Q&A with Robert Wright (Part 2): Is Belief in God Any Weirder Than Belief in Electrons?

This is Part 2 of interview excerpts that do not deal with the big idea at the center of Robert Wright's new book.

In The Evolution of God, Wright follows the changing moods of God in ancient scripture, to see what circumstances brought out the best and worst in religions: "The moral of the story is simple. When people see their interests threatened by another group, this perception brings out the most belligerent parts of their religion. Such circumstances are good news for violent extremists and bad news for moderates. What Obama is trying to do -- make Palestinians feel less threatened, and make Muslims generally feel more respected -- may now, as it did in ancient times, bring out the tolerant side of a religion."

Robert Wright asks a lot of big questions and thinks a lot about God -- two of his four books have the word in the title -- and he founded a video site called meaningoflife.tv, so we also talked about consciousness, physics, evolution, atheism and Obama. I'm sorry I took a while with Part 2. I kept trying to trim it in half, but decided not to edit someone speaking as carefully as Robert Wright is on questions like these.

A print version of our full interview was a lead article at AlterNet.org and you can hear the full podcast at terrencemcnally.net You can read Part 1 here.

MCNALLY:

You raise the question: Is belief in God any weirder than belief in electrons?

WRIGHT:
That's in the afterward of the book, and the whole text is online. It's very much in the spirit of an essay I read a long time ago by William James called The Will to Believe.

Scientists say, "Yes, I believe in electrons." Now, it isn't just that they've never seen one, it's that we know from quantum physics that electrons are inconceivable. They have internally contradictory properties. You ask, "Is it a wave or a particle?" And they say, "Both." And you say, "What do you mean both? I can't conceive of that."

MCNALLY:
The human mind likes to think in "eithers" and "ors"...

WRIGHT:
Saying it's a particle is not a comprehensive ongoing explanation of an electron, it doesn't account for all its behavior. In fact, there is no easily conceivable image that accounts for everything electrons do. It's beyond human comprehension.

Some physicists would say, "I'm not sure electrons per se really exist. It is, however, useful to talk as if electrons exist. You get good scientific results using that kind of language." So the question I raise is, "If thinking of divinity as something that exists leads people to behave in a morally progressive fashion, might that give validity to a conception of divinity?" In much the way our belief in electrons is ultimately vindicated by the practical result that follows from believing in them.

When I first heard an argument very much like this from William James, I thought that's nuts. Maybe I'm just getting old and soft-headed.

MCNALLY:
Is it enough to say that this line of thinking may not be as nuts as some people think it is?

WRIGHT:
Yes. Have a little humility. This bothers me with some of the new atheist writing. Fact is, we just don't know.

Strictly speaking, I don't understand how people can call themselves atheists, if the term means you're sure there's no God. I don't see how you can be sure of anything in this world. I'm technically an agnostic, although one with spiritual and religious leanings. But I don't know anything, and I don't know how anyone can say they know there's no God.

If you have a religious experience and God appears, I can see how you'd be pretty convinced. Strictly speaking you still don't know that it's not an illusion, but it's easier for me to understand someone who says they're a religious believer than somebody who says they're an atheist. Because the religious believer says, "I saw it."

MCNALLY:
In high school as I was moving away from Catholicism -- now I'm basically "spiritual but not religious" -- I would have debates. I can remember clear as a bell the moment when one friend of mine said, "You can't argue me out of God, I've experienced him." What could I say?

WRIGHT:
I did a one-week meditation retreat: silence, five-and-a-half hours of sitting meditation a day, five-and-a-half hours of walking meditation, no news from the outside world, no phone calls, no speech. That was an amazing experience, not in an especially theistic sense.

It moved me to be much more appreciative of other beings in the world. I remember seeing weeds and thinking, "I can't believe I killed these things, they're beautiful." And that's really the truth. "Weed" is a label we've imposed.

MCNALLY:
A dandelion, the scourge of people's lawns, is nature's geodesic dome. Buckminster Fuller could do no better.

WRIGHT:
This gets at another thing William James said, that our ordinary state of consciousness, the one we use to drive to work and get through life, is just one possible state of consciousness, and there's no reason to assume that it's any more valid than a lot of other possible states. I think in some ways it's manifestly less valid, because our ordinary state of consciousness was designed by natural selection to serve our own interests. And it is an illusion.

MCNALLY:
I recently interviewed Winifred Gallagher about her book Rapt. She points out that attention is mainly about cutting things out so we can function, because there's too much going on.

WRIGHT:
It's not just that we narrow our focus, our whole evaluation of other people becomes subservient to our individual goals.

Getting back to what brings out the best and the worst in religions -- when you're in a zero-sum situation with another group, you tend to judge their religion uncharitably. Your evaluations are slaves to your self-interest. This was a fundamental insight of Buddhism way back: We go around evaluating everything all the time, and our evaluations are not fundamentally valid. They impose a self-serving judgmental scheme on reality.

MCNALLY:
We've got some trends that are looking poorly now: climate change; the end of oil; huge inequities between and within societies; violent confrontations based on tribal, ethnic, and religious differences, and so on. If you could stand in 2025 and look back, did humanity turn things around and if so, how?

WRIGHT:
Some of the things you laid out have non-zero-sum implications. It's in the interests of people in lots of continents to solve climate change. Likewise, over-fishing the seas, or just keeping the global economy on track. To meet these challenges, it is in the interests of people to cooperate with others. And if they pursue those interests rationally, that will tend to subdue the other threat you mentioned, which is conflict among people and religions.

The argument in this book: to the extent that we accurately perceive non-zero-sum relationships, we can be more tolerant of others and their religions.

Westerners are actually in a non-zero-sum relationship with Muslims for lots of reasons. If Muslims get less and less happy with their place in the world, that foments extremism and is bad for the West; and if they get happier, that's good for the West.

As we both realize we're in a non-zero-sum relationship, we will tend to judge them more charitably, they will tend to judge us more charitably. I hate to say "them" and "us," because I know there are lots of Muslims in the West, and the whole idea of a Muslim world is a vast oversimplification. But you take my point. Once Israelis and Palestinians see that it's "lose-lose" to leave their situation unresolved, then, assuming a certain amount of trust, you can start building the more charitable view of each other that fosters cooperation.

MCNALLY:
Can you imagine how we're going to get there?

WRIGHT:
I think it takes leaders of vision and inspirational power, and I think Barack Obama is pretty good in that regard. I was very impressed by his Cairo speech. Very early on I said, this guy is well positioned by background to teach the world that we all have an interest in cooperation, that violence is senseless, and that we should come to our senses.

MCNALLY:
I consider myself a progressive. When we find fault with the way he's handling the bailout or Afghanistan, those are real arguments. But you know, he didn't specifically say he was going to do too many of those things. He said he was going to change the way we deal with each other, the way we govern. He basically argued for a non-zero-sum worldview more than he argued for any one progressive policy.

WRIGHT:
He's been more pragmatic on some political fronts than I would like, but in some areas I think he's stuck to his guns. For example, I think for domestic political purposes, it would have been easier for him not to insist that the Israeli settlements be completely stopped. I've been a little despondent over some of his compromises, but you can't be picking a fight on every front at all times. To the extent that he's focusing on global issues of international, trans-ethnic and trans-religious cooperation, I think that may be where he should put his chips. That may be where his assets can best be deployed.

Comments

[S1m0n]

We can prove the existence of electrons.

[slush]

Atheism is a religion? The atheist need prove nothing for he has made no proposition. The believer must prove his position for he has posited a God.

[averygard]

Personally, I will just never understand how anyone can have the ego to feel that they 100% know for sure that there is some old guy sitting on a throne up there interfering in our lives and damning everyone to hell who doesn't believe the magic credo. I also can't understand, though, how anyone would state that they know 100% for sure that there isn't SOME sort of creator or SOME sort of existence after death (some near-death experiences and things I have heard in hospice situations have been very, very interesting and not satisfactorily explained by what we know so far). When they say this, of course, they're saying in the process that they know 100% for sure that zillions of people both currently and in the past were wrong and they--just those few enlightened atheists--are right. Given that we are all humans with limited information, either take seems presumptuous to me. I do think basing any decisions or policies on religion is a really, really bad idea.

[arvay]

A prediction: someone will jump on the discovery of dark energy and matter as "proof' of a spiritual reality.

Then science will explain it, and the theists will search for some other yet-to-be-explained phenomenon.

It's been like this since some cave dweller asked 'why did the mastodon squish Gort?" and the shaman answered "because you failed to give me some meat so I could appease the gods."

The world's longest-running racket.

[SSGVABEACH]

Yep.

[Ed438]

The basis of primitive religion was the attempt to explain the then inexplicable. Thunder, lightning, fire were at first not understood and early man had need to invent anthropomorphic gods and goddesses to explain them. Now that we know what causes all these phenomena, these deities are unnecessary.

And how did "God" evolve? "He" evolved from primitivism to utter absurdity, as we see in "modern" religion which is no more than a collection of old-wives' tales not much more sophisticated than Zeus and company. We are told that "To him who has faith, no explanation is necessary, to him who has not, bo explanation is possible." That this is a complete cop-out doesn't seem to occur to those who spout this nonsense.

The universe is still as mysterious as ever; let's accept it and be content with what we know without inventing more gods.

[nullifier]

"If thinking of divinity as something that exists leads people to behave in a morally progressive fashion, might that give validity to a conception of divinity?"

Correct. But unfortunately the 'if' part is false. There is no correlation between morality and religiosity.

[Liberal Angel]

Protons are both waves and particles, not electrons. My theist brethren can't unwrap their minds from God being a being. Any way of viewing God as "something" is going to be, in the end, unconvincing. If you don't conceive of God as Being itself, or Existence itself, you're conceiving some impossible being. If you think you can give a total discription of God, you're mistaken. All we can really say is God is neither here nor there, but everywhere and nowhere. If that sounds confusing, it should. You shouldn't be able to box God into anything. I describe God in panentheist ways because it makes the most sense. Since no one has all the facts (and never will), the statment "God isn't real" can't be proven. God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. God isn't "subject". Religion is Man's response to God. God didn't give it to us. It's made up. We don't have all the facts, but we try to understand the world we live in the best we can. Religion has its limits. But so does science. The question of "God" isn't a scientific one. Just like the question of how the Universe was created isn't really a religious one. After all, the Universe is something that exists within God, not apart from Him. Ultimate Reality exists. Whether or not you call that "God", you can't deny there is a deep and infinite Mystery about existence. Science is about "how", religion is about a relationship.

[Paradym]

I highly commend your position and reasoning on this, but I think Richard Dawkins actually did a very good job of turning the "Is there a God" into a scientific question, and provided solidly logical reasons that there isn't.

[stevesrant]

I think the question 'Is there a god?' is not the right question at all. Most educated 21st century people know by now it is a useless one to ask or argue. My question attempts to raise the bar of the discussion to a more scientific (or logical) level, and goes something like this: Since it is obvious to any scientist that intelligence is an attribute of existence (we are vain enough to call ourselves intelligent, and we are indeed grown BY and are a part OF the universe), is it possible that there is a level or dimension of existence that we have yet to discover, where it would possible for us to apprehend the infinite intelligence that is responsible for growing and sustaining us, the intelligent creatures that we are? Forget gods and electrons (yikes!), lets talk in terms of human conciousness and the energy of perception we find ourselves possessing. I've asked (some version) of this question here several times before and have never gotten any takers.

[Liberal Angel]

I haven't read any of Dawkins' work because I find him very offensive. I'm a very very open mided Christian, but I have my limits. He comes off as an atheist fundamentalist. I don't like the fundamentalists in my own faith, let alone someone who hates it. As far as belief God is some being, I also consider myself an atheist. What I call "God" is the Infinite Mystery of Ultimate Reality. It's beyond some belief in the old man in the sky. It's called panentheism. It means that everything is within God, but God extends infinitely beyond the sum of everything. Basically the question isn't whether God exists, but "What is your concept of God?". How can you say there is no Being? We clearly are here. We had to have had some antecedent. Our Universe is way too big for us to ever know very much about it at all. Many scientists believe we are actually part of an even greater Multiverse. I doubt very highly we can ever reach any level of technology to learn about the Absolute Truth of Existence. We should definately try though. If we are the Universe trying to understand itself, that would mean the Universe is concious and self-aware. At that point, science would become religion.

[Liberal Angel]

I just re-read the first sentence of my post. I meant to write photons are both waves and particles, not electrons. It was vexing me to no end.

[Chironomid]

Hah... what a joke!! Modern electron scanning can SHOW electrons, no need for blind belief. Unlike some other things..

[bismillah001]

Like neutrinos.

[johnsopinion]

Modern electron scanners show what they were designed to
show.
X-ray machines were designed to show x-rays!

What you see is based on your beliefs in what you want to see
and everything that doesn't fit that belief is eliminated.

[faceplant]

Solipsism is a bankrupt concept. Attempting to use quantum mechanics to argue for it is an abuse of QM.

[bonze]

"Is the belief that Zeus flings thunderbolts any weirder than the belief that thunderbolts are electrical discharges?" No. It's not weirder... in this day and age, it's perverse.

Mr. Wright states in his book that "Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists ascribe properties to electrons. One of the more plausible such properties is love."

Physicists do not "ascribe" properties to electrons: electrons manifest those properties in ways which are observable, measurable, mathematically coherent (even at the weird quantum level), and PREDICTABLE, making it possible for common idiots to propagate blather at the speed of light.

Contrast these properties with those usually manifested by the Oracles Who Speak for the Gods: arbitrary, whimsical, petty, obsessed with "virtue" as defined by Revelation, and manifesting HATRED by calling for harsh punishment, DEATH, and/or ETERNAL DAMNATION of those who do not bow to their Revelations.

Having spent most of my life organizing high-order drills of electrons (i.e., computer programming), working on electronic equipment, and practicing Mastery Over Electrons (via the electric guitar), I have absolutely no qualms in believing in the reality--and the reliability--of electrons.

As for God, he/she/it has got a lot to answer for in terms of responsibility for allowing Bogus Prophets to engage in wanton defamation of his/her/its character and seducing millions into the vilest villainy.

[jon54]

I always get a kick out of how believers (and some so-called agnostics) want to define me -- an atheist -- and what I think. Here it is, in as simple a form as I can put it:

THEIST: God EXISTS!
ATHEIST (me): I don't believe you, Jack.

I don't go around claiming that there IS no God, anymore than I don't go around claiming that there are no leprechauns. What a ridiculous waste of time.

No, I'm not 100% sure of either proposition, but I'm sure enough to discount both of'em. If you want 100% surety, seek amongst the believers, of any stripe. That's their stock in trade, not mine.

[flanardiente]

Electrons work. Try turning on the lamp by saying "let there be light."

[longtimegone]

Try turning on the lamp and expecting electrons to work when the electrician has not pre-wired your house. You'll still be in the depths of darkness.

[mbsq]

The theory of electrons has much predictive power and empirical corroboration. The theory of God does not.

[Dredd]

The deep dark realities of what is required of species like humanity to survive as a species in this cosmos does not require or indicate that religion and science should be opposed.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/ecocosmology.html

[DrP]

Science, religion - it's all metaphor.

[yodaveg]

Science is a metaphor? For what?

[mbaty]

Spirituality is physics. Science is spiritual. These things are not separate. And it does us a disservice to pretend they are. Just by observing something you change it. Your perspective informs the world, and whatever religion you believe will be true to you subjectively. It's all true! None of it is true! Quantum physics says it's both! Let's worship quantum physics now with a song of our devotion.

[faceplant]

Nonsense. Religious claims are not in any way scientific. They are not falsifiable by any standard method, they do not depend upon evidence, and and they don't make many coherent predictions about anything.

[myopinion2]

The difficulty in discussing this issue is that when the word "God" is used to refer to the Divine, we immediately thing of the Biblical image of an individualized deity-being with consciousness, intention and superpowers. In fact, if we obey the prohibition againt images (conceptual as well as visual), and invest the divine with no attributes other than being eternal, absolute and unconditional, then the Divine becomes not just "believable" but necessary, especially for science. Divine Being is that without which even nothing could not be, which is the source of the Beginning / Big Bang, and manifests itself as the Divine Laws of Science, which causally determine all forms, substances and occurances. Not a god. Divine Being.

[ManhattanMC]

myopinion2

"....the Divine becomes not just "believable" but necessary, especially for science."
Quite an assertion-can you back it up ?

The rest of that is dogma.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"if we obey the prohibition against images (conceptual as well as visual), and invest the divine with no attributes other than being eternal, absolute and unconditional, then the Divine becomes not just "believable" but necessary, especially for science"

Actually, if we obey the prohibition against images (conceptual as well as visual), and invest the divine with no attributes other than being eternal, absolute and unconditional, then the Divine becomes meaningless and completely irrelevant because attributes like "necessary" and "creator" don't apply.