Inaugural Event at Northwestern

July 22, 2020

INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY:

​​Exploring the Mysteries of Existence, from Microbes to the Cosmos

The Faculty Roundtable at Northwestern launched in the Summer of 2020 with over 140 Northwestern faculty and over 686 participants across several of our partner Roundtable sites. Virtual presentations were given by Dartmouth’s Marcelo Gleiser (Physics & Astronomy) and MIT's Cullen Buie (Mechanical Engineering) followed by mixed discipline and mixed university breakout rooms.

Intellectual humility is a foundational value of Faculty Roundtables and this event helped set the tone for future Roundtables at Northwestern. You can view the recording here.

To prepare for this Roundtable, the following three optional items were suggested:

  1. The Joy of Being Wrong - a three minute video overview of intellectual humility by the Templeton Foundation

  2. Intellectual Humility - Templeton’s intellectual humility page with other resources

  3. The Importance of Knowing You Might Be Wrong - a fifteen minute article from Vox

The suggested discussion questions were as follow:

  1. How would you describe intellectual humility?  What does it look like in your day-to-day world?  In what ways do your personal religious or philosophical views and experiences shape this understanding?

  2. What is an example where intellectual humility — a willingness to recognize you might be wrong — helped you resolve a sticky problem or see something in a new way that released you to move forward? 

  3. What does intellectual humility look like in your academic discipline or leadership responsibilities?  Where do you think your endeavors could benefit from more intellectual humility — or from less.

  4. In an interview with Scientific American, Marcelo Gleiser — who considers himself an agnostic — said, “Physics has allowed me to think deeply about some of the most fundamental questions we can ask … I guess I’ve always been a metaphysician disguised as a theoretical physicist.” Q: What do you love about your work? What aspects of it (if any) touch on metaphysical or spiritual realms? How do those aspects and experiences strengthen your capacity for intellectual humility?

_______

WHAT SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD THINK ABOUT RELIGION AND WHY IT MATTERS

nOVEMBER 12, 2020

In this event, Elaine Howard Ecklund and David R. Johnson presented core findings from the largest and most comprehensive international study of scientists' attitudes toward religion, ethics and gender ever undertaken, including a survey of 20,000 scientists and in-depth interviews with over 600 of them. They explored the nuances of what scientists think about ethics, religion and spirituality as well as opportunities for scientific and religious communities to better understand and appreciate each other. Attendees then participated in mixed discipline and mixed university breakout rooms to discuss critical questions regarding the science-religion interface.

After laying a foundation of intellectual humility in our inaugural event, this second Roundtable gave an overview of how scientists in the academy view the interface between science and religion. You can view the recording here. Slides from the presentation can be viewed here.

To prepare for this Roundtable, the following two optional items were suggested:

  1. Journal Article - Ecklund, Elaine Howard, David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, Kirstin R.W. Matthews, and Steven W. Lewis. 2016. “Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions,” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 2:1-9.

  2. Book Feature Interview - Secularity and Science: What Scientists Around the World Really Think About Religion Book Feature in the INCHE September 2019 Contact Newsletter.

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. How do you see the relationship between science and religion? Why do you think collaboration is a minority view even among religious scientists?

  2. How might scientific and religious communities better partner to encourage women to enter scientific careers? How might scientific and religious communities better partner to encourage racial minorities to enter science careers? Who in the scientific community should lead such partnership?

  3. Vocal atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris espouse a rhetoric of atheism that does not align with what most atheist scientists think about religion. Do you believe this is a problem? What, if anything, could done to address the myth that most atheist scientists are hostile to religion?

_______

GOD & THE HUMAN MIND

How Do Cognitive Science and Neuroscience Interface with Religion?

jANUARY 27, 2021

A discussion on some of the latest research regarding the cognitive science and neuroscience of religion and what implications those findings might have for religious belief. Featured panelists included Tania Lombrozo (Cognitive Science, Princeton), Jordan Grafman (Neuroscience, Northwestern), and Justin Barrett (Cognitive Science, Blueprint 1543).

Having reflected on intellectual humility as the way we explore the interface between science and religion, and after taking a sociological look at how scientists in the academy perceive religion, we now turned our attention to an area at the cutting edge of the interface between science and religion. You can view the recording here.

SUGGESTED PRE-EVENT READINGS & VIDEOS

  1. Scientific Explanations for the Mind and Religious Belief (18-minute video) – Tania Lombrozo discusses scientific explanations for the mind and religious belief.

  2. Religion and the Brain: A Debate (17 pages if printed) – Jordan Grafman debates whether evolution explains why the human brain supports religious belief.

  3. Does Evolutionary Psychology Undermine Religion? (9-minute video) – A PBS Closer to Truth interview with Justin Barrett.

ADDITIONAL (SHORT) READINGS AND JOURNAL ARTICLES THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST:

  1. NPR blog post by Tania Lombrozo: Are Scientific and religious explanations incompatible? (3 pages printed)

  2. Article on Jordan Grafman’s research: New Research Reveals the Brain’s Role in Mystical Experiences. (1 page printed)

  3. Plunkett, D., Buchak, L., & Lombrozo, T. (2020). When and why people think beliefs are “debunked” by scientific explanations of their origins. Mind and Language, 35(1), 3-28.

  4. Cristofori, I., Bulbulia, J., Shaver, J. H., Wilson, M., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2016). Neural correlates of mystical experience. Neuropsychologia, 80, 212-220.

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. When and why might religious phenomena be regarded as being beyond the scope of science?

  2. What can neuroscience contribute to our understanding of the biological basis of religious belief?

  3. How does the scientific study of religion parallel other scientific studies of human thought, values, and behavior? How do these parallels bear on whether the scientific study of something 'explains it away'?

_______

LIVING & DYING IN THE TIME OF COVID

FEBRUARY 10, 2021

Shelly Kagan (Philosophy, Yale | Death) and Lydia Dugdale (Medicine, Columbia | The Lost Art of Dying: Reviving Forgotten Wisdom) discussed their relatively recent reflections on living in light of our mortality. This topic was both timely and highly requested in our faculty feedback over the past few Roundtables. There were no suggested pre-event readings. You can view the recording here.

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. How does the fact/reality of death make you think about your living?

  2. How are we to make sense of what is worth doing in life (that is, what are the "other matters" that Kagan says we need to reflect upon)?

  3. What role might religion play (or not play) in helping you prepare for death?

  4. How would you console a student or patient who receives a life-threatening diagnosis or who recently lost a parent/sibling/child?

_______

WHAT IS HUMAN NATURE?

Moral Challenges for Genetic Engineering Research

June 17, 2021

A conversation on present-day moral challenges for genetic engineering research with George Church (Genetics | Harvard), interviewed by Rev. Dave Thom (President, Cambridge Roundtable on Science & Religion).

SUGGESTED PRE-EVENT READINGS & VIDEOS

  1. 60 Minutes Interview with George Church (read the transcript of the interview or watch the 13-minute video [with subscription]) - A Harvard geneticist's goal: to protect humans from viruses, genetic diseases, and aging

  2. 60 Minutes Overtime with George Church (5 minutes) - The complicated ethics of genetic engineering

  3. Boston Globe opinion pieces on cloning by James Sherley:

ADDITIONAL READINGS AND VIDEOS THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST:

  1. Washington Post Opinion: Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream, by George Church

  2. Reversing Human Aging, George Church, TEDxBeaconStreetSalon

  3. A bio for Jeantine Lunshof, who conducts her philosophical and ethical work as a full-time ethicist on the work floor of the George Church lab

  4. The Future of Humans: Gene Editing & the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution | a discussion with 2020 Nobel Prize for Chemistry Laureate Jennifer Doudna, UC Berkeley Biochemist, and Columbia U. Oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee (84 minutes)

  5. The CRISPR Journal Vol. 3, No. 5 | Perspective | Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing | See George Church’s “Germline versus somatic debate” (among other profitable readings)

  6. A search on "ethics for crispr" provides perspective

  7. Finally: https://www.personalgenomes.org and https://pged.org

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. (a) If you think that there are immutable/unchangeable human characteristics, embedded in us as human nature, what are these characteristics?

    (b) If you don’t think that there are immutable human characteristics if there are any “modern era” common characteristics, what are they? 

  2. (a) Moral or ethical or religious perspectives prevent or promote changes to our perspectives and/or our behaviors. If there are common or immutable human characteristics, why do we not often – if ever – find common philosophical or theological solutions to common human problems?

    (b) Genetic engineering is not designed to solve most common human problems – just some – and it will introduce its own set of problems. The panel went outside of philosophy and theology to discuss intellectual humility: asking good questions, and having an open mind. Is this behavior inherent to human nature? Or is this behavior a common human characteristic in the modern era? Or is this a rarely acquired human behavior?

  3. Many understand themselves as multi-dimensional individuals, describable in-depth in biological terms, or even in-depth in chemical, genetic, philosophical, theological, humanistic, psychological, or sociological terms. In a classic case of “the chicken or the egg?” is this kind of acquired in-depth knowledge necessary, leading to the optional and rarely acquired and rarely practiced sound behavior of intellectual humility, possibly leading to morally or ethically or religiously sound decisions? Or is the rarely acquired and rarely practiced behavior of intellectual humility necessary, leading to the sound judgment of optionally acquired in-depth knowledge, possibly leading to morally or ethically, or religiously sound decisions?

  4. What is best for the future of genetic engineering? Are individual practitioners like James and George best guided by expert panelists who are authorized to provide guidance and licenses to practitioners because their “collected wisdom” makes up for any moral or ethical or religious deficits of the individual panelists? Or will a leading individual practitioner’s choices, grounded in the intellectual humility of always asking good questions and having an open mind, “trump” the collected wisdom of expert panelists? Why or why not?

_______

LONGING FOR HAPPINESS

Why do we want happiness? should there be ethical boundaries to achieving it?

December 3, 2021

A conversation exploring paths to happiness and what brings about lasting happiness with Arthur Brooks (Leadership, Harvard | From Strength to Strength: Finding Success, Happiness, and Deep Purpose in the Second Half of Life) and Carl Hart (Psychology, Columbia | Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear). Please note that this video will only be available for viewing until Friday, January 7, 2022.

SUGGESTED PRE-EVENT READINGS & VIDEOS

  1. Brook's October 21, 2021 Atlantic Article, The Meaning of Life is Surprisingly Simple

  2. Hart's July 2020 Cell Article, Exaggerating Harmful Drug Effects on the Brain Is Killing Black People

  3. Recent NY Times article citing Brooks, How Liberals Can Be Happier

  4. Atlantic podcast featuring Carl Hart

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. What is one point of agreement you had with Dr. Hart or Dr. Brooks? One point of disagreement? Why?

  2. What is something you heard tonight that challenged you to think in a new way or invited you to consider an alternative perspective?

  3. Dr. Brooks's work indicates that there are personal decisions that individuals can make to pursue happiness while Dr. Hart’s research focuses on chronic problems rooted in systemic issues. How could we synthesize these two presentations?

  4. As you personalize this conversation around happiness, what next step would you consider making towards building that into your life?

_______

A.I., RELIGION, & HUMANITY

How Might (or Should) We Shape the Future?

jANUARY 19, 2022

A dialogue exploring how artificial intelligence and religion have interfaced in the past, the promise and perils the future might hold for their continuing connection, and what our role should be in shaping that future. Our panel included Rosalind Picard (Media Arts & Sciences | MIT), Sylvester Johnson (Humanities | Virginia Tech), Robert Geraci (Religious Studies | Manhattan College), and Tahera Ahmad (Director of Interfaith Engagement | Northwestern) as our contributing moderator.

SUGGESTED PRE-EVENT READINGS & VIDEOS

  1. NYTimes Opinion, Can Religion Guide the Ethics of AI? Or Can Silicon Valley Find God? by Linda Kinstler

  2. Vox, Robot priests can bless you, advise you, and even perform your funeral, by Sigal Samuel

    1. Experiment BlessU-2 / Interactive Installation ("Blessing Robot") (2 min)

    2. Quick video of robot arm performing arti (worship) for Lord Ganesha (30 sec) 

  3. BBC (12 min), God and robots: Will AI transform religion?

  4. Ted Talk (16 min), What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?, by Nick Bostrom (Oxford | Professor of Applied Ethics; Director, Oxford Future of Humanity Institute; Director, Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology)

ADDITIONAL READINGS AND VIDEOS THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST

  1. Cosmology Today (20 min), 2029 : Singularity Year - Neil deGrasse Tyson & Ray Kurzweil

  2. Ted X Talk (20 min), A New Philosophy on Artificial Intelligence by Kristian Hammond (Northwestern | Professor of computer science and journalism; Founded the University of Chicago’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory)

  3. The Humanist, The Relationship of Artificial Intelligence and Religion to Secular Morality, by Gordon Gamm (a Humanist perspective)

  4. Wired, Muslim scholars are working to reconcile Islam and AI by Sparsh Ahuja (a Muslim Perspective)

  5. The Atlantic, Is AI a Threat to Christianity? By Jonathan Merritt (a Christian Perspective)

  6. AI and Faith - A website dedicated to exploring their intersection

The suggested discussion questions were as follows:

  1. As we think about the interface between A.I., Religion, and Humanity, what background beliefs about the world do you hold, whether religious or non-religious, that might shape your perspective on this topic?

  2. What did you resonate with from the panel discussion?

  3. What is something you heard tonight that challenged you to think in a new way or invited you to consider an alternative perspective?

  4. What do you think would be non-optimal and/or optimal ways for A.I., Religion, and Humanity to relate to each other in the future?

  5. Was there an insight or question from our time together that you are taking with you that you might pursue or use in your work or relationships?

_______

For past events at other Roundtable sites, please see our Partner Site page and visit the website of some of our other Roundtable locations.