'Belief' Transcript: Radio 3

Lord Martin Rees Interview

Q = Question
A = Answer

Q Today, my conversation concerning belief is with someone who deals in concepts to boggle the mind. Our sun is just an ordinary star in a galaxy of some hundred billion stars. There are as many galaxies as there are stars. The 'Big Bang' happened some ten to fifteen billion years ago. Life on earth has been evolving for some four and a half billion years. Such big numbers are a matter of daily discourse for someone who's spent a lifetime as a distinguished astrophysicist, who's currently Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, and Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge University, where he's also Master of Trinity College. He is Lord Rees of Ludlow - Professor Martin Rees.

And indeed his awards and honours in the world of Cosmology and Astrophysics can also be counted in big numbers. He's written some five hundred research papers, lectured around the world, been honoured in many countries and universities. Yet he remains keen to communicate his subject to the public. Of his seven books, five are intended to make the cosmos intelligible to a general readership. They include 'Our Cosmic Habitat'; 'Just Six Numbers'; and 'Our Final Century' - a powerful polemic in which he sets out his concern that human civilisation might well not survive another hundred years. From anyone with a less scholarly and knowledgeable background, we might call it alarmist.

Professor Rees, these numbers are amazing to anyone who isn't a professional, and I wonder to what extent the awesomeness of the subject and the cosmology affects the way your imagination and intelligence works on them.

A Well it doesn't make me worry any less about what happens next year, next week, or tomorrow, so one does have a disjunction between one's everyday life and one's academic pursuit. But I think it does have a slight difference in giving me a perspective on the long-range future as well as the long-range past. And perhaps seeing things in a slightly broader perspective in space and time.

Q But you don't feel an infinitely tiny speck of no significance?

A I don't because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. It may be the only place where there's life like us. And so what makes things fascinating is how complicated they are and not how big they are. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity.

Q It's customary in a sense - or perhaps it's simply a habit of mind - to think of ourselves as the most evolved and therefore the culmination of some cosmic achievement. Which also suggests that perhaps we've 'plateaued' and we're now confronting the end time of the human race.

A I think there's no reason to believe that. There's no reason to believe we're the culmination. Indeed, you could argue that evolution is proceeding far faster now than ever in the past, because whereas in the past, evolution proceeded via Darwinian selection, where species took about a million years to evolve and become extinct, now evolution is proceeding on a historical or technical time-scale of centuries or even less. And so if we look a few hundred years ahead, then even on that time - tiny by Darwinian standards - human beings may have changed into something else. So evolution is far faster than before, so there's even less reason in my opinion to regard us as the culmination. And when we think of the immense cosmic time-scales and the fact that intelligence could spread beyond the earth, then I would say we should regard ourselves as some stage in an immensely prolonged process whose later stages are beyond human comprehension.

Q Do we have any powers over this development?

A Well in a sense this perhaps gives us an extra motive for stewardship of our planet now, because quite apart from our concern about ourselves as humans and our immediate descendants, we perhaps should see ourselves as the stewards for very long term evolution. So that if we snuff out evolution now, we destroy the potentiality of what may come far after any human beings.

Q Well let's stay in the here and now and, or indeed go back to your, your origins. Because both parents were teachers…

A Mm-hm

Q …and clearly quite a, a scholarly, knowing family. Er…

A Mm-hm

Q …devout, in any way?

A Em no. I think I grew up in a conventional Church of England background, but not especially devout.

Q But churchgoing?

A Churchgoing, and I went to a school where we all went to chapel, so that was part of my life. But I would say I was never a really dogmatic believer.

Q Did it have any impact at all?

A I suppose I absorbed it as part of my culture, and indeed for that reason I still attend church and chapel services, and enjoy the ritual and the music.

Q Now you chose to study Maths. I wonder what…was operating in your imagination to make that choice?

A Well I suppose looking back to childhood, one really drifts, and choices are made for you, and I really ended up studying Mathematics at university because I had proved good at Maths and Science. I had actually proved rather bad at languages, which meant that I veered towards the Science side in my sixth form at school. And that led me to study Maths at university, but I quickly realised I wasn't cut out to be a mathematician.

Q So it wasn't a burning desire at that time to follow a particular pursuit?

A Not at all, no.

Q So when did we arrive at that?

A Well I think when I graduated in Mathematics, I became fascinated by various subjects. And I oscillated between trying to study Economics or trying to study a subject like Astrophysics, because I knew already that I was not very good at long, deductive chains of thought. I liked a synthetic or synoptic style of thinking. I liked the idea of trying to make sense of a whole lot of data, see patterns, etc, etc. And I would have enjoyed Economics but I was quite lucky because this was the mid to late 1960s, and at that time our ideas about the universe were changing. There was the first evidence there was a 'Big Bang' to start our universe, the first evidence that things called black holes might actually exist, etc. And so I started to do academic research for a PhD in that subject.

Q Now that's an interesting time isn't it, because I remember Fred Hoyle having an enormous reputation at that time.

A Mm-hm

Q But he believed in the steady universe…

A That's right, mm.

Q …theory, and was subsequently quite soon proved wrong, because the 'Big Bang' was as it were (laughing) 'discovered' at that time. Were you party to what was going on then?

A Well I was slightly too young to participate in those debates. But you're quite right in saying that in the 1950s and the early 1960s, there was a big debate, particularly in this country, between those who believed there was a 'Big Bang' that started the universe and those who believed that the universe existed as it were from everlasting to everlasting. That it went on expanding, but new galaxies and new atoms were created all the time, so it always looked the same. And Fred Hoyle along with Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold were very vocal advocates of the idea of a 'steady state' universe. Now in the '50s and early '60s there was no way of deciding observationally between that theory and the 'Big Bang', and only after the mid -'60s did it become possible to show that the universe wasn't in a steady state. Essentially because we found evidence that very far away, and therefore very far back in time, the universe was not the same as it is here and now. And so that clinched the case for some sort of evolving 'Big Bang' universe against the 'steady state'. And that was one of the new developments in the 1960s which opened up the subject and made cosmology less a philosophical subject, and more a scientific subject.

Q Right, well the questions get very simple from now on. Is the 'Big Bang' explanation of the universe true, or is it merely a theory?

A I would say it's supported by as much evidence as many other scientific concepts are. For instance, a geologist will tell you about the early history of the earth based on fossils and geological strata, etc. And I would say that the evidence for a 'Big Bang' when the universe was all heated to ten billion degrees and was expanding on the time scale of a second is just as convincing as anything that geologists will tell you about the earth. So I would say that the evidence is now as strong as the evidence for most scientific theories.

Q So is there such a concept as 'before the 'Big Bang'?'

A Well, there's a concept but we have to think about what that would mean. Because when you use the word 'before' and 'after' you imply that you have a clock which ticks away. And among the theories which people speculate about for the very, very early stages of the universe, one idea is that we can't any more think of space and time in the way we normally do, with three dimensions of space, and time as an extra dimension ticking away. Maybe there are extra dimensions - maybe time is more complicated. And so it may not be possible to talk about 'before and after' in this extreme situation.

Q That gives way of course, for religious people to say 'Ah - The Creator was there.' What do you make of the use of such a word? A Well I find it hard to understand. I'm, I would just say that in all of science we have things we understand and of course beyond that, things which are still mysterious. And the aim is that as science develops, the area of consensus grows and the frontiers of our understanding advance. But as that happens, more new mysteries come into focus just beyond those frontiers.

Q Well…

A And so I would say it's an immense achievement of science that we can now talk with a straight face about what happened all times, at least a millisecond after the 'Big Bang'. Whereas if we go back to Newton, he could not talk about the origin of our earth, even, so we've made tremendous progress.

Q Nonetheless, you must be aware that theologically, there's something called the 'god of the gaps'…

A Mmm

Q …which when science can't explain anything, along come believers, and who say 'Well that is because there is, overarching all that you, however extensive the research you've done, be…overarching all of that is God.'

A Yes. Well I mean I think the 'god of the gaps' concept is not taken very seriously by most theologians, because obviously the gaps are gradually closed off with our advancing knowledge. And I would say that it's almost arrogant to invoke 'the god of the gaps', because it implies that if there's something that we can't yet understand, it's something beyond human understanding. I would say that if there's a scientific mystery we can't yet understand, it just signals we haven't thought long enough or hard enough yet, and we should just try harder. And most of the problems which we confront in science are still awaiting a solution - science is still just beginning. As it advances, its frontiers get longer. So I would say that most of the problems that scientists raise are still unsolved and that just indicates that science is just beginning.

Q Certain scientists of course have given 'hostages to fortune'. I mean Stephen Hawking I think is a contemporary of yours. He spoke about 'looking into the mind of God', Einstein famously said that God 'did not play dice'.

A Mm-hm

Q The use of the word 'God' sort of hands the argument across to the believers.

A Yes. I think it's unfortunate and regrettable when scientists use God in that, terms. I mean I would say that they often reveal a certain naïveté about theology, and I think it's far better if one doesn't. I mean I believe that there can be a peaceful co-existence between science and theology if not very much in the way of constructive dialogue, and I think it's unfortunate when people use that kind of rhetoric.

Q W…and what about in your personal life? Is there … you're on record as saying that you're a churchgoer who doesn't believe in God.

A Well that's right. I would say I don't believe any religious dogma in that if science teaches me anything, it teaches me that even simple things, like a hydrogen atom, are pretty hard to understand. And therefore I become rather sceptical of anyone who claims to have more than a very incomplete, metaphorical understanding of any deep aspects of reality. So I'm sceptical of anyone who claims confidently to believe any dogma. But nonetheless I share with religious people a concept of the mystery and wonder of the universe, and even more of human life and therefore participate in religious services. And of course those I participate in are as it were, the 'customs of my tribe', which happens to be the Church of England.

Q Do you feel that therefore to adopt theological language, there is 'purpose' in the universe?

A I think to introduce that word is being very anthropomorphic. I mean I think we can understand purpose in a human context. I think it's really arrogant to talk about the entire universe and ascribe purpose to it, because another thing which I feel very strongly is that there may be aspects of physical reality which are beyond human brains' capacity to understand. It's amazing that we have got as far as we have in understanding the universe and atoms etc, but I think there are many aspects of reality which we may never understand as I said, because our brains aren't up to it. And that being so, I think it is rather arrogant to ascribe a purpose to the entire cosmos.

Q Douglas Adams, who you quote (laughs) quite ..

A (Laughs)

Q …amiably, of course said that the 'Meaning of Life' was the number forty-two.

A Mm-hm.

Q Little did we realise that in fact the meaning of (laughing) the, of the universe is just six numbers - the title…

A Mm-hm

Q …of one of your books.

A Yes

Q And that just six numbers measure something about the cosmos.

A Well they're not the whole story. But the theme of my book was that there are six important numbers in the universe, which determine how big it is, what it's made of, how strong the forces are governing it, etc. And if those numbers were different, then the entire universe would look very different and behave very differently. And so what is remarkable about our universe is that it started off in this state, when it could be described by a fairly small number of parameters. And from those simple beginnings over this time of ten or fifteen billion years, it has evolved into the immense complexity of stars, planets and biospheres, life and human brains.

Q But what you've also…

A (Cough)

Q …said is that the properties that came from the 'Big Bang' were those that made the emergence of intelligent life inevitable. So that this was programmed in from that first moment.

A It seems to have been in the sense that we can look back over what's happened in cosmic history. We can understand the processes that led to the formation of the first stars and galaxies, the first planets, the first atoms, and the origins of life here on earth, and perhaps elsewhere. And so we can understand how this happened in outline, even though the details still elude us, and it looks as though it was an outcome of fairly simple laws, acting themselves out over immense spans of space and time.

Q And do those laws apply anywhere in the universe?

A Well they do seem to apply anywhere we can see in the universe, which is remarkable of course. We could imagine an anarchic universe, where different laws prevailed in different places we looked. Were that the case of course, we'd make no progress at all in understanding things. But it does seem as though the same physical laws which we can study in the lab apply in distant stars and galaxies. We can study the light from atoms in distant galaxies, and that light indicates the atoms are the same there as here.

Q I find that…amazing.

A It is amazing and were that not the case then we would not make any progress. Of course one speculation which has been a focus of my research in recent years has been that perhaps on a still grander scale, that is not so true. Maybe the universe we can observe through our telescope - vast though it is - may not be all the physical reality. There may be other domains far beyond that, and of course they may be very different. They may be governed by different laws…

Q Different universes?

A Different universes governed by different sets of numbers from the numbers that govern ours.

Q You've spoken about the limitations of the human brain. Will the human brain one day be able to comprehend more than it does today? A Well we don't know. Perhaps you should re-phrase that and say 'Will brains be able to?' because they may not be human brains, and of course here…

Q Artificial intelligence.

A Well they could be. I mean here I think, science fiction is (laughing) as good a guide as anything scientists can say. And of course, we're well aware of the possibility that there could be some kind of intelligence which may be silicone based rather than biological, which could in some respects, surpass what we can do. And that's just one respect in which we should regard human intellect as in no sense the culmination.

Q But may in fact human beings…quite soon in your terms, be redundant?

A Well I wouldn't say 'redundant', but we're used to already the fact that machines can surpass our human intellect in a number of ways. we've been familiar for thirty years with things we can buy for five pounds that can calculate better than we can, and we don't regard that as superseding human brains. But it could be that fifty years from now, there will be machines that can mimic other aspects of human thought. But that doesn't mean in any sense they'll make us redundant, but the kind of thing which is more important for the future of human life in my opinion, is the consequence of developments in biology. Possible new drugs, genetic modification and things like that, which may indeed change human nature within the next few centuries.

Q And we would not be the same people we are today?

A That's certainly a possibility - and here again I'm not an expert on this subject - but many experts have made the point that it would be possible to change human nature and human physique in a few generations.

Q Right, let's look outward again. Are there going to be life somewhere else in the universe 'out there'?

A Well that's a fascinating question. All we know is that life evolved from simple beginnings here on earth into the immense biosphere that we are part of. We don't know quite how life began here on earth - that's one of the mysteries still. And until we understand how life began here on earth, we can't really say on theoretical grounds how likely it is that life started elsewhere.

Q But what do you believe to be the case?

A Well I think belief's irrelevant. We've got to be agnostic and say this is a subject where science is just beginning. We've learnt in the last decade that many other stars - perhaps even most stars - have planets orbiting around them, just as the sun has its planets, including the earth. And so there are lots and lots of planets in our galaxy, many of which are probably rather like the young earth. And so we can ask the question 'Did life get started on those, and if it got started, did that life evolve into something as complicated as human beings or mammals?' We don't know the answer to that question. I think if I was asked to bet, I would bet that it's quite likely that simple life at least is fairly widespread. But even if we believe that, it doesn't follow that intelligent life is widespread in the universe. It's an open question, and I would say one of the most fascinating questions for twenty-first century science to address.

Q How soon will we know?

A I've no idea. I think within fifty years or less, we should have a clearer idea of how life began, and whether there's simple life elsewhere. We might find evidence for it in our solar system, we might find evidence for it by studying in detail planets around other stars. Of course the real jackpot would be finding evidence for intelligent life and as you know, there are experiments being done to look for radio signals that might be indicators of intelligence. I'm in favour of privately financed programmes to do that kind of investigation but I wouldn't really hold out any great hope of success. But it seems to me it would be so fascinating and so important to everyone - not just to scientists - that it's worth a modest investment to see if we can answer that question.

Q Professor Rees, you've taken a thousand pound bet…

A Mm.

Q …that in the next twenty years a million people will die as a result of a major, man-made, biological catastrophe. That's bio-error or bio-terror.

A Mm-hm

Q Well I hope you lose the bet. But what makes you so pessimistic?

A Well of course I hope I lose the bet. But what I was thinking was that it may be possible (cough) within ten or twenty years for 'lone weirdos' as it were - the kind of people who now design computer viruses - to actually design real viruses. And it might be possible therefore, by error or by terror for one of those viruses to cause an epidemic and an epidemic in one of the mega cities of the developing world in particular could have dramatic consequences. I desperately hope to lose this bet, but it's interesting - on the website where this bet appeared people who log on have been allowed to say do they agree or disagree. And when I last looked it was rather interesting. There was two hundred people had voted on either side, so my view is about a consensus between pessimism and optimism.

Q Your book 'Our Final Century' is a sequence of essays on a great diversity of different subjects, all of which have a bad prognosis - climate change, population growth and so on. is there any good news?

A There is indeed. Perhaps my book was rather pessimistic in tone. But I think there's a lot of good news. I think the most immediate good news is that what is driving technology and economic development now is information technology and bio-tech and those are benign, both environmentally and socially. They don't consume raw materials, they allow people to live a better life all over the world. And so the developments which are the outgrowth of science now are having a very benign consequence. So I think the answer to the problems raised by science is more and better directed science, it's not to put the brakes on science. And the main reason I wrote the book was to alert people to the danger so that by engaging in dialogue with the wider public and politicians, there's a greater chance of minimising the downside and using science to maximum benefit. Not just for us, but for the developing world - and also engaging with the ethical issues - because obviously science, particularly biotech, is confronting us with a novel set of ethical concerns. And the scientists themselves have no particular remit in ethics, but they should try to engage in dialogue with the wider public to ensure that guidelines and regulation is established in an optimum way.

Q Nonetheless, in all seriousness, weighing up the odds, you reckon we've only a fifty-fifty chance of surviving in the civilisation as we know it, for the next hundred years?

A Well what I said in my book - and I still would feel this is not unduly pessimistic - is there's a fifty percent chance of something as bad as a global nuclear war. Indeed, there may be a risk of global nuclear war if there's some realignment of superpowers in the next fifty years which is handled less well, or less luckily than the stand-off between East and West was in the '60s and '70s. But also technology's developing so fast that there may be different kinds of threats. And what I would say is that this century's the first one in which the main threats come from the actions of humankind, rather than from nature. And therefore we have an extra responsibility to ensure that these risks are minimised, and that we harness the development of science for human benefit.

Q So considering the political world as you see it today - and you sit in the House of Lords -do you have a benign view of humanity? Do you believe its destiny is in good hands?

A I don't think the answer I'd give now is different from the answer people would have given at almost any other time and place. It's a mixture. But I think we have greater responsibilities now in that the range of actions which we can take have a greater power for good or ill than in the past. And therefore it's all the more important that all of us, particularly all scientists, should be engaged in the political process and in trying to have dialogue with the wider public in order to ensure that the benefits of science are maximised, and that we handle properly the dangers and the ethical dilemmas.

Q Are we going to be up to it?

A Well I would hope so. We have as in the past to handle these as well as possible. And as I said I had my fifty percent prognosis of avoiding a serious setback. I just hope that I prove too pessimistic in that respect.

Q How do you feel about your own life and the fact that it won't go on forever? Do you regard there as any prospect beyond?

A (Pause) I don't. In fact, I had a rather amusing interaction with a Californian group that tries to freeze people to revive in two hundred years. They interviewed me on their website. And I said that I'd rather end my life in an English churchyard than a Californian refrigerator. And I strongly believe that, but this promoted anger on the part of the adherents of this Californian group. They thought I was a 'deathist' and a pessimist in not wanting to live much longer. But I certainly am entirely reconciled to not living very much longer. Q But the Christian idea of salvation and life after death is one thing. But people who don't believe in that nonetheless believe in some kind of survival of energy or atomic force, or power, or…and all these are abstractions which are culled from, y'know, populist er…

A Mm-hm, hmm…

Q …writing. Does any of that hold water in any scientific terms?

A Well we can't be sure. But I certainly don't believe that my identity is going to survive my death, although I, I hope that some of my influence may survive my death. And I personally think that, that is the best aspiration which we should all have - that our influence and our creations may survive and memories of us may survive.

Q You've pictured for me quite specifically where we are right now, in time, in the middle of all these numbers, but not at a culmination, possibly at the start of something.

A Mm-hm.

Q Do you feel it's a very good time to be alive and to be a scientist?

A I certainly think it is, Certainly on the thirty years I've been doing science there's been a steadily rising gradient. And the rate of discovery, the rate of advance has been ever more exciting, and I think the potential for future discovery is extremely bright. So this is the period where things are developing fast, and it's therefore a challenge to ensure that the benefits to the whole world are maximised. And also of course to realise that science is part of our culture, just as Darwin was part of nineteenth century culture, and has been ever since, so the science which we are discovering now about the universe is part of common culture. And I derive less satisfaction from my own science if I could only talk to a few other specialists about it. It's a real bonus that a wider public is interested in these big questions about was there a beginning, is the universe infinite, will it go on forever, is there life elsewhere, etc. So I find it exhilarating that I'm working in subjects that are not just of narrow, specialist interest, but are really part of our culture as well as perhaps having some impact on people's lives.

Q Professor Rees, thank you very much.