Here physicist Brian Greene argues with Sam Harris about approaches to dispelling false beliefs, aka religion. Greene argues that simply acquainting people with science will make them less religious (or at least he implies it), and avers that some New Atheists have been ineffective because they call religious people “stupid”. (That’s not so true!). Harris, however, says that the “carrot” attitude of Greene (and Greene really doesn’t use a carrot because he doesn’t criticize religous belief at all) may not be as effective as Harris’s “stick”, which is simply rational argument about what is true and open criticism of the harms of religion. As Sam says, it’s false to assert that you can’t reason people out of religion because he’s seen it happen. So have I.
Sam notes what seems to be the case: Greene just doesn’t want to be the “go-to guy for why you can’t have your cake and eat it too in the matter of science and religion.” On the other hand, Sam notes that in some ways religion is bad for science. For example, some religious beliefs are inimical to understanding science, including accepting global warming. And of course creationism is still with us in the form of ID. Sam then asks whether Greene shouldn’t be pushing harder against such inimical religious beliefs. Greene responds that in physics he doesn’t encounter that kind of religious mishigass, which is found more in biology. It’s more than that, though, because I believe that in the past Greene, as one of the organizers of the World Science Festival, has participated in osculating the rump of faith. As I wrote in 2020:
On the other hand [Greene] takes lots of money from the John Templeton Foundation to run the World Science Festival, and there’s always some Templeton-sponsored events that reconcile religion and science or enable “spirituality”. In fact, Dan Dennett withdrew from a Festival panel when he learned it was backed by Templeton (see the first link in this sentence). And Greene has always been reluctant to say anything bad about religion, despite the fact that he seems to be an atheist. Although he’s said that “there’s much in New Atheism that resonates with me“, he’s admitted that his strategy is less confrontational and less antagonistic than scientists like Dawkins. In fact, as we see below, it no longer seems the least confrontational and antagonistic, but rather worshipful.
There’s more, but I think that one element in Greene’s reticence is knowing that if one criticizes religion, one loses popularity. The fastest way to erode one’s acclaim as a science writer or popularizer is to criticize religion, even if you do it separately from talking about science. Neil deGrasse Tyson has also learned that lesson.
Maybe one of the issues here is that Greene’s own branch of science, string theory, has itself been in crisis for quite a while. It is an approach which is seemingly not testable or falsifiable, and currently isn’t really a theory at all, but a very large collection partial, untestable theories. This situation is quite unlike other branches of the physical sciences and very different from the golden age of high energy physics leading to the formulation of the standard model of particle physics. In some ways, it almost seems more like religion than science…
Looking forward to watching the video. My preliminary thought is that people are different and that multiple approaches might be needed to finally wrest religion from the culture. Sometimes rational argument will work; sometimes greater familiarity with the findings of science will help. Sometimes the simple fact that religion is playing less and less of a role in modern life will be enough to move future generations away from religion—a sort of positive feedback process. If few people pay attention to religion anymore, then fewer further will bother.
It’s true that one needs to be careful (in the U.S) when criticizing religion. Stridency causes people to dig in their heels. I’ve experienced this, so apply a lighter touch than I used to—if only to avoid causing people emotional pain and losing friends. It’s a touchy subject.
Overall, in the U.S., we seem to be heading in the right direction, but more slowly than I’d like.
What will be gained from deliberately equating accepting science with becoming an atheist in the public mind? If people have to choose between creationism or climate change denial and atheism, I suspect many will choose creationism and climate change denial. Yes, I know some will accuse me of being part of the “Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists,” to quote Dawkins, but pragmatically, I think it is best to accept religious moderates as allies in the fight against fundamentalism and science denial. Actually ensuring that Church and State remain separate (which is only possible due to judges and politicians, who are usually religious moderates) and that public policy is rooted in science and reason should be the goal.
Enjoyed the clip. My temptation of course is to argue that we need sticks in addition to carrots — though Harris taking Greene out of his vibrating string bubble to a couple of parties containing fundamentalists celebrating global warming might be more persuasive. Interesting parties Harris must have.
I wish it were so that atheists do not insult creationists and call believers ignorant. But, evidence to the contrary.
If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.
Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
Dawkins is not alone, but certainly one of the most prominent.
The young-earth creationists, like flat earthers, are objectively ignorant and deluded. This is just a statement of fact. They choose to ignore nearly everything humanity has learned over the last two thousand years. How else can you describe this? It doesn’t mean they are stupid; some are quite intelligent.
Note also that Dawkins’ comment was not about all believers but just this one extreme subset.
I used to be very annoyed with people like Tyson (or Greene) but have come around that it probably takes all kinds. I prefer the firmer voice but the widespread popularity of Tyson or Greene has its place.
Wow, Greene came off as arrogant, disingenuous, and removed from reality. Boo.
But this should amuse you, Ceiling Cat. Behold a tweet in which Greene emits inspiration about g*d and none other than Deepak responds approvingly: https://x.com/DeepakChopra/status/1076880593659613186
No wonder Greene and Templeton are a pair! Someone should ask Greene about this on a podcast…
So of course Greene doesn’t encounter lowly Christians when he moves around. He’s too busy with the Deepak-minded, where “#God is the impersonal consciousness in which equations are conceived as symbols of laws of nature that are the grid or matrix of the physical universe.”
I love the Deepakian word-salad definition of God. LOL.