotional force.

That doesn't mean that
the nightmare is true,

it means something went
on inside our heads.

- You were making a point
before I jumped the gun, Mack.

- Oh, yeah.

What I wanted to say is going back

to the question of adequate evidence

on something that's
emotionally really pulling you.

I lost both my parents
about 12 or 15 years ago

and I had a great relationship with them.

I really miss them.

I would love to believe that their spirits

were around somewhere.

And I'd give almost anything

to spend five minutes a year with them.

- Do you hear their voices ever?

- Sometimes.

About six or eight times since
their death I've heard it.

- "Carl," just in the voice
of my father or my mother.

Now, I don't think that means
that they're in the next room.

I think it means that--
- They're in your head.

- I've had an auditory hallucination.

I was with them so long, I
heard their voices so often.

Why shouldn't I be able to make

a vivid recollection of them?

- Here's what's interesting
about this for me,

I mean, you won't see this, but
I'll throw it at you anyway.

You convinced me a long time
ago that it was arrogant

for me or for anyone else to believe

that there wasn't some
life outside of our,

- To exclude the possibility.

- To exclude the
possibility was an arrogance

of intellect that we should not assume.

- [Carl] I still believe so.

- You couldn't prove it, you
didn't know it was there,

but the arrogance--
- Right.

We don't know if it's there,

we don't know if it's not there.

Let's look.

- And if you take that, why can't you say

"there's a lot we don't know.

"There's a lot of power
there that we don't know."

- It's what I believe,
but that doesn't mean

that every fraudulent
claim has to be accepted.

We demand the most rigorous
standards of evidence,

especially on what's important to us.

So if some guy comes up to me
and, a channeler or a medium

"I can put you in touch
with your parents."

Well, because I want so
terribly to believe that,

I know I have to reach in for
added reserves of skepticism

because I'm likely to be
fooled, and much more minor,

to have my money taken.

- [Charlie] Well, is it JZ Knight was it?.

- Yeah, exactly.

She has a guy named Ramtha

who's 10,000 years old or something.

- 35.
- 35, yes.

And he tells you lots of things

but nothing about what life
was like 35,000 years ago.

- [Charlie] Shirley Maclaine believes.

- Shirley Maclaine believes
that Ramtha was her brother.

(laughing)

- Things like the Loch Ness
monster and all of that.

- Again--
- Photographs.

- All fakes.

I mean the most famous photograph

has now been shown to be a fake,

but could there be a unknown mammal

or even reptile of large
dimension swimming in an Irish,

in a Scottish lake?

Sure there could.

That we don't know about?

Sure there could, who says no?

- [Charlie] But nobody--

- But the evidence does not support it,

does not demonstrate it.

So do we say, "oh, ridiculous,"

no we don't do that.

We say unproved, which
is a Scottish verdict.

- Some reviewers differ with
your conclusions on this point

that you seem to say it's growing,

this kind of pseudo science and--

- No.

Sorry to interrupt.

I don't, this is part of being human.

Humans have had this
way of magical thinking

through all of our history.

The problem is that today the technology

has reached formidable, maybe
even awesome proportions,

and so the dangers of
thinking this way are larger.

Not that this is a new kind of thinking.

- You are living with myelo displasia.

- Or I have been.
- You have been.

It's in remission.

Are you--

- Well, you know, with
diseases of this sort

and in all cancers--
- Cancer of the bone marrow?

- Myelo displasia is not exactly
cancer of the bone marrow,

but if untreated, it
inevitably leads to leukemia.

And the trouble with all these diseases

is you never know that
you've got every last cell.

You can only detect
down to a certain level.

But down to the level
that anybody can detect

in terms of how I feel and
my stamina and all that,

it seems to be gone.

I'm very lucky.
- Because you had a sister

who enabled you to have
a bone marrow transplant.

- That's one.

And also the enormous
advances in scientific,

in medical science in
just the last few years.

If I had had this thing
five or 10 years ago,

I would be dead, sure as shooting.

And then, finally, the love
and support of my family.

All of those played a central role.

- So you're optimistic?

- I'm very optimistic,
or at least very hopeful.

- And just share with us,
because of your sense of language

and your sense of understand
and being reflective

and introspective, what
does, what do you think about

and what does it do for you to--

- I didn't have any
near death experiences,

I didn't have a religious conversion but--

- [Charlie] But you thought about

what it would be like to die?

- Certainly and what it
would be like for my family.

And, I didn't much think about
what it would be like for me,

because I don't think it's
likely there's anything

that you think about after you're dead.

- That's it?
(laughing)

- Yeah a long, dreamless sleep.

I'd love to believe the opposite,

but I don't know of any evidence.

But one thing.
- Faith, Carl, faith.

- One thing that it has
done is to enhance my sense

of appreciation for the beauty
of life and of the universe

and the sheer joy of being alive.

- You had a healthy portion
of that before this,

but even you it happened to.

- Oh, there's no question.
- An appreciation--

- Every moment, every inanimate object,

to say nothing of the exquisite
complexity of living beings.

Yeah, you imagine missing it all

and suddenly it's so much more precious.

- [Charlie] May you live a long time.

Thank you very much.
- Thank you Charlie.

- It's a pleasure.
- Same here.

- Carl Sagan.

Science as a candle in the dark.

The title of the book is
A Demon-Haunted World.

Thank you for joining us
we'll see you next time.