Atheism is Inconsistent with Science says Top Physicist (2021-10-29) #

0:00:01 atheism is inconsistent with the
0:00:04 scientific method a prize-winning
0:00:07 physicist says
0:00:09 in conversation with scientific american
0:00:11 the leading american journal the
0:00:13 templeton prize winner does not pull
0:00:16 punches on the limits of science the
0:00:18 value of humility and the irrationality
0:00:22 of non-belief
0:00:24 professor marcelo gleicer is a
0:00:27 theoretical physicist at dartmouth
0:00:30 college this is an elite academic
0:00:32 institution in the us
0:00:34 and a prolific science popularizer who
0:00:37 won the templeton prize
0:00:39 the award from the john templeton
0:00:41 foundation recognizes an individual
0:00:44 quote who has made an exceptional
0:00:46 contribution to affirming life's
0:00:48 spiritual dimension end quote its past
0:00:52 recipients include
0:00:54 sir martin rees the astronomer royal
0:00:56 here in the uk and freeman dyson
0:01:00 across his 35 year career in science
0:01:03 professor gleicer's research has covered
0:01:06 the early universe to the behavior of
0:01:08 fundamental particles and the origins of
0:01:12 life
0:01:13 but in awarding him
0:01:15 its most prestigious honor the templeton
0:01:18 foundation chiefly cited his status as a
0:01:21 leading public intellectual revealing
0:01:24 quote the historical philosophical and
0:01:27 cultural links between science the
0:01:29 humanities and spirituality
0:01:33 the journal scientific americans spoke
0:01:35 with professor glyser about the need for
0:01:38 humility in science why humans are
0:01:40 special
0:01:42 and the fundamental source of his
0:01:44 curiosity as a physicist
0:01:47 and the journal asked him which aspect
0:01:49 of your work do you think is most
0:01:51 relevant to the templeton foundation's
0:01:54 spiritual aims and he says probably my
0:01:57 belief in humility
0:01:59 i believe we should take a much humbler
0:02:02 approach to knowledge in the sense that
0:02:04 if you look carefully at the way science
0:02:07 works you'll see that yes it is
0:02:09 wonderful magnificent but it has limits
0:02:13 and this is a really important point he
0:02:14 makes i think
0:02:16 and we have to understand and respect
0:02:18 those limits
0:02:20 and by doing that we understand
0:02:22 understand how science advances
0:02:24 science becomes
0:02:26 really a deeply spiritual conversation
0:02:29 with the mysterious about all the things
0:02:32 we don't know
0:02:34 so that's one answer to your question he
0:02:36 says
0:02:37 and that has nothing to do with
0:02:38 organized religion obviously but it does
0:02:40 inform my position against atheism
0:02:44 i consider myself an agnostic he says
0:02:48 then he's asked why are you against
0:02:50 atheism it's very interesting
0:02:52 and he says i honestly think atheism is
0:02:55 inconsistent with the scientific method
0:02:58 what i mean by that is what is atheism
0:03:02 it's a statement a categorical statement
0:03:05 that expresses belief in non-belief
0:03:09 i don't believe even though i have no
0:03:12 evidence for or again simply i don't
0:03:14 believe period
0:03:16 it's a declaration
0:03:18 but in science we don't really do
0:03:21 declarations
0:03:23 we say okay you can have a hypothesis
0:03:26 you have to have some evidence
0:03:28 for or against that
0:03:30 and so an agnostic would say look i have
0:03:33 no evidence for god or any kind of god
0:03:36 what god first of all the maori gods or
0:03:38 the jewish christian or muslim god which
0:03:41 god is that
0:03:43 but on the other hand an agnostic would
0:03:45 acknowledge no right to make a final
0:03:48 statement about something he or she
0:03:51 doesn't know about
0:03:53 the absence of evidence is not evidence
0:03:56 of absence not all that
0:03:58 this positions me very much against all
0:04:01 of the new atheist guys even though i
0:04:03 want my message to be respectful of
0:04:05 people's beliefs and reasoning
0:04:09 and i think obviously the templeton
0:04:11 foundation likes all of this because
0:04:13 this is part of an emerging conversation
0:04:17 it's not just me it's a bunch of my
0:04:19 colleagues including the astrophysicist
0:04:22 adam frank
0:04:24 talking more and more about the relation
0:04:27 between science and spirituality very
0:04:30 interesting stuff
0:04:31 and then he comes to some fascinating
0:04:33 comments about our place in the universe
0:04:36 scientific american asks him so a
0:04:38 message of humility open-mindedness and
0:04:41 tolerance
0:04:43 other than in discussions of god where
0:04:46 else do you see the most important need
0:04:48 for this ethos
0:04:50 and the professor replies
0:04:53 you know i'm a rare earth kind of guy
0:04:56 i think our situation may be rather
0:04:59 special on a planetary or even galactic
0:05:02 scale
0:05:03 so when people talk about copernicus and
0:05:06 copernicanism the principle of
0:05:08 mediocrity that states we should expect
0:05:11 to be average and typical i say
0:05:14 you know what it's time to get beyond
0:05:16 that
0:05:18 when you look out there at the other
0:05:19 planets and the exoplanets that we can
0:05:22 make some sense of
0:05:24 when you look at the history of life on
0:05:26 earth you will realize this place called
0:05:29 earth is absolutely amazing
0:05:33 and maybe yes there are others out there
0:05:35 possibly who knows we certainly expect
0:05:38 so
0:05:39 but right now what we know
0:05:41 is that we have this world and we are
0:05:43 these amazing molecular machines
0:05:46 capable of self-awareness
0:05:49 and all that makes us very special
0:05:52 indeed
0:05:54 and we know for a fact that there will
0:05:56 be no other humans in the universe there
0:05:59 may be some humanoids out there
0:06:01 somewhere
0:06:02 we are but we are unique products of our
0:06:05 single
0:06:06 small planet's long history he says
0:06:10 the point is this to understand modern
0:06:12 science within this framework is to put
0:06:15 humanity back into a kind of moral
0:06:18 center of the universe in which we have
0:06:21 the moral duty to preserve this planet
0:06:24 and its life with everything that we've
0:06:27 got because we understand how rare this
0:06:30 whole game is
0:06:31 and that for all practical purposes we
0:06:34 are alone
0:06:35 for now anyways
0:06:37 we have to do this
0:06:39 and then the uh scientific american says
0:06:42 to him
0:06:43 let me play devil's advocate for a
0:06:45 moment only because earlier you refer to
0:06:47 the value of humility in science
0:06:51 some would say now is not the time to be
0:06:53 humble given the rise the rising tide of
0:06:56 active open hostility to science and
0:07:00 objectivity around the globe
0:07:02 how would you respond to that
0:07:05 and he replies
0:07:06 this is of course something people have
0:07:08 already told me
0:07:10 and are you really sure you want to say
0:07:12 these things they say
0:07:14 and my answer is yes absolutely
0:07:18 there is a difference between science
0:07:20 and what we can call scientism
0:07:23 which is the notion that science can
0:07:25 solve all problems and this is a really
0:07:27 important point i think he makes
0:07:29 to a large extent it is not science but
0:07:31 rather how humanity has used science
0:07:34 that has put us in our present
0:07:36 difficulties
0:07:38 because most people in general have no
0:07:40 awareness of what science can and cannot
0:07:44 do
0:07:45 so they misuse it and they do not think
0:07:48 about science in a more pluralistic way
0:07:51 so okay you're going to develop a
0:07:53 self-driving car good
0:07:56 but how will that car handle hard
0:07:59 choices like whether to prioritize the
0:08:01 lives of its occupants or the lives of
0:08:04 pedestrian bystanders
0:08:07 is it going to be just the technologists
0:08:09 from google who decides let us hope not
0:08:12 and i say amen to that
0:08:15 you have to talk to philosophers you
0:08:17 have to talk to ethicists and i say we
0:08:19 need to talk to theologians too
0:08:22 and to not understand that he says to
0:08:25 say that science has all the answers to
0:08:27 me is just nonsense
0:08:31 we cannot presume that we are going to
0:08:33 solve all the problems of the world by
0:08:35 using a strict scientific approach
0:08:39 it will not be the case and it has never
0:08:42 ever been the case because the world is
0:08:44 too complex and science has
0:08:47 methodological powers as well as
0:08:50 methodological limitations
0:08:54 and so what do i say i say be honest i'm
0:08:57 going to be honest about the powers of
0:08:58 science so that people can actually
0:09:01 believe me for my honesty and
0:09:03 transparency
0:09:05 if you don't want to be honest and
0:09:07 transparent you're just going to become
0:09:09 a liar like everyone else
0:09:11 which is why i get upset he says by
0:09:14 misstatements like when you have
0:09:17 scientists stephen hawking the british
0:09:20 scientist and lawrence krauss among them
0:09:23 the american physicist claiming we have
0:09:25 solved the problem of the origin of the
0:09:27 universe or that string theory is
0:09:29 correct and that the final theory of
0:09:32 everything is at hand
0:09:35 such statements are bogus
0:09:39 so i feel as if i am a guardian for the
0:09:42 integrity of science right now someone
0:09:44 you can trust because this person is
0:09:47 open and honest enough to admit that the
0:09:50 scientific enterprise has limitations
0:09:53 which doesn't mean it's weak he says
0:09:57 and then finally very interesting
0:09:59 paragraph
0:10:00 you mentioned string theory says the
0:10:02 editor of the journal and your
0:10:04 skepticism about the notion of a final
0:10:07 theory of everything
0:10:10 where does this skepticism come from
0:10:12 that's a very important point he said
0:10:14 and our professor replies
0:10:16 it is impossible for science to obtain a
0:10:19 true theory of everything
0:10:22 and the reason for that is
0:10:24 epistemological epistemologies to do
0:10:26 with knowledge how we understand
0:10:28 the world around us
0:10:30 basically he says the way we acquire
0:10:32 information about the world is through
0:10:34 measurement
0:10:36 it's through instruments right and
0:10:39 because of that our measurements and
0:10:41 instruments are always going to tell us
0:10:43 uh a lot of stuff
0:10:45 but they are going to leave stuff out
0:10:50 and we cannot possibly ever think that
0:10:52 we could have a theory of everything
0:10:55 because we cannot ever think that we
0:10:57 know everything that there is to know
0:11:00 about the universe
0:11:02 now that's the end of the quote i think
0:11:05 it's very interesting because science
0:11:06 can't tell us about many really
0:11:09 important things it can't tell us what
0:11:11 is truth what is beauty how should i be
0:11:14 a good person what is right and wrong
0:11:18 how should i live my life is there life
0:11:21 after death even is there a creator of
0:11:24 the universe it can't prove that
0:11:26 mathematically or through measurements
0:11:28 there are other ways perhaps it could we
0:11:30 can understand that truth
0:11:32 so i think his emphasis on humility in
0:11:36 science is really important and it
0:11:38 strikes a beautiful note compared to
0:11:40 more strident voices uh who have
0:11:43 mentioned who uh come across as very uh
0:11:46 arrogant and materialist and
0:11:47 reductionist in their approach to life
0:11:50 the universe and everything anyway i'll
0:11:53 put a link to
0:11:54 the article in the description below
0:11:57 until next time