Opposing Views Of Carl Sagan
2. Carl Sagan’s argument that humans place an unfair amount of importance on ourselves is obviously disturbing to us because we want to justify our life as one with meaning. However, when observing the importance of one human life on the cosmic level, it is hard to say that our lives are meaningful. Sagan further argues that once we lower our self-esteem and accept our meaningless, we will act with stewardship, kindness, and compassion.
First, I believe Sagan is correct when he explains that our lives don’t have an inherent value when examining the ever-expanding size of the universe. The idea that humans are small and meaningless is like a microscopic parasite which lives in an ever-expanding mansion. Yes, under certain conditions you can …show more content…
However, I disagree with this. I believe if people do not consider their life as one with value, like Sagan believes, then we will be less caring to others. All of a sudden, if we were all to believe we do not have an inherent purpose, our lives would be altered for the worse, and chaos might ensue. Furthermore, humans can add more value to our individual lives as technology advances. Since Sagan has died, there has been more advances in technology and chemical warfare than he could have possibly imagined. Soon, humans could be able to wipe out entire solar systems and galaxies, so ultimately, I disagree with Sagan’s reasoning for our unimportance in the …show more content…
It seems that the architect, or symbolically, God, cares more for some of his children than for others. However, I disagree with Piper because as humans, we have a limited idea of the full picture.
For example, in Christianity a central theme is “thou who are last shall be first, and thou who are first shall be last.” In other words, the faithful who struggle through hardships will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven, while those who are spoiled and greedy will face their “dues” eventually. Piper is taking an approach which we, as humans, might typically take because we do not see the full picture. If someone faces lots of adversary during their life on Earth, we don’t know what God plans to reward them with in their everlasting
First, I believe Sagan is correct when he explains that our lives don’t have an inherent value when examining the ever-expanding size of the universe. The idea that humans are small and meaningless is like a microscopic parasite which lives in an ever-expanding mansion. Yes, under certain conditions you can …show more content…
However, I disagree with this. I believe if people do not consider their life as one with value, like Sagan believes, then we will be less caring to others. All of a sudden, if we were all to believe we do not have an inherent purpose, our lives would be altered for the worse, and chaos might ensue. Furthermore, humans can add more value to our individual lives as technology advances. Since Sagan has died, there has been more advances in technology and chemical warfare than he could have possibly imagined. Soon, humans could be able to wipe out entire solar systems and galaxies, so ultimately, I disagree with Sagan’s reasoning for our unimportance in the …show more content…
It seems that the architect, or symbolically, God, cares more for some of his children than for others. However, I disagree with Piper because as humans, we have a limited idea of the full picture.
For example, in Christianity a central theme is “thou who are last shall be first, and thou who are first shall be last.” In other words, the faithful who struggle through hardships will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven, while those who are spoiled and greedy will face their “dues” eventually. Piper is taking an approach which we, as humans, might typically take because we do not see the full picture. If someone faces lots of adversary during their life on Earth, we don’t know what God plans to reward them with in their everlasting