I enjoyed this conversation. I think the main part that really stood out to me was Marcello discussing the beauty of imperfection and how science is coming to terms with that. I think there is so much in that idea that I would like to explore further.

Can we expect the transcript here in the coming days?

Every week is rich and expansive. This week is possibly the widest and deepest. Wow. I love it when we invite atheists into the conversation. Gleiser takes us into the sacred mystery in unique and important ways. And, Robinson? I don't know what to say. I'll read anything she writes! Thank you Krista and team.

The discussion of the terms describe vs. explain should include the word create. Science uses the term loosely. Our arrogance is our biggest obstacle to true knowledge and understanding. Robinson and Gleiser did not hesitate to use the term. I was alittle dismayed. The conversation was going welll to that point then returned to the ego driven state most intellectual discussions end in.

We do describe rather than explain. We also manipulte rather than create.

I thought science was about measurement, observations and organized data? Yet your 2 guests whom you had a “public conversation” with two scientists M. Robinson and Gleiser, was full of pithy lines and loaded with quotations of others, no data or observations, just generalizations, nominalizations, presumptions, history of others beliefs instead of their own, and undefined jargon. These two brought nothing to the conversation.

When Marilynne (Irish/Scottish? accent) lectured us on how Americans are so dumb regarding sciences, she gave no examples and you did not follow up and have her elaborate. I was constantly confused by the pseudo-debate since they both spoke of the “presence of God” yet both seem desperate to trump God with science. Wish you could have deconstructed that a bit(?)

Wish Marcelo could have touched on the mechanics of Big Bang theory. What data exactly is he talking about? And he couldn’t support unified theory imply or string theory or God……what exactly does he believe? Very confusing people, that much is true. Was sad when Marilynne lectured Gleiser on his usage…… like he was an 18 yr old college student.

If you want a useful debate/conversation/even controversy, could you just once balance with a real theologian? Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Dr. E Michael Jones? How about a conversation with Robert Sungenesis who believes we are in a geocentric solar system. (sounds like Marcelo might agree with him?). See if your backers would allow a Catholic spokesman on your show.

It's gratifying and encouraging to hear a brilliant compatriot speaking so humbly about the marvels of the Atlantic forest, the enchantment of nature, uncertainty theory and the vast domaine of the brain. It's also encouraging to see Marcelo transcending ethnic limits, a Brazilian contribution to the world. "Transculturation", the dynamics of Latin American cultures, characterized by absorbing, transforming, and reinventing is what his words brought back to mind. Congratulations Marcelo! Would you spend time in to Brazil share what you have been saying in the US? People will adore you!

The first time I ever listened to this program, and I was "blown away." I was driving home, listening, after an intense work weekend in southern Vermont where the radio signal threatened to fade off, so I slowed down to hear the end before I lost the signal. There were so many revelatory thoughts .... I cannot isolate one. The dialogues from disparate fields was so fascinating. I arrived home in NW Mass. and shared with my wife about the issues raised. So want to hear again and share with her... how can I download?

Krista! Like your e-mail audience, I couldn't be happier that you were able to get Marilynne Robinson to do this live conversation. As editor of a sixty-five year old scholarly journal, RENASCENCE: ESSAYS ON VALUES IN LITERATURE, I had the good fortune to hear three talks on Robinson's work in May of this year. I am currently working on a special issue on Robinson's work. The more I hear about and read her work, the more I am impressed with the importance of this voice for the religious view in Amercia. With great gratitude.

Please check out ny new book (just published) "The Joys and Benefits of Connecting with Our Cosmic Spirit". It describes what True Meditation is and how to connect with the Spirit within your Being (It explains what is meant by "The Kingdom of God is within You").
Thanks.
Lloyd

I tell a story about an in-person meeting with Dr. Gleiser in my kickstarter project video.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/72062118/philosophy-of-oneness-essay...

I didn't appreciate Ms. Robinson's dig at Richard Dawkins, who has done so much for science. It seems that Ms. Robinson feels threatened by atheism and those who advocate for it. Intuition certainly plays a role in science's quest for truth because scientists must rely on their own best educated guesses about how things work in order to formulate hypotheses and design experiments. I don't want to base my own understanding of the origins of the universe on faith in a religious text, some sort of personal "experience" of a deity, or gut feelings. I want facts and figures. If you truly understand the enormity, complexity, age, and magnificent energy of the universe you will feel awe and wonder in a way that no manmade religious myth could ever duplicate. I enjoy On Being, but this is the first time this show ever offended me, a devout atheist. Here is a gorgeous video called "Science Saved My Soul From Religion." Yes, it may offend those who believe in an organized religion, but it's breathtakingly beautiful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcRWKAPwRZ4

Marcello notes how what we can understand about reality is limited by what we can observe and experience about the world.

It may be technically true that our instruments are limited and incapable of making certain measurements, thus limiting our direct understanding of reality, but it seems that Marcello also alludes to us being limited by a subjective perspective that is not fully possible to overcome.

This butts-up against our desire for ultimate truth, which extends from our need for understanding of our origins (As Marilynne notes, if we know our origins we feel that we will then be able to find our purpose in the universe or the meaning of our existence), but perhaps opens up a plurality of paths that may all lead to some understanding of the self and its place in the universe for the individual who chooses to pursue them.

Interestingly, Marilynne praises science for its capacity for self-criticism, yet there are truisms familiar to scientists that go along the line that science may only progress one funeral at a time. Science is a human endeavor, and the way in which new ideas are adopted can be a human and so chaotic process.