I'll be in New York (Sunday evening, Monday, Tuesday day), Boston (Tuesday night through Thursday afternoon), and Chicago (Friday) next week on a media tour for HOW WE BELIEVE: The Search for God in an Age of Science.
On Tuesday evening, October 12, from 6:30-8:00pm I'll be speaking at MIT, Room 26-100, on WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question. I will be presenting the data and results from the massive study I did (with help from Frank Sulloway) on this question, as well as my evolutionary model on the origins of religion and God beliefs. If you would like to attend go to http://www.mit.edu and click to the map program for directions to that room. You can also contact the organizer Sheila Gibson, the head skeptic chick (her term!) of the New England Skeptics Society at 603/888-1631. The room holds 500 but Sheila thinks there might be a full house because of the subject.
Sheila informs me that the last time I lectured there last spring, on Why People Believe Weird Things, the campus Christian organization purposefully booked creationist William Dembski opposite to me; she suspects they may try to do something similar, or send over to my lecture a bunch of fundamentalists to challenge me. So if you are in the area I would appreciate your support! (I don't think I'll need a body guard, but certainly audience support is important.)
If you can't make the lecture but are in the area, I'll be on the David Brudnow Show on WBZ-AM, apparently the #1 talk show in Boston, from 9:00-11:00 that same evening.
In Chicago I'll be on the Milt Rosenberg show from 9:00-11:00pm Friday night October 15, on WBN-AM, two hours on God with call ins.
By the way, recall my wild stories about Roseanne Barr a couple of months ago (she actually started screaming on air "I've lost control of the show" when the Rabbi and I were going at it)? Well, they are finally airing that show today (but she is no longer in the L.A. or NY markets). I think it is NBC at 3pm. The subject was God.
Speaking of God, yesterday I gave a lecture at the history department at my old alma mater, Claremont Graduate School, on the subject of my new book. I presented the data and results of my study, including the fact that the number one reason people give for why they believe in God is "the good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe." (Whereas the #1 reason they say that OTHER people believe in God is "emotional need and comfort.") In the audience was the historian of science Richard Olson, my former thesis advisor and mentor (but now just a good friend and colleague!).
Richard inquired how I had defined "God" in the questionnaire. Well, when Sulloway and I first tested the survey on audiences we had not defined God at all and people wanted a definition in order to answer the question. So I composed the following definition based on what most psychologists of religion use: "a purposeful higher intelligence that created the universe." Richard then wondered if perhaps the reason so many people say they believe in God because of the good design of the universe is because that is, essentially, how we defined God. In other words, had we defined God as something like "a purposeful higher intelligence that provides emotional need and comfort to humans," might we have gotten a different pattern of responses? Well, that question can be tested, of course, but at considerable time, energy, and money (to do it right). Richard also thought it might be interesting to not define God at all, but let the person taking the survey define it and make that data part of the study. But first I thought I would ask this group their opinion on this matter:
What do you think is an appropriate definition of God that most represents what most Americans mean when they say they believe in God (i.e., in that 90-95% cohort of believers, what do most of them mean by God?) And if we were to do another study, how might we get at this answer in a different manner? Don't define God and ask the person to define it in writing on the survey?