¶1[music] Hello and welcome from Sir Henry Floyd Grammar School here in Alsbury for another episode of Unbelievable. I am your host for today, Samuel McKe, and I'm joined by two outstanding guests for a discussion about the future of religion as science and technology advances. We're in the presence of greatness today, guys. I'm delighted to be joined by a physicist and a biohysicist. We've got Professor Paul Hesop who's professor of mathematical physics from Durham University and we've got professor Simon Walker Samuel who's professor of biohysics at UCL.
¶2Um two great men doing great work um at great universities. Uh we also have a Christian theist here and a trustee of humanists UK. So two very different positions on this question today. And the question today is, does religion have a future by the end of this century as science and technology continues to advance? Gentlemen, I just want to invite you to say a bit more about yourself and your research.
¶3So, I'll start to my left. >> Okay, >> Simon. >> Uh, okay. So, I, as you say, I'm a biopysicist, which means I studied physics quite a long time ago now, but as undergraduate, I did physics. Uh, and then used that in my research, applied physics to biological problems.
¶4So mainly using medical imaging for example or mathematical modeling of disease tissues. It's you know it's that interface between physics principles and biology which is where things get really complex. So biological tissues, biological systems really complicated. So and adding physics in can sometimes make that easier but not always. It can just add to the complexity sometimes.
¶5So that's the kind of the field is those kind that interface between biology and physics. You're doing fantastic work in cancer research and we all really benefit from it. Paul, introduce yourself and where you're from. >> Uh, yeah, I'm Paul Hesler. I'm from Durham.
¶6Uh, I work on quantum field theory and quantum gravity and string theory. So, um, quite a bit less practical, um, I would say, than Simon's work. Um, but we're sort of trying to understand kind of the fundamental equations that describe the universe that we live in. Um it's quite hard. Uh we've discovered um equations that agree with all the experiments that uh take place at the moment.
¶7There's general relativity on the one hand and the standard model of particle physics which is a quantum field theory on the other hand. Everything seems to agree a bit too well with it. Um but there's various kind of mathematical reasons. I have a more of a maths background. So we're trying to mathematically uh both join these theories together um get a unified theory, try and simplify the standard model, try and reduce the number of free constants and and that sort of thing.
¶8>> Yeah, lots of fun. >> Yeah, lots of fun indeed. >> Thank you both for being here today and taking part in this conversation. So just to frame what we're discussing uh last century the sociologist Peter Burgerer put forward the secularization thesis which is the idea that as a society becomes more scientifically and technologically advanced the level of religiosity will go down. Now while that didn't entirely happen it did happen in part.
¶9However, we are at a new frontier right now with artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering, space fairing, personalized medicine. The way we do being human and the way we do relationships, the way we do work uh is changing and it's changing very very rapidly as society advances. What place is religion going to have? Is it going to even have a place? Is it going to change shape?
¶10These are the questions that we're discussing today from two different perspectives and we look forward to taking yours as well. Simon, I'd like to start with you. What do you think the landscape of religion is going to be uh by the time these guys retire? >> Right. I mean 2100 is probably nearer than I than I think it is because you forget how quickly time goes.
¶11I I so religion, Christianity specifically, not singing it out for any other reason other than sort of we're most familiar with it, but Christianity has been declining over the last sort of 150 years, maybe a bit longer. Um, so there's a sense that maybe religion is sort of dying out, at least in the UK, maybe in the West, America, slightly different story, but sort of Western Europe seems to be following that trend of declining um adherence to Christianity. That said, does that mean that everyone who no longer calls themselves a Christian calls themselves non-religious? Um, and if so, what does that mean? So, I'm a humanist.
¶12So, I'm here sort of representing Humanist UK. So, whilst I don't believe in gods is one sort of aspect of of of humanism, I believe in sort of the positive characteristics of humanity. So, things like using empathy, using science, um you know, valuing art, those kinds of things. those sort of posit positive characteristics that form my worldview that seems to be consistent with about a third of the UK population more or less most of which don't know that there's a word for it. So that is what humanism is but most people who believe those things wouldn't necessarily cause call themselves humanists just because it's not sort of out there in the in the zeitgeist.
¶13the rest of the non-religious, so the people that maybe have stepped away from formal religion, what they believe is also quite fascinating. And there's a lot of sort of spiritualism that happens, a lot of sort of um there's a resurgence of pagan beliefs, for example, that seems to be happening. Uh I think that's the quickest uh growing uh belief system in the UK. Don't fact check me. I think that's true.
¶14Um humanism is the fastest growing non-religious world. You should also get in that in. Um so does that mean that in 2100 there will be no religion? It depends what you mean by religion. Just to kind of step back further from the question.
¶15Um for me religion is sort of a formalized um sort of set of activities with some sort of leading guiding principle probably a belief in a deity some sort of doctrine scriptures or that kind of thing. I can imagine there being less of that and maybe more sort of individualized belief which could still be supernatural. I don't think they'll, you know, everyone will turn into a humanist necessarily and I think there's lots of reasons for that that maybe I won't delve straight into at this point, but I think psychologically humans often fall back on that sort of set of beliefs of a sort of a deity and that kind of thing. And I think particularly when times become more uncertain, that's that's more likely to happen. sort of times of crisis, people will still instinctively reach for something greater than themselves perhaps.
¶16>> Yeah. And particularly sort of a a deity. I think there's something within humanity that looks for a deity, looks for sort of agency in the universe that I'd argue is probably their own agency, but sort of represented, you know, reflected in the world in a way that humans do. >> Brilliant. Thank you, Paul.
¶17I'm interested in your answer to this question. What do you think year 2100 the religious landscape would be? >> Um, yeah. Well, I would I would agree with a lot of what Simon just said, especially at the end about how people are searching for some sort of thing beyond themselves, some sort of deity. Um, as a Christian, I uh believe Christianity is truth.
¶18Um and therefore um uh I believe that people will um will see that uh and eventually uh you know and I it's interesting to try and understand why uh science has has led to this uh decrease in faith in Christianity or even if science has led to this uh decrease uh quite why has this decrease sort of tied in with with science. I'm not sure it's necessarily clear that that's the case. So, um, yes. So, I guess I'm maybe one part of me would dodge the question and and say what is what is actually the truth of why we are here? Um, what we're made for?
¶19Uh, why does science work? uh these sorts of bigger questions that grow kind of beyond science. Um and the sociological questions are a sort of part of that. It's interesting to try and understand why people believe what they believe, but ultimately it's the kind of the truth of the matter that I suppose is more interesting to me. Um >> so there's a couple of things there you mentioned.
¶20>> Um firstly that um I if if it's true >> Yeah. then it's it's not going to go anywhere if you're seeking truth. You're going to find it anyway. >> And the other thing was uh the question of science leading to a particular decline in religious faith. But you are a world-class mathematical physicist.
¶21You work with Steven Hawking. You've been in Cambridge and and all over the world. >> Um >> has science ever felt like a threat to your particular religious beliefs as a physicist? >> I mean, not the science that I I work in. On the contrary, I kind of I mean I grew up in a Christian family.
¶22Uh my dad was a uh physics teacher briefly before I was born. Um but he always kind of conveyed this uh interest in um in physics. Um but then he also became a a vicar when I was um about eight or so. So I've always had that kind of Christianity with science uh there. Um yeah, I mean he was more of an experimentalist so he can't quite understand why I went into into the other way.
¶23That's right. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Um so for me I I kind of I guess I've always seen what I do is trying to understand God's ideas after him. Um so understanding the laws of physics and they are very simple and beautiful mathematical laws that we're discovering all the time. And um for me I'm as I said I'm I'm understanding God's laws after him.
¶24Uh if you if you don't believe in a god then there's a question as to why uh we have these laws of physics. Why are they simple? Why are they mathematically beautiful? How is it that we can understand them? These questions are um they transcend the science itself.
¶25They're kind of meta questions if you like. Right. >> Um, and these questions aren't really going away. You know, I I don't see how the furthering of science, as you say, the robotics and AI and and things like this, they they certainly talk into this, but these bigger so-called meta questions, if you like, I think they're always going to be there. And um I don't see a kind of answer from within just the science itself uh for those questions.
¶26>> Right. So, um, that's a great place to lead on actually. Are we hard hardwired to look for meaning and why questions? Um, so if you go to Blackwells or Water St. today, you'll find tons of books on the shelf by writers like Uval Noah Harrari.
¶27If any of you have read Sapiens or Homodus or any of those books um or Steven Pinker um or Martin Ree um who might be making the case that for evolutionary reasons religion has been helpful in getting us here but we kind of don't need it anymore to go forward. Uh how do you feel about that as a position or or do you think as Paul suggested maybe that we are just keep uh continually hardwired to look for the big answers? I I think we're hardwired and I think that's a it's very easy to say it's evolution. It's because of evolution. Very hard to prove that.
¶28So this is very much a kind of statement, you know, in that vein that I think I think we've evolved to and it makes sense that we have evolved to understand the world to be able to thrive in it to, you know, to find food. So if we understand the mechanisms that kind of govern everything around us and that's where kind of physics has come from that we sort of gone oh look apple's falling from trees. I wonder if we can model how fast the apple falls from the tree and why it bounces so high and that those kinds of things. We are ve we've become very good at that and we've evolved brains that enable us to do it and we've thrived. So I can kind of frame in my own understanding at least a sort of evolutionary frame for why we look for meaning.
¶29And within that bucket I can I could probably throw religion because it's our first attempts to really understand and try and answer those big questions. It also throws science in there too because that's a kind of human thing that we've invented. You know, have we discovered math? Did we invent it as a let's not go there but um it's all to understand what we are our place in the world and how we can just carry on being alive in it and that's the sort of evolutionary drive to kind of carry on being here. So I' I'd say these are all human things and that religion going back to the religion thing is just one one part of those of you know of that understanding the world and we are now that we've seen what we can do with science increasingly the religious supernatural bits keep getting pushed further and further away from our models to the point that my model just doesn't include it at all.
¶30You know, my background is, you know, my parents were non-religious. My grandparents didn't really say what they were, but you know, no one ever went to church or anything. So, it never has really infiltrated my understanding, my model of the world. So, you know, and that's where I can kind of continue being and it sort of works and I can see that it could work for other people, too. I I wonder here um as a humanist it doesn't seem like um even the super advanced animals do the whole why question or settle around philosophizing about about life like in a in the way that we uniquely do.
¶31Uh do you think then that um humans will always be necessarily religious in some way or but when we're living on Mars will that just get channeled in different directions? I mean, humans are only religious as long as someone continues calling themselves religious. So, if everyone had my worldview, then religion would would no longer be. Um, I'm not here to persuade people that's the right way to be. I'm just telling you that's my experience and the experience of lots of others.
¶32And if everyone adopted that, then humanity would stop being religious. Would that be a better place? I think I'd be very, you know, it's quite an arrogant thing to say. Of course, it would be. Yeah.
¶33Everyone should think the same way as me. Um, there are benefits of religion. It's not a a one-sizefits-all. So, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be religious, but there is this alternative to being religious. And if the, you know, the next inhabitants of Mars are religious or not, I don't know what it will change necessarily because we are a mix of religious and non-religious currently.
¶34M uh Paul, I'm curious as a as a scientist who is a Christian, um what is it about being a Christian that you find is is just so beneficial or so helpful for being human that you wouldn't find anywhere else? >> Um well, I mean, Christianity, I guess, is is in my whole life. uh I tried to follow um the ways of Jesus who who showed us the best way to live. I think I I suspect a lot of the um ways that I try to live are probably consistent with the humanist uh kind of ways that they try to live. So I guess the I mean what I'm trying to talk about is the more philosophical you know reason for having uh these beliefs.
¶35But but also on the other hand you also have um uh a belief that uh Jesus is with you. Uh his spirit is living inside you and and helping you to um well even even helping you to do your physics right uh doing physics as I said at the start is sort of doing God's thoughts after him in some sense. He I believe he delights in us doing that. >> Um I mean there are a few things I I might want to pick up on. >> Sure.
¶36So there was one talk about evolution. I mean the slight worry about the fact that so we're evolved and we um you know maybe there are reasons why we have you know believe in religions because of of whatever evolutionary things. It's all very descriptive. And and then the question is what about truth in in some sense kind of we're evolved. Maybe we're determined in some sense.
¶37You know, maybe I I was brought up a Christian, you were brought up an atheist in some sense. And so and then very quickly you get to the thing, well, okay, we're just we're just doing what we're kind of programmed to do. But I think we both believe that there is truth, right? There is a truth to the question of whether there is a god or not. um and that we're having this discussion about whether it's true or not.
¶38And it's meaningful to have the discussion. We're not just kind of automate on robots, you know, paring stuff. Maybe maybe sometimes we are, but like behind it all there is a there is a sort of a meaning behind. I find that very hard to kind of understand from a a purely naturalistic uh worldview. That was one thing.
¶39>> There was another one. But s I wonder is there anything you want to comment on that? Uh that I don't know how how does that work? So how how there's a bit of a free will kind of issue within that within the question is you know we have this sense that we have free will that we can kind of that we have agency that we can make our own part we can make decisions in the world I and that's that is a very powerful sense is it real the physicist in me cannot understand how that is possible so you know our brains are natural um objects they kind of run on electricity and other physics kind of basic principles and every time you see a sort of a current in that bit of the brain, it's because of an ion flux in that part of the brain and it's all completely deterministic and you can trace every event within the brain back back back to the big bang if you want to and it would be a deterministic chain according to my physics brain. So where where is agency with where is the bit of me that can go I'm going to make a decision and I'm going to make that neuron fire which will make my hand pick up the thing.
¶40I mean there there there's we we can't understand that and I don't know the answer to that. Um and I'm I'm going to leave it at sort of in that kind of space of hopefully some future creative scientist will come up with some framework to help me understand how that's possible. Um and that's where I'll leave it. But that but that's ties quite well into the question of the debate if it's is as things go you know by by 2100 uh and and things have like the from the biologist perspective the world is completely different to what it was before the end of the human genome project and that was that was when I was the age of these students here. So um you look at the rate of how things change um particularly with robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering or these things we mentioned.
¶41Um you mentioned those frontiers being pushed. >> Do you think some of these big questions even the big questions could be pushed completely beyond the frontier um in your lifetime? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean so AI is one of those great frontiers.
¶42So, you know, are is chat GPT conscious is one question that keeps kind of coming up. So, these large language models that we use to hopefully not write our essays. Um, are they conscious in some way? Um, I don't think they are. I don't think they are at all, but they could be.
¶43I mean, because they are. What are they doing? So they're taking a word or a phrase and they're predicting the next most likely thing to come within that sort of this big language model that they they've they've been trained on. Maybe that's what our brains do. Maybe we're just doing that.
¶44We're just coming up with the next likely thing and we're just a kind of model, a neural network, a real neural network, not an artificial one. And in that sense, maybe we're not actually conscious, but this is some sort of experience that kind of sits alongside that predictive model. And neuroscience is kind of saying the same thing that our conscious experience is just a predictive model. This is one area of neuroscience. It's not the only one.
¶45>> Um, so will AI provide some sort of insight into our own sort of experience of consciousness and free will and all those kind of things? It's possible. Or it may just be one of those problems that's still just not amunable to being cracked open. It seems to be a little bit self-defeating if you're kind of uh um you're you're saying that maybe you're self-determined. Sorry.
¶46You know, maybe you're just determined to be saying what you're saying, but then you're trying to say something that is true. You're saying that it's true, but then you know why why should I believe what you're saying if you're just determined to to to say that? Um >> yeah. So what is what is true becomes very slippery at that point. Right.
¶47>> So my so this sort of the neuroscience model of the world is that you know we are basically sense organs attached to a neural network >> and from the moment that we're born we start forming this model to predict the next sensory input and we just get very very good at and that's all that we have is this kind of sense of the world through that predictive model >> which intuition that we have that we're saying well that is just an intuition that uh is is wrong basically. >> I mean it could be it could I don't think and no one knows at this point I don't think whether it is we do we have free will or not because there's no way of testing it. >> I mean I guess I come from a slightly different point. I think we should be better at trusting our intuitions. Now it's a very dangerous thing to do because obviously science does push against our intuitions very often.
¶48Um but I kind of think that um you should sort of trust trust your intuitions more until there's something really definitive against it. So one example is special relativity. So there's this intuition that if I if my twin goes off to Alpha Centurion and comes back, he'll be the same age as me when he comes back. That's a strong intuition we might have, but we know that that's not actually going to be the case because of special relativity says um says differently, but it's I don't know. I can I can believe that time time runs faster as you go.
¶49It's not it's not that strong an intuition in me. Um whereas the intuition that I'm speaking truth is very very strong, I think. And and then and then also that I might as well just stop speaking if I if I don't believe that. The other thing I wanted to say is about determinism though you know a lot more about the how the brain works. Um but within kind of fundamental physics then determinism is not at all clear for for many different reasons.
¶50So you know the most deterministic thing you can think of is billyard balls snooker balls on a table. Um as as anyone who's played snooker knows you you may be quite good at hitting the white and then hitting the red over there. maybe less good at putting the red. Um, every time you hit a billyard ball, the inaccuracy grows. It grows exponentially, maybe 10 10 times each time.
¶51So very very quickly, these inaccur inaccuracies grow. So if you wanted to predict where all the billiard balls were after 20 30 uh collisions, you would have to know the precision of uh the initial shot to accuracy which goes far beyond what fundamental physics says you can do. There's there's um Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that says that uh position and momentum can't both be determined. Beyond that, with quantum gravity, there's good reasons to believe that there's this thing called the plank scale. Um which um which means the length scale is below I think it's something like 10^ the minus 30 something.
¶52>> Hey, I don't know. [laughter] >> Uh I should have looked that up first. um uh they don't make sense anymore because basically if you try and uh probe to that distance a black hole will form of that size. Um so you know this whole idea of determinism especially when you've got many many things going around what what does that really mean? There's there's no way that we can think that the the accuracy with which these initial conditions are there are have to be infiniteest you know really ridiculously small very very quickly.
¶53So in that sense, I don't think determinism is um is is a realistic uh thing within modern physics. >> Okay. Okay. So, when we're when we're asking these questions about what it means to be human and and where religion would fit into that, you think these a lot of these big questions are still going to be there regardless of >> Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't I again I wouldn't want to pin [laughter] pin everything on that sort of thing because as we've as we've discussed the science changes um you know I mean the argument I just said it's hard to see how how you can get around that however the science changes but will maybe maybe it will um >> so but but as I said I I mean my my reasons are more these meta questions these sort of self-referential things that that make me believe that it's something else and and of course in the person of of Jesus looking at the uh the gospels and those sorts of questions bring it >> you know right from [laughter] highutin stuff right back down to earth um and looking at evidence for the resurrection so they're the main things that I would I would go for yeah I I sense we could have a hundred mini debates slot out of this month. So I want to try and make sure I rain things in a little.
¶54Yeah. Um but it seems from Paul's side, you've got two things here. You got the question of of ultimate truth being ultimate truth and the sense that even though because especially because we're human, a lot of the big questions of meaning and purpose and value and and all of that will will still be there just because we're human. Um but what we've also got to consider is potential scientific revolution on the contrajectory of things going uh are people still going to be kneeling and praying in temples to Jesus on Mars or Alpha Centauri uh 100 years from now >> right yes okay I and again who knows but I would say probably I'd say probably so whilst I think it's perfectly uh consistent to have a model of the universe where there is no god in it. So my my internal model that I've constructed since birth doesn't have a god in it and it seems to work pretty well.
¶55I mean at least as well as you know sort of religious people's internal models for day-to-day life the kind of you know all the all the aspirations I have in the world and I'd argue that a lot of religious people act you know live as if there is no afterlife for example you know >> anyway that's there's another mini debate there so we're I still think there's this inherent human need and it's very easy to slip into that mode and most people don't have the kind of internal model that I have because I'm so embedded in science because of my my job and you know sort of that my university degree I have a very scientific worldview so maybe it's inevitable that sort of I have a non-religious worldview because of that I don't know but I think you can live any number of different ways and one of and many of them it's easy to kind of go into that mode of religious belief and I think that's been throughout the whole of human civilization so I wouldn't believe if there were temples on Olympus mons when it comes comes to it. Um it would that be I I mean is it a better thing, you know, a good thing or not? I don't know. But um I think we I think we can live without religion fundamentally and I think it's probably an easier way to live. >> If I try and frame this argument better within what people like Yvon Harrari are saying, um perhaps it would be helpful if I brought in some examples.
¶56So genetic engineering when it comes to things like aging or battling cancer something a lot more in your field if we can if we get to the point where we're so good at fighting back against the mechanisms of cancer and the mechanisms of aging through what we can do with gene editing technology and genomic medicine those sorts of things and and people are living to 200 years old and if someone's getting cancer you can you can meet it where it's at each time AI is fundamentally changing the way a lot of people do relationships. People are falling in love with their AI girlfriend and boyfriend. Um please don't do that students here. It's not going to lead anywhere good. Um and uh people are getting much more isolated in the way that we live.
¶57Is there not a situation here where the way we as humans live and do our lives is so different >> 50 100 years from now that the dynamic role that religion plays in society could vanish or at least change shape to such a way that it's really not like what we have today. >> I mean it is inevitable. I mean particularly when you put it that way but equally it's changed over the last 200 250 years. I mean, if you look at England, the UK over 250 years and relationship with the population with religion, it's completely different. And I mean, it's unrecognizable in many ways.
¶58If you said to someone 250 years ago, you won't have to go to church every Sunday. You will no longer be fined or put in prison for not go attending church. They would, you know, they probably see that as a positive thing depending on their worldview. Um so it it's inevitably going to change as is and that reflects a change in our understanding of ourselves and this kind of goes back to that question of truth. So understanding ourselves is a question about truth.
¶59So what what exists external to our own experience. So I'm coming from a perspective where I'm saying I've got an internal model that models my sensory inputs and somehow reflects something out there. And I believe there is a truth out there. I can't prove it, but I think there's something true and real that my model is an imperfect reflection of. So my sensory inputs are highly limited.
¶60It's just, you know, light. It's just sort of touch and those kinds of things. So it's probably going to miss 99% of everything that's out there or be some weird reflection of it. Or, you know, or maybe I can't even speak in those terms because they're completely human terms. So the more that science kind of pushes back and goes what about quantum gravity you know what about quantum mechanics I mean that's the most unintuitive area of science you know the more we we sort of understand the universe and our place in it the more our relationship changes with it and religion goes with that or maybe it changes or maybe becomes something different maybe humanism is the kind of next sort of iteration of religion in some way science maybe science isn't religion, nor is humanism, but you can see that it's, you know, it's it's it's that sort of dynamic interaction with our understanding of the world that everything ultimately follows.
¶61>> I wonder if given your story and experience, you think that the advances in the kinds of tech we've talked about will lead to the end of religion as a scientific explanation. Um, >> I think it already has. I don't think people see religious people understand that faith is a very different mechanism for believing in things than science is >> and that's where that divide is. If if if it's not easy to evidence that's where faith comes in and that's where gods come in and all all those kinds of things and you know if that works as a worldview then you know so be it. That's how you know we get by.
¶62>> I'm sure you've got some things to say. Well, yeah. No, I mean those questions >> I kind of agree wholeheartedly with most what you [laughter] just said. >> So, yeah, I you said your question was something about um religion being a >> a scientific explanation. >> Yeah, scientific explanation.
¶63I mean, I I don't think that that's the case. >> But what I was trying to frame it as religion answers the questions that are are much deeper and go beyond the science. science is so successful because it's in you know it's it's a it is a self-contained area but it's in it's in a box in some sense and um and and then we have these bigger philosophical questions that go go beyond almost in another dimension >> um so the idea that religion answers some scientific question never well as far as I'm not not in not in 20 certainly don't some people have used it that way >> yeah there are there are these fine-tuned constants that are consistent with life for example but you you won't see in a science journal that >> well that's because God God made them that no you >> I mean it may be a philosophical discussion to to have that but that's not really science that's going kind of beyond science um >> well do you mind if I ask you this before we get to questions um the year when someone is saying how should I live what's the right way to live what are the right choices I should make are they still going to the Bible and the Quran or are they going to Grock Claude Chat GPT or their their genomic medicine specialist dietician who's gene editing their diet for them to tell them how they should live instead >> or whatever the latest AI model is I mean who knows really I mean um you know I obviously believe that they will be going to the Bible and some people will be going to the Bible I believe that's true some some people will um will believe that but I mean in terms of the AI I I mean I use AI quite a bit. You I think like most people you you sort of veer from um thinking this is amazing to thinking oh it's load up because sometimes it gives you something that's completely wrong. Um a lot of the time it gives you very convincing stuff that that can be right and and sometimes wrong.
¶64Um I I don't think at least the current way that the LLMs are are going I'm not sure it's it's going to be the answer to everything. Um but you know there are obviously different ways of doing u doing machine learning. um you know I don't I don't think it will be conscious ever but that's >> we got >> I mean I have I have some I have some I have some other um I have some other reasons for that going along the arguments of Roger Penrose and and people about um computation and uh hum human brains and um mathematics of mathematical theories and things which we could go into but we probably run out of time >> maybe it will come up in the questions. Could we both um give our guests a big round of appreciation for um nature and their thoughts? Okay, we have a great question here about the dynamic way that Christianity has changed over time.
¶65Uh if the Christianity in 2100 is really really different to the Christianity of today. Um is it still uh the true Christianity at all? >> Yes. Well, it was also about medieval Christianity ch being very different. I mean I'm not sure the fundamental tenets uh are very different.
¶66And there may there may be different interpretations of of of small things, but the the fundamentals of of a god who created the world of um of his son who came to earth um who died for us um and uh the basic creeds were sort of set down uh quite early on. Um so but the fundamental tenants of Christianity I wouldn't say have changed very much and so I wouldn't necessarily see they need to change. I mean it's very helpful I think this idea of the two books the book of uh scripture the Bible and the book of the world and um you know for me it's a there's a cohesive truth um sometimes they they may appear to be in conflict and um and one has to has to understand things in that context. >> That's a terrific question for both of our guests here. You were raised in a completely non-religious home.
¶67You were raised in a Christian home. Let's imagine that we wipe the sake completely blank. Okay. Do you think based on the current knowledge that we have which is growing um we would still as humans end up with the kind of beliefs that we have today and that you have landed on yourself? I'll start with you Simon.
¶68>> So yes to an extent because I think the forms of religion that we have are pretty much reflections of what we are as humans. So I think there you know it goes that way round is my belief in it that you know religion comes from humans therefore they are human shaped. So if humans maintain their shape then religions would form the same shape. I hoped you're going to ask about science as well. So there's I think it's a Ricky Jay's quote saying about science you know if you scrubbed all the textbooks it would come back looking exactly the same.
¶69I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Um, and I going back to LLMs, we did an experiment a while ago looking whether we could distinguish between whether cells were going to go on to die in a flask or whether they'd survive. Um, and the parameters that it spat out predicted perfectly whether a cell was going to die or not from Mike, you know, a few days beforehand, but not relating to any single thing that we could determine was the thing was, you know, what was it using to make that prediction, we couldn't work it out from the LLM. And I think science is a bit potentially like that that it could take a form that's like 90 degrees tilted to what we have currently and it would be called something else and it might work just as well but it would be different. So yeah.
¶70>> Wow. Fascinating. Um what would your answer to the question be? So um well I guess I I I think the religious belief I uh believe in Christianity as I've tried to kind of outline the reasons for it. So I it's kind of a two-pronged approach really belief in in in a god uh and that comes from the sort of existential meta questions um that we've discussed.
¶71Why do we exist? And um how can we do science? Why do we think? These bigger questions I think are answered successfully if you believe in a in a theistic God. And then second of all, the more concrete um uh discussion of of Jesus of Nazareth uh that you we find in the Bible.
¶72It's a historical person looking at the evidence for that. So that is there and it seems to me that will remain there. Um so I would expect uh Christianity, Christian belief as we said before to be kind of largely the same as it has been and is >> a question for both our guests here. Why neither of you identified science specifically as the reason why you think uh religion will decline? Um Simon, you first.
¶73Um I think I I think science is one of the big reasons that religion might decline because as our understanding of the world increases and we get better at making predictions about the world we need to rely less on faithbased beliefs and there's this sort of idea of the god of the gaps which is a bit offensive to you know if you push it too far but the idea that when you don't understand something you say okay it's a god thing and those gaps get smaller and smaller and smaller as we understand the world better and better. So I think kind of they are linked. >> Yeah. >> Paul. >> Okay.
¶74No, good. Thanks. Um I obviously disagree. [laughter] Um the God of the G I'm not I'm not convinced the God of the gaps kind of thing has ever been much of a much of a motivation. I think these bigger questions are the motivation for belief in God.
¶75Um so why has it decreased is a very interesting question. I mean I don't know. It's a sort of a sociological question. I I I to some degree. I mean, maybe we don't feel that we need God as much.
¶76We um you know, we're a lot more comfortable in in modern western society than we have been. Maybe we spend less time thinking about things, spend more time watching telly or on phones. And there's many sort of reasons I I could come up with. I think I mean there clearly is a narrative about science. The narrative of God of the gaps.
¶77Um probably is a big influence I guess on many people. You know the idea that evolution sort of explains where we come from uh influences people. So I I also cannot deny that um science um has affected belief in God as well. I just question whether that's accurate for it to do so. I suppose.
¶78Great. So, we just had a great question. Uh, again, just following up this idea of wiping the slate clean. There are a lot of ideas in the Bible and and also the Quran and text like that that appear to come from special revelation. We're just wondering with the way societies go, if we were to wipe the slate clean, do you think we would still um be building our societies with the same ideas um that seem to have appeared from special revelation or holy scripture?
¶79or do you think we would end up being a very very different human race, human society altogether? I'll start with you, Paul. >> Yeah, I think there's well, there's a lot going on there. I mean, I I think we have these intuitions that for me are god-given intuitions. Um, moral intuitions, which I guess is is largely what we're talking about here.
¶80Um, but I do think we need specific revelation. We have we you know in the Bible we do have specific revelation from God and more specifically to tell us it's a bit of a mixture of both. I think we can go a certain way from certain way with our intuition but uh but we need revelation to really tell us what's going on. >> Okay. I imagine with your with your earlier discussion about um religions being human shaped I can guess what your answer might be to this.
¶81But >> it is and I yeah I don't want to throw in the lowb blow of slavery but there you know that it's the classic example that in the American war of independence the north used the Bible to justify abolishing slavery the south used it to carry on owning slaves and you know that's often the way with all religious texts is that there's no kind of clear definitely don't do this definitely do do this is is very open to interpretation. So even if the the slate were wiped clean, maybe it would come back with this sort of slightly uncertain sense of morality that, you know, intuition helps us with, but it's still unclear often how to behave with reference to a spiritual text, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. Uh great question.
¶82We've also had a question here about consciousness and the nature of consciousness. Now, um you both deal a lot with modeling and you both deal a lot with mathematics. Um and so the question here is the nature of consciousness being fundamentally a physical thing or do we think that there's something else going on there? Um I'll start with you Paul. >> Well this this famous sort of hard problem of consciousness that I think people have probably heard of which is which again is is intuition we have we have this intuition of uh you know people talk about the color color green or or whatever it is the feeling that it has within us.
¶83It's something very personal. Um, and it's very hard to see how um that can come from from purely physical um stuff. On the other hand, you know, we look around, we see pure purely [laughter] physical stuff. So, there's a there's a big question there and that I don't think I'm qualified to to answer really. Um, what what do I want to say?
¶84I mean the >> what would be your best guess? >> I mean I I tend to veer away from consciousness and go to a bit more towards um selfconsciousness or um you know reasoning the sort of discussion we had before how how are we self-aware? How are we self-conscious? Um, and the I as as I did briefly mentioned the sort of arguments that can be made more a bit more precise than I'm I'm giving here which are more intuitive that um I think there's there's two urging of there's this Penrose one which is which argues that the brain cannot be a computer very rigorously um via kind of Girdle's incompleteness theorem to do with mathematics and then there's an argument by planting who's a kind of a theologian, philosopher. Um, and he his what what's he saying?
¶85He he basically says that naturalism and evolution is a bit along the lines we were saying before. Um, is kind of self-defeating along the lines of because how can I trust my own thoughts and views if I'm just naturalistic and and and evolved? I'm, you know, the brain is essentially just doing what it does, but it doesn't necessarily have to map onto any sort of truth. So, um, those are the sorts of arguments I I like and I find them pretty convincing. They're they're both they they tie in with my intuition as well as being a little bit more rigorous.
¶86Um, well, very rigorous. >> Yeah, true. What do you reckon to consciousness? Is there a ghost in the machine? Well, yeah, this is what we were talking about before a little bit, but >> I I mean, I can throw in pansychism at this point, which is the idea that um consciousness has is the fundamental element of reality.
¶87>> Um is it I don't know. I It seems unlikely. There's variance on it as well that there's this one universal consciousness that we're a kind of instantiation of. Yeah, I >> forget the name of that, but you know, it's it's in that realm of ideas that are hard to prove, which is kind of the same as the hard problem of consciousness. So, how do I demonstrate that you're conscious?
¶88I know I am, but is anyone else? you seem to be but >> you know in compellingly so the uh but it's >> these these are all sort of ideas that are hard to prove and they for me put them in the same realm as religious claims that they're they're difficult to prove possibly by design. So >> um is pansychism true? I I I don't subscribe to it but equally if it were shown to be true that would be amazing. >> Well it would be interesting wouldn't it?
¶89>> Yeah. >> Excellent. Thank you for the question. Fantastic question here and I'm going to start with you on this Paul. Is the search for God an an empty vein uh exercise?
¶90Uh does the fact that people are hungry and searching for and what CS Lewis called like the the reaching up for God is is that necessarily a sign of anything other than just >> well I I suppose our own projection um or is it all just an empty quest? >> Well, I mean that alone of course is is not a proof of anything. It's a suggestion maybe. Um but um ultimately I'm not going to I'm not going to um have my belief in God based purely on the fact that I kind of have this uh feeling of a search for God. I think that there's I'm trying to say something a bit more precise about our intuitions and about certain arguments um that that we've talked about that kind of go beyond um beyond the kind of narrow confines of science.
¶91Science is amazing, beautiful in its own realm. But then as soon as you go beyond that, it there's the idea that there's something more. You know, we've talked about panic that's something beyond science and beyond naturalism. And so this idea there is something more. So on once you allow the idea that there's something more in then you know there's a little tink there there's a little gap and um and then you can start exploring what that something more could be and I I I take your point very strongly that it you can't prove it it's not the same as science can't put numbers in and and show that this formula you know outputs the right the right results uh in quite the same way it's a different sort of knowledge but equally it doesn't mean it's sort of in invalid knowledge.
¶92So then we search around and and and look at the various arguments and there are very powerful arguments um in favor of God. And then again coming back to the specifics of Christianity, there's this historical event that also deserves looking carefully at. >> Simon, what do you make of the religious instinct in people? Um I I again I think it's it's a search part of our search for meaning which is part of our search for survival within the universe. So we we've it's is an evolutionary sort of uh emergent property.
¶93I don't like the idea of emergence but it's that kind of idea. It's a you know it's a result of exactly that process. Um so yeah I don't think it's really different. So the idea of what you're saying that because people are looking does that mean that there's something to be sought? I think everyone would agree that that's not compelling.
¶94Um but I think it's often used as a sort of rationale. You think well you know there's got to be something there because everyone's kind of looking for it. So um I I think sort of shining light on that is a good thing cuz you know and then we can reflect and go oh why are we doing this and that sort of sense of introspection which is great what we're doing here is kind of you know all sharing that sort of reflecting on our own sense of the universe and how we understand it is a really good thing. >> Excellent. So uh we we've got a final question here on whe whether Christianity and religious frameworks are necessary when we have uh atheists and humanists and uh skeptics in our presence who are not raging criminals.
¶95Um why positity or or or divine beings or divine frameworks uh to make sense of how we should live when we see all around us people without them who are living what what we would call good lives. >> Sure. I mean, uh, you don't need a faith to live a good life. Indeed, people with faith often don't live good lives. Um, but I don't for I cannot see where the kind of uh the basis for giving living a good life in some sense comes from.
¶96Again, it there's an intuition there which I think I can explain comes from God. There's an intuition that we should live a good life. But uh what the ultimate reason for it would be if we're just determined machines in some sense then um why why should I not just do exactly how I feel in any any situation. Um I'm very glad that people don't don't live like that but I don't I don't see the reason behind it. So it's not it's it's distinguishing between the the actions and kind of the um the basis the the meta questions behind uh morality.
¶97>> Brilliant. Thank you so much and thank you everybody. It's been great fun. I've enjoyed this very much. I'm looking forward to continuing it as we have lunch.
¶98Um but uh thank you for joining us. I hope you've enjoyed this um this episode of Unbelievable. Look forward to having you both on the show again in future [music] sometime. And thank you to Samry Floyd Grammar School for hosting us today.