Carl Sagan's gracious style

I greatly enjoy SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, and I am grateful for the genuine service you are providing for the world.

When I read the Q&A with Carl Sagan (July/August 2005), I was struck by his graciousness, his focus on ideas instead of people. One questioner accused him of ridicule. Sagan could have said, "You're wrong, I wasn't ridiculing." He could even have said, "Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing ridicule from vigorous debate." Instead, he said, "I didn't think I had any ridicule there," and he stayed engaged with the questioner. Time after time, he was classy and focused on the issues; time after time, he declined invitations to brawl. To me, his style is a major reason why he was so effective.

When I contrast Sagan's style with articles in SI, I realize why I often cringe as I read. I see ad hominem attacks, derision, and fighting words. To me, those tactics make the articles ineffective. I think their style diminishes their content.

Sagan demonstrated the persuasive power of clarity and grace. May I suggest that toning down some of the attitude would enhance SI?

Thank you for your great work!

Mark Chussil

Portland, Oregon

One portion of the excellent article, "Carl Sagan Takes Questions," leaves me with very mixed emotions.

I quite agree that "... an all-out attack on religion ... would be foolish, but the idea of treating biblical literalism, for example, with some skeptical scrutiny is an excellent idea." Unfortunately, he goes on to say, "But it is being done.... I don't think there's any particular expertise in this (skeptical) movement for a critical examination of the Bible. There are other people who are doing it just fine."

In a sense, that latter statement is true, but those "other people" are not reaching a general audience to any great extent and their motives are commonly pointed at increasing the credibility of the biblical message, not casting doubt on it.

It is not necessary to develop the expertise to conduct original research into biblical esoterica in order to conduct a perfectly valid analysis. There are ample secondary sources available to lay persons who seek them out. For the past fifty years, I have been collecting bits and pieces. The information is out there. The problem is that it is scattered in a thousand places, most of which are not readily accessible to the general public.

No, we should not launch an all-out attack on religion, but I am convinced that a "partial mobilization" against fundamentalism would be appropriate and valuable. And I mean fundamentalism in all its guises: Islamic militants, Jewish zealots, and Christian fundamentalists are sisters under the skin.

I am further convinced that the "Four Horsemen" most threatening to human welfare in the twenty-first century are: Ignorance, Superstition, Zealotry, and Greed. Fundamentalism is rooted in the first three, and greed is the great motivator for pandering to, exploitation of, and manipulating the fundamentalist movement.

Clyde A. Wilkes

[No address given]

COPYRIGHT 2005 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group