Believe in belief, says famous physicist


Marcelo Gleiser is a humble guy. The Templeton Foundation just awarded him $1.5 million for being humble, as we know because when asked, “which aspect of your work do you think is most relevant to the Templeton Foundation’s spiritual aims?” by Scientific American, he claims he was given all that money for his humility.

Probably my belief in humility. I believe we should take a much humbler approach to knowledge, in the sense that if you look carefully at the way science works, you’ll see that yes, it is wonderful — magnificent! — but it has limits. And we have to understand and respect those limits. And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the things we don’t know. So that’s one answer to your question. And that has nothing to do with organized religion, obviously, but it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic.

Oh. I suspect his position against atheism was a more relevant criterion in the award — I don’t think that people who brag about their humility are particularly humble, especially not when they think their humility is so vast and impressive that it deserves millions of dollars.

I’m also surprised by his claim that being an agnostic means he is opposed to people who make claims against the existence of a god. Does he express a similar opposition to people who make positive claims in favor of the existence of a god? I think not. He wouldn’t have won a Templeton prize if he did. Also, he’s very confused about what atheism is.

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”

How dare those atheists simply not believe in a phenomenon for which they have no evidence! That is inconsistent with the scientific method, which according to Gleiser, expects you to accept any hypothesis in the absence of evidence! Better yet, you should accept it even if the only evidence you’ve got is against it!

I’d reply to his question “what is atheism?” by turning it around and asking “what are gods?” What are these things you expect us to respect and even believe? Be specific. I suspect that all I’d get is hand-wavey babble about spirituality.

More seriously, he opposes rejecting a hypothesis for the trivial flaw of being unsupported by any evidence.

But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation

OK, I agree with part of that. You do have to have evidence for a hypothesis — you can’t make a proposal to NIH and expect to get funded if you have no preliminary evidence from your lab or the scientific literature to justify it (although you can submit such an empty proposal to the Templeton Foundation and get a big bucket of cash in return). However, we do have the right to strongly and provisionally reject a claim that is advanced in the absence of any support — in fact, it is necessary that we reject unfounded hypotheses out of hand, unless we want to waste immense amounts of time and effort and money in the futile pursuit of nonsense.

I encourage Dr Gleiser to invest that $1.5 million to research the existence of elves, which have roughly the same amount of evidentiary support as gods. It’s the scientific thing to do. Or, since he’s a theoretical physicist, maybe it would be more appropriate to use the money to make a perpetual motion machine. There is an immense number of absurd hypotheses that are dismissed by sensible scientists, and among them is the god hypothesis. That’s the atheist position that Gleiser opposes. Before you can expect rational people to believe your claims, you have to have a body of acts of god that aren’t better explained by natural mechanisms. No, the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t count, because we don’t believe it and you’ve got nothing but cultish claims and confused exaggerations in a holy book to back it up.

To return to his claim of humility, he doesn’t believe that at all. He thinks humans are all special!

You know, I’m a “Rare Earth” kind of guy. I think our situation may be rather special, on a planetary or even galactic scale. So when people talk about Copernicus and Copernicanism—the ‘principle of mediocrity’ that states we should expect to be average and typical, I say, “You know what? It’s time to get beyond that.” When you look out there at the other planets (and the exoplanets that we can make some sense of), when you look at the history of life on Earth, you will realize this place called Earth is absolutely amazing.

Great. What’s the new hypothesis to replace the idea that we’re the product of universal general properties of physics and chemistry? What’s special about Earth? Is there a specific insight that contributes to science that can be used here? The “rare earth” hypothesis is usually used as a tool to smuggle a god into the works, rather than chance and necessity.

He goes on and on, and some of the things he says are sensible — like yeah, we should take better care of our planet — but to be honest, I don’t care. I stopped caring when I read “Templeton Prize”.

Comments

  1. birgerjohansson says

    Old man Templeton was more commonsense about the prize- it once went to Freeman Dyson. His son (Templeton, not Dyson) is a fundamentalist, and this means the prize now goes to kooks.

  2. cheerfulcharlie says

    Then let us consider the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH). If the humble Templeton prize winners cannot explicitly disprove the IPU, does that mean they must entertain the possibility she actually exists? Russell’s teapot?
    This is all a matter of epistemology.

  3. raven says

    I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”

    He is looking at it the wrong way.
    The xians make the claim that god exists, he is a Trinity except if you are a Mormon or other nonTrinitarian, he hates Democrats and Progressives, chooses sides at football games every weekend, helps you find a parking spot if you pray nicely, etc..

    They are making the positive claims so the burden of proof is on them to provide.
    They’ve been trying for 2,000 years.
    All testable claims by the religious have been falsified.

    That the gods exist and do anything noticable is a failed hypothesis with zero evidence for it.

  4. raven says

    God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist Paperback – April 8, 2008
    by Victor J. Stenger (Author), Christopher Hitchens (Foreword)

    Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology, while science has sat on the sidelines. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality.

    This book contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans.

    Victor Stenger another scientist, a physicist (now dead), had something to say about science and its application to the God hypothesis.

    Spoiler alert. Dr. Stenger found no evidence for the existence of the gods.

    It’s been thousands of years and the religious can’t even agree on the number of gods or their names if any. Xianity can have 1,2 ,3 or 4, the Pagan religions can have many, Hinduism has a lot, etc..
    There have been hundreds of gods, most of which are ancient history or long forgotten.

  5. Larry says

    That is inconsistent with the scientific method, which according to Gleiser, expects you to accept any hypothesis in the absence of evidence!

    How wonderful! He believes one should always dig down through a fresh, steaming pile of shit in order to find the pony that must be buried there because some horse hairs were found scattered on the surrounding ground.

  6. Reginald Selkirk says

    But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about.

    Is it OK to make a statement that isn’t final?
    “I am an atheist because I have seen no evidence to support the existence of any gods, and plenty of evidence to suggest that people can easily fool themselves on such questions.” (?)

    Why does he consider a declaration of atheism to be “final,” and why does he not apply the same criticism to religious claims? Many/most religious people claim not only certainty about their theism, but they also know precisely what their god(s) want from human beings.

  7. Reginald Selkirk says

    @7
    Furthermore, I am open to changing my mind when presented with convincing evidence. Your failure to present convincing evidence is not proof that I am close-minded.

  8. skeptico says

    “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

    This stupid phrase again. The correct statement is “The absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence”

    If enough people have been looking for evidence for a long enough time, absence of evidence does eventually become evidence of absence.

  9. says

    Yeah, we’ve all heard that shtick before: atheists aren’t allowed to be certain of their nonbelief; only believers are allowed to be certain of their beliefs, because they’re held to a lower standard. Therefore believers always win every argument with nonbelievers, due to their superior certainty.

  10. says

    I am 100% convinced that there is no god — I’m about as absolutely atheist as one can be. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t change my mind in an instant if someone provided good, solid evidence for its existence.
    The thing is, they haven’t.

  11. profpedant says

    I was under the impression that the ‘Rare Earth Hypothesis’ was simply the observation that so far it looks like planets with the extremely complex chemistry we call multicellular life are not particularly common, and that this was likely because the extremely complex chemistry requires some conditions (stability of star, lack of collisions, etc.) that often do not stay stable for a long enough time. (If we were finding lots of planets that would be easily habitable by humans I would be more sympathetic to the God Hypothesis, although I would still think it to be a crock of shit.)

  12. says

    Yes, and even if we can’t safely say there are no gods of any sort, we can still safely say that there’s no credible evidence to support any of the specific claims we’ve heard about any of the gods that humans have claimed to believe in. So there may be some entity(ies) out there that may be called “god(s),” but they’re still not the god(s) we hear other people talking about.

    And this absence of evidence supports a very confident conclusion that none of those gods really exist. Just like absence of evidence leads to the confident conclusion that I can drive to Baltimore without worrying about invisible cows wandering about on I-95.

  13. alfalfamale says

    Of course there’s a God. He’s just hiding. But he can’t fool you, ’cause you’re smarter than Him I mean he doesn’t want to hide from you. ‘Cause you’re special.

  14. rietpluim says

    I agree that earth is pretty amazing but I fail to see how that would be evidence for the existence of God. Of course life only evolves in places that are suitable for life. Fish would say the ocean is pretty amazing. Fish in the desert otoh would just go extinct.

  15. John Morales says

    [Alas, Rob: “Sign in to confirm your age
    This video may be inappropriate for some users.”]

  16. says

    But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about.

    Agnostic or not, we do indeed have a right to make a “final statement” to the effect that we’re not going to accept a bunch of wild-assed claims about supernatural beings if we don’t see any evidence to support them. Nor should we be expected to significantly alter our lives to act on such unfounded claims. Is that too “final” for the Templeton tools?

  17. John Morales says

    Nah, Rob. I don’t have a Google account or a Youtube account or anything like that.

    If I can’t see it without having to register and to log in, well, I’ll just have to miss out.

    (Well, there are other options, but they are less ethical, by some standards)

  18. says

    As a life-long atheist I have no idea what it ‘feels’ like to be a believer. But pretty much all theists know what it is like to not believe in the many thousands of gods that are outside of their theology. “God”? Which one?

  19. John Morales says

    joelgrant,
    “As a life-long atheist I have no idea what it ‘feels’ like to be a believer.”

    A believer knows the ultimate reason for being and the true nature of existence.

    At the risk of being pedantic, we all (every one of us) believes stuff.
    Hopefully, what we believe is warranted under our epistemology.

    (Believers generally have a different one)

  20. StevoR says

    I encourage Dr Gleiser to invest that $1.5 million to research the existence of elves, which have roughly the same amount of evidentiary support as gods. It’s the scientific thing to do. Or, since he’s a theoretical physicist, maybe it would be more appropriate to use the money to make a perpetual motion machine.

    Well, we acually did find “Hobbits” tho’ NOT elves – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

    The idea that there are or more likely were other humanoid species that were basically more gracile or whatever that fit the idea of “ëlves” is actually kinda plausible~ish depending on how you define elves. There’s also the chance that we might genetically engineer ourselves into them in some sortt of ultimate cosplay in a hypothetical future where that’s possible. Just SF maybe? Oh & of c, humans already coslay as and create “ëlves”” albeit remaining Homo sapiens.

    Perpetual motion OTOH, is ruled out by the laws of physics and as we know, ye canna break the laws of physics Cap’n! ;-)

    You know, I’m a “Rare Earth” kind of guy. – Marcelo “Humbler than thou art”* Gleiser.

    Know I’ve mentioned this before but I reckon the popular science book What Does a Martian Look Like?: The Science of Extraterrestrial Life / Evolving the Alien: The Science of Extraterrestrial Life by by biologist Jack Cohen and mathematician Ian Stewart makes a pretty powerful case against that whole Rare Earth idea even if it might go too far the other way. Itcertainly makes some convincing points in my view. See :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolving_the_Alien

    .* W apologies to Weird Al’s Amish Paradise.

  21. John Morales says

    StevoR,

    “Perpetual motion OTOH, is ruled out by the laws of physics”

    The “laws of physics” have demonstrably changed over time.

    Newton famously estimated the age of the Sun based on its gravitational effects, without understanding the role of radioactivity in energy production.

    (I know you know about the ‘relativity of wrong’, but do you know to what a ‘paradigm shift’ refers?)

  22. StevoR says

    @17. rietpluim : “Fish would say the ocean is pretty amazing. Fish in the desert otoh would just go extinct.”

    Wyee-ell, aksually :

    The desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) is a rare species of bony fish in the family Cyprinodontidae. .. (snip)..A notable attribute of the desert pupfish is their ability to survive in environments of extreme salinity, pH, and temperature, and low oxygen content. ..(Snip!).. Currently, the desert pupfish occurs only in three drainage basins: the Salton Sea, California, the Colorado River Delta, Baja California, and in Sonora, Mexico.

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pupfish

    Then there’s this really excellent 25 mins long clip here – Missing Divers, Charles Manson, & the Rarest Fish in the World by Caitlin Doughty starring the Devil’s Hole Pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis) which are, well, what the title of that says.

    See also :

    https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/a-tiny-desert-fish-hits-a-population-high-in-one-of-earths-harshest-environments/

    I mean I guess it depends what you mean by fish living in the desert but, they kinda do. Even if many of them are on the verge of extinction. Oasises and rivers, lakes water-filled caves and waterholes exist in deserts and can contain a number of piscine species including some rather extraordinary ones.

  23. StevoR says

    @ 29. John Morales : “(I know you know about the ‘relativity of wrong’, but do you know to what a ‘paradigm shift’ refers?)””

    Yes, I do. I’ve even got a copy of Kuhn’s book on my shelves somewhere. Somehow I don’t think an older generation of physicists dying off and a younger one emerging is gunna make Perpetual Motion machines possible but, hey, I guess I could be wrong..

  24. John Morales says

    “…but, hey, I guess I could be wrong..”

    And there you have it.
    Agnosticism. :)

    Point being, “laws of physics” are our current best understanding, and the map is not the territory.

    On the other hand, the “God” concept is utterly vague when it’s not incoherent.

    (Deism is the next step down from agnosticism)

  25. Rob Grigjanis says

    John @28:

    Newton famously estimated the age of the Sun based on its gravitational effects

    I think you mean Kelvin. Newton did however estimate the age of the Earth to be about 6,000 years, based on the bible. Less famously than James Ussher though.

  26. Bekenstein Bound says

    How is it “unethical” to circumvent an age gate if one is not, in fact, underage?

    (If its true purpose is not to be an age gate but to force people to give up personal data and submit to surveillance, but they are not upfront about it, then there is something unethical going on … and it is Google that is the guilty party. Circumventing it then is not unethical because one’s right to privacy trumps the convenience of Google’s data-hungry advertising partners. If they’d been up front about it as a personal-data-for-service exchange then and only then a case could be made for circumvention being unethical, but it would be a pretty thin case likely dependent on granting most or all of the extreme right-libertarian positions, particularly “contract law uber alles” and “my house, my rules, even if I’m operating a place of public accommodation”. Funny though how libertarians will be all “my house my rules” about places and businesses they own, but freak out at the idea of the government and the citizens’ representatives saying “our house, our rules, here have these regulations and by the way you owe us taxes” … it’s almost like they’re all a bunch of hypocrites! Who it would thus be fair game to outmaneuver. Your browser, your rules, and all that.)

  27. John Morales says

    “How is it “unethical” to circumvent an age gate if one is not, in fact, underage?”

    The offer is for me to get access to their content if I register and log in.
    I can of course circumvent that, legally even (VPN), I could simply just create an account and log in.

    Technically (you did ask) it would feel ike pirating were I to knowingly evade their requirements.
    Not like I’m averse to that, but there’s always that cost/benefit consideration.

    (Thing is, I reckon the proportion of people exceeding my degree of reactance is rather tiny.
    It is petty, but so what. Always better than needlessly complying)

    Fact is, Alphabet Google/YouTube/MS/[etc] all know who I am and where I live and so forth and what I run and their 6degrees thingy.

    I know they know, they know I know I know, and so forth.
    Part of the game is that they pretend I need to “Sign in to confirm your age”, nonetheless.

    To sum up, I’ve been keeping a low (as in doxable) internet profile since Usenet was a thing.

    Gonna keep that up as much as I can, though I will of course eventually have to concede.

    (I got my first smartphone in 2020)

  28. John Morales says

    Rob, yeah. I messed up who.
    (They share a podium, in my own headcanon)

    The known physics were impeccable, just not sufficient, and so the inference was wrong; this is not the case with god-constructs, that (well, the monotheistic and particularly Abrahamic ones) are always incoherently defined.

    In short, “laws of physics” are our current theoretical framework, thus Kelvin (ahem, ta).

  29. felixd says

    30 years in physics, never heard of Gleiser before. Guess they couldn’t find any prestigious candidates for Templeton this time.

  30. says

    As always these guys believe not only that a god exists, it’s their specific version that exists. If you asked them about the Greek and Roman gods they’d say of course they don’t exist. They also believe their god is an interventionist, because they want a god that does stuff for them. If God turned up, but told them he didn’t intervene in human affairs at all, because free will etc. they would probably claim it was actually Satan trying to trick us. With God once again strangely unwilling to do anything about Satan.

  31. Owlmirror says

    If you asked them about the Greek and Roman gods they’d say of course they don’t exist.

    I’m not sure it’s quite that straightforward. Historically, some Christian theologians did claim that pagan gods were demons or devils, rather than being fictions. I suspect that at least some modern Christians believe either that, or that they were all deceptions of Satan. Other Christians might have believed something like that they were real spirits (not necessarily evil devils) but subordinate to the true God — something like angels. C. S. Lewis seems to have had that in mind in his portrayal of Bacchus and the river-god of Beruna (in Prince Caspian), obeying and submitting to Aslan. Although Lewis had the evil god Tash (in The Last Battle) as well. ¿Por que no los dos?

    Although we should add disbelief as well. Some Christians think some other gods are fake; some think some others are evil spirits; some think some others are benign or neutral spirits. ¿Por qué no los tres?

  32. Owlmirror says

    With God once again strangely unwilling to do anything about Satan.

    Oh, and we can generalize this, given the above possibilities, that God is strangely unwilling to do anything at all about false beliefs about other gods. Whether they are fake or evil or benign but subordinate, God should have made it clear in the past, continuously to the present, exactly who was real, or evil, or good but unworthy of worship.

  33. John Morales says

    “Oh, and we can generalize this, given the above possibilities, that God is strangely unwilling to do anything at all about false beliefs about other gods.”

    Well, in the Christian tradition (I exclude oddities such as the LDS), there is a Hell.

    That’s surely something, no?

Leave a Reply