Livio_CMYKMario Livio speaks with Brian Greene (photo: ©The Philoctetes Center for the Multidisciplinary Study of the Imagination/Flickr)

When I first picked up Mario Livio’s book Is God a Mathematician? I knew I wanted to speak with him. Given that title, it is perhaps surprising to learn that he is not himself a religious man. But in his science, he is working on frontiers of discovery where questions far outpace answers — exploring the nature of neutron stars, white dwarfs, dark energy, the search for intelligent life in other galaxies.

In vivid detail and with passionate articulation, he reinforces a sense that has come through in many of my conversations with scientists these past years. That is, in contrast to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western, cultural confidence that science was on the verge of explaining most everything, our cutting-edge, twenty-first-century discoveries are yielding ever more fantastic mysteries. The real science of the present, Mario Livio says, is far more interesting than science fiction could ever be.

For example, the fact that the universe is expanding rather than contracting is new knowledge. That has led to the discovery of what is called, for lack of precise understanding, “dark energy,” which is accelerating this expansion. This utterly unexplained substance is now thought to comprise something like 70 percent of the universe. Likewise, the Hubble telescope has helped humanity gain intricate new detail on the unimaginable vastness of the cosmos and the relative insignificance of the space we take up in it. At the same time — and this is one of Livio’s intriguing mysteries — this new knowledge and perspective also shine a new kind of light on the inordinate power of the human mind.

Livio’s question “Is God a mathematician?” is actually an ancient and unfolding question about the uncanny “omnipresence and omnipotent powers” of mathematics as experienced by science and philosophy across the ages. The question itself, as Livio says, is as rich to ponder as any of its possible answers. And so is the fact, behind it, that our minds give rise to mathematical principles, which are then found to have what physicist Eugene Wigner called “an unreasonable effectiveness” in describing the universe.

Livio also picks up on an intriguing theme left dangling in my lovely conversation in 2010 with the Vatican astronomers Guy Consolmagno and George Coyne — the enduring question of whether mathematical truths, laws of nature, are discovered or invented. Livio unapologetically offers his conclusion that there is no either/or answer possible here — that mathematics is both invented and discovered. That is to say, as he tells it, scientists habitually “invent” formulations and theories with no practical application, which generations or centuries later are found to describe fundamental aspects of reality. Even mathematical ideas that are at first invented yield real discoveries that are relevant, true, and wholly unexpected.

I was also interested to learn, as I went into this conversation, that when Mario Livio is not doing science he is a lover of art. “Beauty” is a word that recurs across my cumulative conversation with scientists, and Mario Livio infuses that word with his own evident passion. He is not quite sure, when I press, what that might have to do with his simultaneous passion for art. And yet there is something intriguing — mysterious even — about his description of how echoing allusions from science and art come to him effortlessly in his writing.

And in the backdrop of our conversation, images from the Hubble Space Telescope have brought a lavish beauty of the cosmos into ordinary modern eyes and imaginations. One senses that of all the accomplishments in which he has played a part, Mario Livio is most proud of this one. For him, science is a part of culture — like literature, like the arts. And he wants the rest of us, whether we speak his mother tongue of mathematics or not, to experience it that way too. This conversation brings me farther forward on this path.

I kept thinking, as I spoke with Mario Livio, of Einstein’s references to the reverence for beauty and open sense of wonder that Einstein saw as a common root experience of true science, true religion, and true art. His use of the word “God,” Mario Livio tells me, is similar to Einstein’s grasp for the word “God” as a synonym for the workings of the cosmos. I am struck once again with the capacity of modern scientists to be more comfortable with the presence of mystery, and bolder in articulating its reality than many who are traditionally religious.

Share Your Reflection



Excellent. And an excellent collection of essays in a similar vein is "The Faith of Scientists In Their Own Words," ed. by Nancey Frankenberry.

We all have "the capacity of modern scientists to be more comfortable with the presence of mystery...". The final mystery is the unknowable answer to "Why am I?", "the last why". If we were to realize our capacity to be more comfortable with this "void" in our lives we could empty it of, among other ways we try to fill it, our religious/philosophies. As we empty it we become more able to "reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.", the "ideal reaction to the void". Among the consequences would be "peace on earth goodwill toward [all humans]".

God isn't in religious thread.
When wound up in it God is dead."

of course "mystery" in science generally means what we don't yet know but likely could with more work/understanding, whereas a "Mystery" in most religious contexts has do with questions of how should we live our daily lives in relation to a demanding yet largely unknowable/mysterious Being, so not really the same subject. Plus in my experience scientists don't tend to do better than other people when it comes to not-knowing in the interactions that make up their daily lives. And there is a whole history of "negative" theology and mysticism that makes welcoming/seeking Mystery central to living a faithful life.

Science and mathematics are well suited for describing the "how"; details on what we can observe or theorize. Philosophy and theology are more concerned with the "why" (or you might say the "who"); the meaning or purpose of existence and how to live life for the greater good. So I totally agree with Livio that they do operate on parallel planes. Personally I find the "why" much more interesting than the "how".

Throwing the word "God" on a book about science and mathematics is a good tactic for grabbing attention, which is of course helpful in selling a book.

When Livio said (something to the effect of) science/mathematics has not influenced religion and vice-versa and exist on diffent planes, my immediate thought was "what about Alfred North Whitehead!" Interestingly he later offered a quote from him.

A.N.W. was a mathematician and contemporary of Eistein who later turned his genius to philosophy, resulting in process philosophy and further developed into process theology.

I had this thought in my mind as I finsihed listening to the interview that we are becoming increasingly aware of the immensity of the universe at the sme time we are witnessing the exponential increase in the population of the planet...and the huge increases in national debt...and in the memory and processing speeds of computers, etc..  It seems as if all the limits are being exceeded.  Is this what the new milennium is to be all about?