Well, looks like he would have; he wrote every word of the above post:

[brainpickings.org]

@skado well, Carl Sagan was an absolute gentleman who had very much a 20th century attitude that we were inexorably moving towards more secular science driven world, and he believed that tolerance between religious believers and non religious was the way to move forward. I think his comment on spiritual reflected that kind of thinking. A lot of people thought like that back then. But he died in 1996. A lot has happened since: Islamic fascism, the growth of pernicious abrahamic religious fundamentalism, evangelical politicisation of public dialogue, and regressive anti modernist religious power. Were he alive today his views and attitudes on religion might have toughened up a lot, like a lot of us. Who is to know. But I do not think the name of Carl Sagan can be used to justify any kind of "spiritualism" however it is defined. I just don't.

@David1955

And neither do I. I don’t think this quote tries to justify spiritualism.
Yes, there were a lot of people who thought like that back then, but Carl Sagan wasn’t typical of his time; he was more than a little bit ahead of his time and still ahead of ours. But there’s a big difference between “tolerating” people who believe differently than I do, and tolerating ideas different from mine. In the same article I linked above he makes very clear his firm opposition to bad ideas:

“But superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way, distracting us, providing easy answers, dodging skeptical scrutiny, casually pressing our awe buttons and cheapening the experience, making us routine and comfortable practitioners as well as victims of credulity.”

He was never soft on superstition for the sake of tolerating believers. I’m confident he had better reasons for tolerating believers, namely that they were fellow human beings.
He was always talking instead about the fact that the word “spirit” has more than one well-established dictionary definition.
He elaborates:

“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science.”

In my opinion this point is no less true today than when he wrote it. The word “spiritual” has never, and still doesn’t, only refer to spiritualism. And the use of it has never been a necessary implication of “tolerance” of irrationality.

@skado Yeah, Ok, I get what you are saying. I guess I'm not sure what the point of the post was, really, as the word spiritual, whatever its etymology, is a loaded word, hence I balk when I see it. If we are talking about the majesty and mystery of the cosmos and existence, that Carl often referred to, which all of us should contemplate, rationally, then I prefer to express it that way. The words spiritual and spirituality are so bound up with religion now they are inseparable. But we are both clearly on the same side of this issue, so to speak.

@David1955
Yes, definitely.

It’s true they are two different understandings of the word but why is that a problem?

@skado Because people conflate the two. I have often heard people saying things like 'science and religion aren't exclusive- Sagan (or other scientist) said so!', which is troubling on a number of levels.
It often is a misunderstanding, for one, as pointed out here. But it also is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. And it's a dangerous thing to believe, as it allows religions to hijak scientific credentials in an effort to expound upon the authority-appeals even further, as well as leading people to think that one doesn't need to be skeptical to be scientific.

@DonThiebaut
It only does that if you let it. It doesn’t do that to me, and apparently didn’t to Sagan. I think Sagan’s version is the better established way of thinking, and I’m not for a minute letting the newcomers chase me from my cultural heritage. Superstition is the new kid on the block, not the owner of our language.

@skado Sure, but the problem is that people are letting it do that to them. That's why we gotta speak up and set them straight whenever we see that kind of faulty reasoning. Sagan isn't the problem, people's interpretation of Sagan is.

Apparently dogmatic religious belief and scientific rigor can live side by side in the same person. As an example there was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who theorized what is today called the Big Bang.

If you think about it, there is no reason at all that a church person can not use the scientific method in investigating nature. Why would they not be able to do so? In fact, about half of scientists believe in God.

@DonThiebaut
Yes, I think it’s good to speak up, and let people know there are better ways to interpret that kind of expression.

@WilliamFleming That's why I said "otherwise great scientific minds", because of course they still can utilize the scientific method. They are just failing to do so with regards to religion. That can sometimes (though certainly not always) lead to failures in other areas regarding science. The act of taking it on faith is inherently unscientific, and getting into the practice of taking it on faith can lead to bad habits.

@iamjc Enjoy in it's mystery, grandeur, awesomeness and amazement.