The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Another criticism of science is its moral ambiguity. While its method can produce immensely powerful weapons, such as the atomic bomb, science carries no moral strictures. Sagan suggests that as technology has been with the human species since before they were a species (several pre-human species are known for tool making, including weapons), “this problem is not so much one of science as of human nature” (283).

For his case study, Sagan describes the career of the Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller. Teller was integral in the early stages of the Manhattan Project, and worked closely under Robert Oppenheimer in Los Alamos, though he initially wanted to work on an even more devastating weapon: the hydrogen, or thermonuclear, bomb. After World War II, Teller was a persistent advocate of the hydrogen bomb’s development, and, when Oppenheimer stood in his way, Teller controversially testified against him in the infamous security clearance hearings which effectively ended Oppenheimer’s career. Later, Teller pioneered the technique for the thermonuclear bomb, which Saga calls “the most horrific weapon ever created” (286). Even though by this time, scientists were aware of the distinct possibility of nuclear winter and its ability to wipe out whatever human population survived a nuclear war, Teller encouraged the development of hydrogen bombs, despite knowing their increased power would increase the severity of nuclear winter—actions Sagan finds indefensible. Teller fought for continued aboveground testing of the bombs, despite knowing the harm these tests caused, all in the mistaken belief that creating a weapon with such horrendous consequences would nullify war. Throughout his career, Teller remained a powerful activating force behind the proliferation of hydrogen bombs. Sagan, after meeting Teller and debating him publicly several times, sees desperation in Teller's attempts to justify the use of the hydrogen bomb, something akin to the sin Oppenheimer said he felt after creating the atomic bomb.

Sagan concludes the chapter by examining how humans make morally ambiguous use of their tools, such as the thousands of years of bloodshed the Bible justifies, before suggesting that ethical responsibilities should be reinforced in future generations of scientists and engineers.

The third criticism that Sagan takes on is that skepticism can come off as arrogant and condescending, while those who believe in these pseudoscience and superstition are simply trying to sort out the world. Sagan recognizes that superstition and mysticism can help people cope, and therefore suggests that a balance must be found.

Sagan discusses CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), an organization of scientists and academics dedicated to the skeptical inquiry of fantastic claims. While CSICOP can come off as combative, Sagan sees its worth as an organization that is well-known, and one the media can rely on to present a skeptical approach to new claims. Yet its position still suggests an antagonistic mentality, which Sagan disagrees with. As a counterpoint, sociologist David Hess argues that skeptics should approach the beliefs of others not to evaluate the truth quotient of their beliefs, but to understand how they are using the cultural vocabulary of constructed beliefs to comfort themselves; Sagan dismisses this argument as unflattering to skeptics.

Sagan stresses the need for both creative thinking and skeptical thinking. Only practicing skepticism leads to a closed way of thinking, shutting down others' ideas without presenting one’s own. Instead, scientists must be open to new ideas, no matter how wild, but from there they can practice their tool kits, as “both skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing” (306).