TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Bio on Ms. Wertheim
• Article by Ms. Wertheim
• Institute For Figuring

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Margaret Wertheim is a noted scientist and author who served as writer and host of the PBS documentary you might have seen called "Faith and Reason." She's also the founder of the Institute For Figuring here in Los Angeles. Her most recent book is "The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace--" love that title-- "A History of Space from Dante to the Internet." Margaret, nice to have you on the program.

Margaret Wertheim: Nice to be here, Tavis.

Tavis: You made some news here in L.A. the other day. There was a piece, an Op-Ed piece that you wrote for the "Los Angeles Times," and there was a particular occurrence, a particular event that got your ire, I think it's fair to say. There's a very noted scientist named Charles Townes who was awarded the Templeton Prize. It is a religious prize bearing about a $1.5 million monetary attachment that comes along with it. So this religious prize, the Templeton Prize, was given to Mr. Townes, a scientist, and you raised the question in this Op-Ed of why a religious prize was being given to a scientist. Is that a decent set-up? Take it from there.

Wertheim: I think that does explain it well, Tavis. It's a very interesting thing. Why are we seeing a major religious prize, a prize that's given for supposedly someone who's produced progress in religion, to a physicist, someone who's had a tremendously successful career as a scientist. He's won a Nobel Prize for his invention of the laser. But what does it mean that we want to give a religion prize to somebody whose basic job is understanding the material world? And this is what my piece was about because I think it raises the question of what do we think religion is about? And particularly this prize has been given in the Christian context, and so the implication is that somehow doing science is actually going to make progress towards our understanding of God. Now, I don't have any problem with the idea that science actually does help us to illuminate the work of God, The Creator, but the Christian context of God also basically has another major element, which is God the Redeemer, the God who Christians believe that they will go to sit in the presence of in eternity after death or after the resurrection. And I think that there's a very real problem when we hear all this discussion about physics and God. There's an elision that goes on between God the Creator and God the Redeemer, and for most practicing Christians it's God the Redeemer who's really important, and I don't believe that physics can show us that aspect of God.

Tavis: Maybe I'm missing something here because I don't hear the argument as one--the 2 arguments as being oxymoronic. That is to say, I don't think it's either/or. Why can't-...let me ask a question. Why can't it be both? Why can't I, in my faith, be absolutely convinced that there is a God, there is a heaven? He created all of this. He breathes through me every day. He wakes me up every morning. Why can't I have an abiding faith in the creator, in this being called God and, at the same time, appreciate science that underscores what I read and what I believe in my bible that this creator, God, in fact did? Why can't both of those--why can't I have my faith and my religion? Why can't I have my cake and eat it, too?

Wertheim: Oh, you can, Tavis, and I believe that you can. I think for people who have faith, you can look at the discoveries that scientists are making and say that, yes, indeed, those discoveries support one's faith in God. I think it's in...-for me, I think something like that is true. I was brought up Catholic, but I don't personally believe in God anymore, but I do believe that science supports religious views in the sense that if you look at the discoveries of science, we see that world has been created...-the world is the most marvelously constructed thing. It meshes with the idea of a glorious and wonderful God. The problem is, I think, when people hear physicists use the word God, and really, the God--the only aspect of God that physics is illuminating is the aspect of God's creative act, but what about God's role in salvation? What about the whole concept of sin and grace? And I think there is an implication which is implied by this prize that somehow the discoveries of physics are helping us to understand God's salvific role, and I don't think that aspect of it is true. Now, this is problem that goes back to the beginning of modern science with the scientific revolution. There was a realization then that the new science that was coming into being was showing us what a marvelous world God had created, and of course, no one in the 17th century questioned that there was a God, but it was also soon realized that if the world had been created according to scientific laws, what role was there for God to play after the act of creation? Because if the universe then just acted by its own laws, God couldn't actually, as it were, continue to act through history. And that has been the problem for Christianity ever since the scientific revolution.

Tavis: Let me--let me--and I ask a question not to cast aspersion on you at all. We've just met, so I have no reason to be mean towards you-- but I'm thinking of my mother who watches this program every night, and I so often do, and I know exactly--'cause I know my mama, as we all do. We know our mama. I know exactly what she's thinking right now, and part of what she's thinking right now is that what science and what our education--what science education can also do...-you complain about this scientist receiving this religious prize. Um, my mother might also complain about that, but for a different reason. Her argument would be something like this: that what science education tends to do these days is to make people dumber the more education they get. You started out as a catholic...younger. When you were younger, you started out as a catholic, and you got all this religion now, and I thought I heard you say that now, given what you have learned, you don't believe in God anymore, and I'm wondering whether or not there is a case to be made that what science is doing is damaging those persons who have faith in God. Because the more we hear, the more people try to tell us that there really is no God, and so often we hear that from people like you who happen to be scientists.

Wertheim: Actually, 2 things, Tavis. I didn't lose my faith through anything to do with science. I lost my faith because of things like the slaughter in Rwanda and the Holocaust. Nothing that I've ever encountered in my career in science has made me think--doubt the existence of God. In fact, if anything, looking at science gives me some faith that there might be a God.

Tavis: Fascinating.

Wertheim: The total reason I lost my faith in God is because of events like the holocaust and the slaughter in Rwanda.

Tavis: Can I explore that?

Wertheim: If you like.

Tavis: I'd like to. Tell me why. I'm only interested because God did not slaughter those people. God did not put those Jews in those ovens. So why--I'm just--talk to me about that.

Wertheim: Well, I think that this is--this is a common reason for people to lose their faith. Because how can you--I find it personally very difficult to believe in a God who could have stood by while 2 million people were slaughtered in Rwanda. And I know the theological arguments about free will, that a God who loves his people allows them to choose freely for themselves. But a friend of mine who's a Jesuit priest and an astronomer has a really great line. He says, "Faith is a gift." And I think that's true. It's a gift that, in some ways, I wish I did have. I think to believe in God is a very fruitful and supportive position. But I just can't believe in a God who could stand by in the face of such appalling atrocities and inequity in the world. And also a God who would stand by and allow people to slaughter one another in his name. If I was God, I'd come down and say, "Listen, you people. You want to go to war, you do it in your own name. Don't do it in my name."

Tavis: We--we have to talk off-camera, 'cause I don't have enough time to explore this the way I'd like to, but let me ask you this. On balance, tell me this particular event that got your ire, not withstanding. Tell me on balance whether or not you think science is serving religion or disserving religion these days, in contemporary sense.

Wertheim: I actually believe that science offers great support for religion. I don't see science and religion being intrinsically in conflict, and I never have.

Tavis: Uh-huh.

Wertheim: I think there is a problem when we try to blur the boundaries by looking to science for insight into certain religious issues, like what's good and right and proper to do. I don't think science can tell us that. Neither do I think that the Bible can tell us how the world was made. Galileo, in the 17th century, made a great comment. He said, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." And I think that's very true. I really believe in the notion that if one is a Christian, there are 2 books that God wrote. He wrote the Books of Scripture and he wrote the Book of Nature. They are 2 different books that we can get different insights from, and they reflect the 2 aspects of God. They are not in conflict, but they are if you confuse what the role of each one is.

Tavis: Speaking of those 2 books, let me ask you right quick. Um, this controversy never seems to go away. It's renewed the debate--you know where I'm going--the debate about evolution and whether it ought to be taught in schools. Now there's a new theory...-not new, but a new conversation about a theory called the intelligent design theory that folk are pushing. Talk to me about a minute here right quick about what--how you view this debate about what ought to be taught in schools to our kids.

Wertheim: I think what's taught in science classrooms should be science, and I think that teaching intelligent design is an illegitimate incursion of religion into the science classroom. And I could go into a long discussion about why I think that's illegitimate, but let me try to say very quickly. In any teaching subject in science, in any area of science, there are a million alternative theories. Evolution isn't the only one. We could spend our entire time teaching kids every alternative view. We don't do that. The teaching of science in school is a core set of principles that the majority of the scientific community believe in. Intelligent design isn't one of those. If we start saying we can teach intelligent design because it's an alternative scientific theory, I can tell you a million alternative scientific theories, and where do we stop?

Tavis: I've gotta go. Speaking of stop, I've gotta stop. But not because I want to, only because I have to. You're wonderful to talk to. Will you come back and do this again with me?

Wertheim: I'd be happy to.

Tavis: There's so much to talk about, and that Australian accent makes you so easy to listen to. We'll have to talk off-camera, do it on camera again some other time. Nice to have you, Margaret. Up next on this program, boxing champion--former boxing great, I should say, Sugar Ray Leonard. I'm sure he can still put it down. A conversation with Sugar Ray in just a moment. Stay with us.