![Freeman in "Bruce Almighty"](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/7a/c5/7ac58a9d5ef8a2fa1d449cc46fc6095c.jpg "Freeman in "Bruce Almighty"")
This morning on CNN’s American Morning, Morgan Freeman was interviewed about a new show in which he is the executive producer and host of, “Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman”.
One of the CNN hosts, Kiran Chetry, began the interview stating, “You are a man of God”, with Freeman snickering while replying, “And when did I ever say that?” Chetry corrected herself and said, “you are a man of faith.” Again, Freeman came back with “If faith is what you believe, then yes,” then alluding to a belief in science.
The show, which explores the mysteries of the universe, airs on the Science Channel, with its premiere on Wednesday, June 9th, at 10 p.m.
Through The Wormhole will explore how astrobiology, string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics are making strides to understand the universe and our place in it.
When asked about the show in a separate interview, Freeman explains, "Ever since childhood I've had a powerful fascination with the possibilities and wonders of the universe.” The show “pursues further knowledge of these great unknowns, providing a unique window into the exceptional minds, pioneering research and important theories of the people searching for answers."
Freeman warns that people who believe in a literal view of the bible, may not find appeal in the series.
Comments
you said astrobiology twice
I believe you mean "alluding" as in referring to, not "eluding" as in "escaping from"
Oops, it was fixed when I refreshed. Have a nice day!
THIS IS HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE END IS COMING.
I saw the piece this morning, and actually had a HUH? reaction to his statement about believing scientific ideas by default until they are proven incorrect.
Maybe (hopefully) I heard it wrong, but it sounded to me like he was parotting the common fallacy that science asks for people to have 'faith' in scientific theories.
The reality is that a scientific theory has to earn its respect by successfully and consistently predicting outcomes. Until then, it is just a hypothesis, a/k/a one's own opinion, and nothing more.
It is faith, not science that asks for people to believe BEFORE testing, and often to keep believing even when the tests show that the belief was in error.
Sorry about the initial typos. I was working on that as well as trying to get the Ted Haggard story ready too. Thank you for pointing that out, I truly know better but when my mind is running 4,000 mph... well you know.
To Ken:
I am glad you saw that piece this morning. That is a fantastic point too about science and faith. His voice alone will get me to watch. Hopefully it will not be a waste of time.
I read that in my head in Morgan Freeman's Voice.
I just read what you wrote in Morgan Freeman's voice! Good one.
i am sad to say i have lost respect for mr freeman after hearing this. i wish he was intelligent enough to understand the difference between faith (belief in the absence of evidence) and science (or belief in science), belief through scientific consensus based on overwhelming directly observable, repeatable evidence.
"Ken Granderson says:
I saw the piece this morning, and actually had a HUH? reaction to his statement about believing scientific ideas by default until they are proven incorrect."
I didn't get that from his statement. He said that a scientific he has faith in a scientific theory if the mathematics seem to prove it out UNTIL it is discovered that it was either wrong or not complete. His example was that we thought we knew where the end of the universe was until the hubbel proved it was much further.
I think those of you being sticklers about the use of the term "faith" are a bit out of line. Mr. Freeman speaks in a layman's voice and though what he has "faith" in, or "believes" for all intent and purpose is accurately and validly termed as such even though to be concise and accurate faith and belief have little or no place in the scientific method.
Furthermore, as a non-scientist it is perfectly acceptable for him to hold current scientific hypotheses as articles of faith or belief, especially since he acknowledges the possibility of error and the willingness to correct his beliefs upon better evidence.
This separates him quite effectively from the archetypal "believer" who holds absurd views even in the face of better evidence.
Not everyone can be fully vested in even one field of science let alone the whole of it. "Faith" and "Belief" in science in this vein among laymen should be fully commended.
The word faith has two seperate meanings. One is that you admit openly that your belief is, at least in part, not even based on an attempt at rational thought. The other is that you aknowledge that your rational thought still does not justify absolute cerainty, and yet you choose to run on the assumption that your belief is true. I think Freeman intended the second meaning. Some theologians use to their advantage that this duel meaning is so confusing, but often the fallacious are just as confused themselves. By understanding the source of the confusion, and not explaining it to the hosts, Freeman might've had them surprised and disarmed, although somewhat lamely dodging a more direct confrontation.
Help!!
I'd love to watch this. Can you be more specific as to what channel number the Science channel is?
I'm in Denver and have Comcast. I've checked their website and it shows no Science channel. Could you mean the Discovery channel?
Gina,
Looking at TV guide (www.tvguide.com) it appears that for Denver Metro - Comcast cable, it would be channel 272. The Science channel is different from the Discovery channel.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!