Dr. David DeSteno

So, you know, William James, the father of psychology, had a real interest in religion.

And he phrased this slightly differently.

He had this notion of something he called an overbelief.

And an overbelief is a belief for which the evidence is lacking.

It's not disconfirmed, right?

But it's lacking.

But which nonetheless...

feels right, and leads to positive outcomes.

And for him, if those two criteria were true, then it is rational to embrace that belief.

And that's how he basically came to embrace religion.

And so I think, again, where we are is either of those philosophies can be valid.

You have to make a choice.

One is not more valid than the other.

It's based on your philosophy of science.

And for me, the question is always going to be one of faith.

You know, there are a lot of people who are trying to—

make a case, I'm thinking of Ross Douthat's book Believe, they're trying to make a case for if that is rational to believe in religion because, oh, it's called the fine-tuning argument.

Look at all the parameters in the world for gravity and other physical coefficients.

If they weren't tuned just exactly right, life could never have evolved here.

And the probability against them being tuned just exactly right is low.