Freeman questions God

New Science series to watch out for

2010-06-08 09:12

New York - Actor Morgan Freeman didn’t shy away from tough questions for his new Science Channel series about space exploration. On Wednesday’s first episode he asks, “Was there a Creator?”

The question, as with most of the topics he discusses on the eight-episode series, is more likely to lead to more questions than it is to answers.

“What we’re learning is we don’t know a lot more than we do know,” said Freeman, whose lifelong fascination with astronomy and space travel coincided with the Science Channel’s effort to attract more attention with the help of celebrities who bring a passion to their hobbies.

The Academy Award winner hosts and narrates the series, Through the Wormhole, and it was made by his production company.

Scientists are tapped to address issues like what happened before the creation of the universe, what dark matter is doing to the galaxies, whether time travel will someday be possible, what intelligent life might exist beyond Earth and how life began on Earth.


The idea of a God that created the universe is hard for many scientists to deal with, but one that some turn to when not everything they see is explained by the complex mathematical equations used to prove theories.

“It is hard for me to get my mind wrapped around the idea that there is an extra, corporal - shall we say, intelligence - that controls everything,” Freeman said.

Freeman is intrigued by the speed of light and how and why light travels. The idea of time travel is another interest, although the actor isn’t sure whether he’d like to go backward or forward.

Similarly, he’d love to travel in space someday. But he doesn’t want to just go for a ride.

“I’d like to have a destination,” he said. “And I’d like that destination being a foreign land where there are things we could possibly communicate with. Just wandering around out there - you might as well be out in the ocean trying to swim.”

The issues discussed in Through the Wormhole are “heady stuff”, but they’re presented in an entertaining way, said Debbie Myers, the network’s general manager. That’s one of Myers’ chief goals, to break through the stuffy and dry reputation of science programming.

Whoopi Goldberg is doing a science-related game for the network that is due this year. Will Smith is also hoping to boost the network’s Young Scientist Challenge.

Freeman, who won an Oscar in 2004 for Million Dollar Baby, brought a common touch to the complex stories on his series, Myers said.

“Morgan is kind of the everyman,” she said. “He has a love for science, but he’s not a scientist, and he’s a great storyteller.”

Might be an interesting series to watch, go have a gander at the usual idiotic comments for amusement value.

I thought HE was god?
And Nelson Mandela, which is kind of the same.

This is great. Just read through the discussion below the article - entertaining. How’s cool is this statement?

“It is hard for me to get my mind wrapped around the idea that there is an extra, corporal - shall we say, intelligence - that controls everything,” Freeman said.
It is so refreshing to find an actor that speaks rationally! I like Morgan Freeman as an actor anyway, but he scored himself some bonus points! :slight_smile:

"What we're learning is we don't know a lot more than we do know," said Freeman
This is so different to the arrogant "Well, we [i]know[/i] there is a god, obviously..." or "We don't know how a whole lot of stuff happens, therefore god did it." points of view...

I find both these quotes ambiguous. The first may well be read as an attempt to fit in a creator and the second could be nonsensical. Perhaps I’m pedantic.

Did I miss something?

“It is hard” does not imply a rejection. It could mean “I am trying.”

“we don’t know a lot more than what we do know”? We don’t know anything more than what we do know.

As I said, perhaps I’m pedantic, but these statements are open to different interpretations.

In the context of the article, I understood it as “Given the current evidence, or lack thereof, the argument in favour of a supernatural intelligence that twiddles the knobs, fails”. Maybe my take on it was biased by my thinking? :slight_smile:

You are probably right. Let’s see what comes up in the TV series.

Freeman’s statement is tautological to be sure, but sometimes a tautology is just the fitting rhetorical device needed to remind one’s audience of a basic point that tends to get overlooked. In this case, I think Freeman intends to say that knowledge is not the stuff you make up in the hope or the belief that it might be true; rather, knowledge is the stuff that is well-established by way of being justified and true, and having some broader applicability.