Click here to listen to the episode on Spotify
In the twenty-first episode of the third season of the “Saturdays at Seven” conversation series, Todd Ream talks with Karin Öberg, the Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard University. Öberg begins by discussing the contributions astrochemistry makes to the cultivation of awe. She explores how the cultivation of awe can occur when one gazes at the night sky, looks through a telescope, or reviews data designed to replicate the chemical processes occurring in space. Öberg discusses the contributions her parents made to her emerging interest in science, the impact the time she spent as an undergraduate at Caltech had on her interest in chemistry, and, in particular, the impact her graduate advisor, Ewine van Dishoeck, had on her vocation as an astrochemist during the time Öberg spent as a graduate student at Leiden University. Öberg shares details concerning contributions she and her colleagues at Harvard seek to make to astrochemistry and, in particular, to perceptions of the conditions that are believed to be needed in relation to the formation of planets. The pursuit of those perceptions, Öberg explains, foster awe within her and deepens her appreciation for the relationship science and religion share. Öberg then closes by discussing the contributions astronomers and the Church can make to one another along with the virtues that make such contributions by astronomers possible.
Todd Ream: Welcome to Saturdays at Seven, Christian Scholar’s Review’s conversation series with thought leaders about the academic vocation and the relationship that vocation shares with the Church. My name is Todd Ream. I have the privilege of serving as the publisher for Christian Scholar’s Review and as the host for Saturdays at Seven. I also have the privilege of serving on the faculty and the administration at Indiana Wesleyan University.
—
Our guest is Karin Öberg, the Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard University. Thank you for joining us.
Karin Öberg: Thank you for having me.
Todd Ream: In an article in a 2022 issue of the Journal of Religion, Spirituality, and Aging that drew on a national sample from the United States, Baylor University’s Laura Upenieks and the University of Michigan’s Neil Krause argued being in awe of God was associated with lower depression, higher life satisfaction, and better self-rated health, associations, partly mediated by a sense of meaning in life. While several experiences may foster awe of God, one such experience may be the contemplation of the vast nature of the universe.
Whether peering through the end of a telescope or studying chemical models, as an astro-chemist, what forms of awe does the contemplation of the universe foster within you?
Karin Öberg: Oh, there are so many. I mean, I think astronomy is just so accessible in many ways because it’s beauty. I mean, I think it is I think one of the privileges of being an astronomer, just to, before we come to the astrochemistry part, is that you get to use your modern technology, which is, you know, much maligned, but also has done a lot of good to sort of unveil deeper and deeper layers of the cosmos.
And what you find, I think, to me, not too surprisingly, as someone who believes that there is a Creator behind it, is that each layer has its own kind of beauty. So there is beauty just looking up at the stars, which hopefully, you have experienced as well as those listening in.
But there is a deeper beauty in expanding the kind of light that you can look at. You’ll see more structure, more order and a more dynamic universe when you do that than when you’re just looking at the stars. So that on its own, I think is an amazing privilege to get to be a part of.
But then another thing that is almost equally cool and awe inspiring is just how much power that is the next room in tiny chemical reactions in shaping the universe. So the inherent connection between the microscopic, the things are too small for us to see, and the macroscopic, the things are too big for us to even take in, I think it’s just one of these amazing aspects of the universe, and as an astrochemist, you get to connect what’s going on with the molecules with what’s going on with the universe.
Todd Ream: Yeah, thank you. Is there a particular dimension or dimension of the universe that fosters greater awe within you than perhaps others?
Karin Öberg: I don’t know, because I think there’s something about thinking back to the origins. So this is not what I do professionally, but to, to think back how sort of the seeds of old order of the universe was there from the beginning of all these creative structures. I think that is something that I think is just awe inspiring.
But I think what has become a really amazing thing in the past decade or so is that we have been, with the help of new telescopes, been given access to information of how planets form and can sort of see the planets forming and seeing how new worlds come into existence, like planets like our own. Uh, I think this is an amazingly privileged time to live in.
Todd Ream: That’s fascinating, thank you.
Knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, is often obtained though through reductionistic means, and I’m risking over simplification here, but veins of knowledge emerge as one goes deeper into a discipline, fostering sub-disciplines, and increasingly specialized forms of language and then communities of scholars who unfortunately are unable to interact with one another across these lines.
As an astrochemist, in what ways have you sought to advance knowledge while also drawing from resources offered by disciplines, and I’m going to name only six here that I counted, astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, philosophy, and I’ll take a breath here, theology?
Karin Öberg: So I think I’m actually not unique in having a, a career within academia that looks a bit like two triangles on top of one another, that you spend sort of the first decade of your academic life just going deeper and deeper into single subject, really learning how to discipline that search for the truth, and trying to not get too distracted by new shiny things on the side.
But then I think what’s lots of fun is that once you have really trained that muscle, that sort of like the laser focused truth seeking, many of us I think get to have the experience of then starting to broadening out again. And that can be, I mean, I think most commonly, that is within the discipline, but you start looking at different aspects, at different kinds of objects. Or maybe you start out as an observer, you start adding in theory or experiments and vice versa. So I think that is the experience of many.
I think what has been extra fun, first of all with astrochemistry, is that it is by sort of its nature, you need, even as you go deep, you need to be pulling in sort of several things. You need to pull in astronomy, physics, and chemistry at the various sort of minimum.
And I would say that I have really benefited from also pulling in multiple techniques. So to look at it as an astronomer, sort of staring through telescopes, trying to simulate it in the lab, trying to come up with some of the theoretical frameworks, sort of bringing that into that deep search. So that’s astrochemistry.
And, and I think it is also as you get more students, you need to come up with more projects for them. And that is sort of automatically sort of broadening of your mind kind of tool. What I have then added on top of that, which has been sort of the joy, especially of the past five years, is thinking more about the philosophical and theological questions that start sort of gracing or coming up against some of the scientific questions that I do during my sort of day job to the point where I’m now teaching on some of that at Harvard.
Uh, so I’ve taken it from sort of a hobby and like pulled it more and more into the, the main lane in what I’m spending my days on.
Todd Ream: Is there anyone whose work has proven to be more helpful or more edifying to you from philosophy and/or theology?
Karin Öberg: I love Thomas Aquinas. He’s so smart and he has figured out so many things. And I feel a lot of reading him is a rediscovery. I mean, there have been many times when I feel like I have sort of started to put things together and then you read him and you realize with much, much less detailed under like, knowledge of the natural order, his intuitions are just so spot on. It’s just amazing. I mean, Augustine when it comes to more biological sciences and, and thinking about time is wonderful.
I think C.S. Lewis is also, is a more contemporary, more accessible person, is someone who I think appears less deep than he is. Like he has very deep intuitions and I think very deep roots in sort of Christian theology, western philosophy that and not just this special gift of making it seem simpler than it is, so.
If I pull out three names, and I would have to add in Chesterton as well, so four. Give you two, two accessible ones or like more, I guess popularizers in Chesterton and Lewis and then two, just like founts some wisdom in Augustine and, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Todd Ream: Yeah, thank you. In what ways does this kind of thinking, do these interdisciplinary pursuits then, foster greater awe in the universe?
Karin Öberg: So, that’s a good question. So I haven’t, I don’t think I’ve thought about them directly in those terms, but that’s not going to stop me from thinking with you. Uh, so uh, on this I mean, I think what is special about coming into a scientific project as someone who has a theistic belief, who believes that there is a Creator behind it all, is that you have in, in some way the right to expect order, to expect beauty, to expect to be awed.
And I think my colleagues who are, who are not Christian, who are not Jewish, who are not believers, they still get awestruck. They’re still driven by that desire for the truth, by that curiosity of what’s behind, behind the veil. So I don’t think that there’s that much of a difference. I think the difference comes both in what to expect. So even when I get surprised, it’s surprised in a different way, I think.
But then also, I think there is this second movement that comes afterwards, which is taking that awe, that sort of natural, that’s revealed in a natural order and take that with you into contemplating God, the divine, the sort of the meaning of things. And thinking about not just what is and how it came to be, but how that is revealing something about why the universe is the way it is.
Todd Ream: Yeah, and perhaps that expectation of what one is to encounter that you were describing is part or perhaps the full part of this, the answer to this next question, but all too often, reductionistic means of advancing truth, sort of implicitly harbor the perception that awe is being vanquished. Uh, we reduce it down to the knowable.
But in your estimation, is it possible to take advantage of established means of knowing, of advancing truth and also foster awe, it sounds like, you know, some of your colleagues maybe still can, but there’s that expectation there and what we bring to it.
Karin Öberg: Yeah, I don’t think scientists are reductionists in that way or like, I think it’s very rare to find scientists who think about sort of simplifying a way, of awe and wonder and sort of a broader understanding. I think, at least, I can’t remember encountering it with any of my colleagues, whether they are theists or not. I think a much more common, I think, experience of the scientist is that you get to go deeper.
And I think there’s a big difference between reduction as in trying to remove things to, to simplify, to see things in, in a way that has sort of taken away beauty and complexity versus reduction as a tool to allow you to sort of drill deep.
Todd Ream: Yeah. Yeah.
Karin Öberg: I think those are just different ways of thinking about what you’re doing. And I think the second is how most scientists, I would say most scholars, think about what they’re doing, it is that if they have to get rid of some things as they’re going forward, it is to allow them to get one, one layer deeper and to see what’s sort of under that veil. And I think that’s where, sort of the best theory, the best technology can just really help you to do that.
Todd Ream: Yeah. No, thank you, thank you.
I want to transition now to asking you about your own story and your own journey as a scientist and as an astrochemist. You’re a native of Sweden and you came to the United States to study chemistry at Caltech out in Pasadena, California.
What experiences as a young person in Sweden fostered your evident love for science?
Karin Öberg: So I think you have to, at least in part, well, maybe not in part, maybe it’s my parents’ fault whether you think is nature or nurture. They will take the credit no matter what. So I think I grew up in a family that had a great appreciation of learning, of knowledge. And my father is a scientist. My mother is not. So it’s definitely the this sort of scientific pursuits, yes, but I think more importantly, that you study and that you learn. There were many debates at the dinner table that ended with one of us children going over to library and getting books out the encyclopedia or like one of the 24 books of encyclopedia and trying to prove our parents wrong. So I think that kind of, sort of search for objective truth, I think was just in, in my bones by the time that I was in high school and started thinking about what I wanted to do next.
And I am not really a scientist in the sense that I, that is my first and only love when it comes to knowledge. I love history, philosophy, literature, almost all, like any kind of humanities discipline that you can think of. I find many of the social sciences fascinating.
So when I started picking out what to focus on, it was as much based on what I was good at or where I felt I was, has sort of an extra advantage as in what kind of knowledge that I enjoyed sort of learning about.
I just love understanding things. I just get a great joy out of understanding something new. Like it feels like you stretch your mind a little bit and like manage to fit in one, one new thing. This’s, just this is the joy in that which to me’s quite similar to when you manage to do something physical for the first time, like you manage to run a bit further or hit the ball in some, some different way.
To me, there’s a very similar joy with managed to comprehend something new or see some new detail of reality in a new light. And almost regardless what discipline it is.
Todd Ream: In what ways then did your time at Caltech, when you needed to pick a major and, and start making these kinds of decisions amongst competing loves hopefully complimentary loves eventually and in what ways did it shape your understanding of the academic vocation?
Karin Öberg: So Caltech makes it easy in the sense that it is a place to do science and engineering. Uh, so choosing to go to Caltech, well, applying to Caltech, getting accepted, that to me felt like no choice at all. Like that was the path that was sort of clearly set out. So I knew I was going there to do the sciences. I mean, I love scientific puzzles, so it was not like it was a compromise that that was what I wanted to do.
Choosing a major was still a hard thing because I loved the big questions. Um, and we already talked about philosophy and theology and to me it seemed like physics and astrophysics was where you got the closest to some of those big, big questions. And I was pretty good at physics pretty good at math. But at Caltech, pretty good was not good enough. But I was still good enough at chemistry.
Uh, so I started out trying to do both chemistry and physics and realized that I had to make a choice. And I had to make the choice between where I thought my main interest was, which was in the physics and I would probably do okay if I focused on it and chemistry, which is what I clearly had some of a competitive edge in.
And as the pragmatic Swede, I chose to do chemistry. And uh, within a few months of that which, which was hard. Um, it felt a little bit like I was, that felt like a compromise. But within a few months, I found the backdoor into astrophysics, which is astrochemistry. So applying what I’m actually good at, so chemistry to the questions that I find to be the most interesting, so those in astronomy or astrophysics.
Todd Ream: Following graduation from Caltech, you recrossed the Atlantic, this time to the Netherlands, where you were a doctoral student at Leiden University, and your interest in chemistry and astro and astronomy seemed to more formally intersect.
Karin Öberg: So I went there completely to pursue astrochemistry, so Leiden was and still is if not the center, at least one of the top like few places in the world to do astrochemistry. So the reason I came there is that I had found out sophomore year that there was a way to do what I wanted to do with what I was good at.
And to me that was obvious that then that’s what I’m going to do. As you might have been able to tell, once I make a decision, I typically stick to it until there’s some new, new facts emerge. Uh, so I knew from sophomore year that I was going to do astrochemistry and from junior year, that I was going to do it in Leiden. So I went there again, laser-focused on learning as much astrochemistry, contributing as much to the field as I could in the four years on my doctorate.
Todd Ream: Yeah. Were there any mentors that helped along the way and/or experiences that were also seminal?
Karin Öberg: The reason that Leiden is and also the time was the center for astrochemistry is that the mother of astrochemistry, my advisor, Ewine van Dishoeck is a professor there. And it was, it was to work with her, in particular that I went to Leiden. And she was wonderful, as still is a wonderful mentor.
Todd Ream: Yeah. Are there any habits that you learned from her that have carried you as a scholar, but maybe also as a teacher?
Karin Öberg: I think one of the things and this, to take a step back, so obviously I have some natural aptitude from what I’m doing or I would not have been doing it, I think one of what Caltech really taught me to do sort of like, just to expand my mind in all kinds of directions that I didn’t think was possible. Just like, taught me in some senses how far you can get with reason and like how to think about things like some, the power of your mind. I think coming with that, plus I think some sort of natural creativity and coming up with new research questions higher right than lighten.
Something that was lacking, and that I think was really a really good discipline that van Dishoeck helped me developed in Leiden is more precision, that it is not enough to think quickly and to think creatively. You also need to discipline that. And again, to go, to go deep. So going back to the beginning of the conversation I think that especially the PhD is the time to sort of discipline your mind in the pursuit of truth and that it matters to be accurate and precise, that those were, those were good lessons.
But I think the one that’s maybe been the most important is how much Ewine treated her students as mentees, as proteges, as an academic family. That is something that I have very much carried with me when thinking about how to now mentor students and always thinking about what is the best thesis for them, rather than what is the sort of highest priority on my part.
And I think just thinking about your PhD students, first and foremost as free human individuals with will and intellect, that you are there to help form, rather than to use them as instruments for your own pursuits is really important.
Todd Ream: Yeah. That’s a beautiful gift that hopefully we give to all of our students and an important reminder that you offered and a gift that you received too, it sounds like from your own experience, and now pass on.
Following graduation from Leiden, you recrossed the Atlantic again to accept a NASA Hubble postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard and where it has a sort of joint effort or joint center of astrophysics with the Smithsonian.
Would you please share the process that led you to pursue that fellowship then and to make that transatlantic journey one more time?
Karin Öberg: I had a wonderful time as a PhD student in Leiden, and as hopefully it’s been already clear, I’m extremely grateful for my time there. I also knew pretty quickly that I missed the U.S. too much and that I was going to come back to the United States, if possible.
So that already, by crossing the Atlantic, and Harvard was the place that I most wanted to go to. Um, both because of the amazing center for astrophysics it is. And it is where my mentor Ewine did much of her work. It is one of the cradles of astrochemistry. And it was also a place where many of my college friends had sort of gathered around. So there was also a good, sort of personal reasons to it.
Todd Ream: Catech alumni chapter there in Cambridge.
Karin Öberg: Yeah, pretty much. It was like, sort of half of us are in the Cambridge area and half of us in the Bay area, so traditional places for scientists and engineers to gather. So, so that was, you asked why Harvard.
And then the, the, the Hubble Fellowship is just as one of the, these, these really wonderful opportunities when you’re in between your PhD and a faculty to do independent research. So I had a great mentor here but I could also do whatever I wanted. Uh, and that was a something I was not going to turn down.
Todd Ream: You mentioned that wonderful experience between the PhD, you know, and then taking a tenure track position at an institution, what sort of encouragement would you offer to students who are contemplating the experience and in the ways that you say, this is what you need to get out of it, and this is what you should look for, and how you should allocate your time.
Karin Öberg: Well first of all, if they’re contemplating whether they should do it, I think it’s you can’t find out if academia is right for you until you have had some independent time pursuing your own scholarship. So if you’re trying to discern whether this is the right path, the only way to find out is to take a step forward and try to do it. So that’s the number one thing. Just do it.
One of the most important things, this is again, my mentor, Ewine, was a great role model, is that you need to somewhat sever from your advisor, like the, and that’s a hard thing to do, because if you have had a good PhD as I had, you have a close relationship. And the natural thing is to continue that creative relationship together. But this is the chance to figure out what you can do, in some sense, on your own, which you need to figure out to know what you in your turn can give to your students, when you end up on a tenure track. So even if that’s hard, it is very important to build your own academic relationships away from your advisor during this postdoctoral time.
I think it’s also very important to start what’s going to be now the upside down triangle journey to start adding some new things. And at this point, they don’t have to be crazy new things. You don’t have to go into Aquinas for your postdoc, but you do need to take some steps away from your PhD work and start seeing also, this is also you’re finding out for yourself, are you someone who can have new ideas, that are not directly related to the ideas that are probably given to you during your PhD.
And the way to do that is to again, step into the water a little bit further away from, from where you are and see what happens. Uh, so again, it’s a kind of intellectual independence, but now it’s more sort of creative rather than structural. So I think those two are really important.
And I would say the third thing is you have to enjoy it. Like if you are just doing this instrumentally to get on the tenure track ladder, you’re, you’re probably going to be quite miserable and you’re probably not going to do a great job on your applications for tenure track positions. This is a journey that you have to enjoy, and that’s part of how you’re also discerning whether academia is right for you, because it’s not going to be the last time that you’re being evaluated or applying for a job or being anxious about where your sort of trajectory is going to go.
Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. On the other side of that experience, then, that tenure track, you began your career as an assistant professor in Charlottesville at the University of Virginia.
What questions did you seek to pursue while at Virginia as you were starting this process?
Karin Öberg: Yeah, so, so I don’t know how useful it is to separate the Virginia and the, and the, and the next stage because my time there was pretty brief. It was only 10 months so it was I would say in some sense, what, what questions were I trying to answer as I was setting out in the tenure track period? And what I had done during my postdocs, I did my PhD work mostly on laboratory simulations, trying to figure out how we can take the chemical processes that are up there, like where stars and planets are forming, how we can recreate the environments of space in the lab to really look at the chemistry in as controlled way as possible.
During my time as a postdoc, I switched to do observations instead to use microwave telescopes to answer similar questions, but from this very different vantage points, and what I set out to do from my first tenure track job is to bring those back together, to set up a group where I could have students who did the laboratory work, students did observations, and also some students doing, doing theory with the idea that if you can have them all under one roof, you can answer questions that you cannot do with one technique alone, which is the more common thing to do, to focus on one technique.
And the question that was on the horizon and that I thought was going to be very fruitful to pursue, was mostly technology driven. That we were just getting a new telescope that allowed us to look at the chemistry that’s happening while planets are forming. And I figured that with that new data in hand, there’s going to be a need for new experiments and new theory, as we started to get those observations and saw what molecules were present in these planet forming disks around young stars.
Todd Ream: Yeah, thank you. After that 10 months that you spent in Charlottesville was complete, that you mentioned, you returned to Cambridge and uh, took a position at Harvard where you now lead the Öberg Astrochemistry Group, a team which explores the origins of chemical complexity in space and how those processes affect, as you just mentioned, star and planet formation, especially the bulk and organic compositions of young planets.
Would you describe some of the discoveries you and your team have made and some of the discoveries you’re currently pursuing even?
Karin Öberg: Yeah, so we were thinking about the chemistry of planet formation. The two things that we are really interested in is one is just understanding why planets turn out the way they are. Why is Jupiter the way Jupiter is? Why is earth the way earth is? When we look at planets around other stars, what should we expect to see and, and why? And it turns out that this is, these are questions where chemistry and physics are very closely connected, so you need to have this combined chemistry and, and physics approach.
The other set of questions, and over the years I’ve been sort of drifting in, in that direction is thinking about how often you can expect planets to have be hospitable to life and what we think that means. Uh, so some of the things that we have been pushing to pursue both those questions is figuring out what organic chemistry is taking place these disks of gas and dust around young stars where planets are assembling and why it is happening there.
So we discovered the first or more complex organic molecules in these disks. Uh, we have mapped out where the more simpler organic molecules reside and I think made some real headway in understanding why they are. In the lab, we have figured out new, new ways of forming organic molecules in and the conditions that would not be seen as very prone to organic chemistry here on Earth. So down at 10 Kelvin, with very few energy sources available, still being able to form rather complicated organic molecules, they start assembling things we need for origins of life chemistry.
And most recently with the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope we have been spending quite a lot of time trying to figure out how much water you should expect to have, where analogs to the Earth are forming. And again, also the causes why which has been, has been really exciting.
I think right now, a couple of things that I am really interested in is on the one hand, really seeing how far we can take the organic chemistry in space. We often think about organic chemistry as something that needs water that needs higher temperatures, needs surface of planets, we are really trying to figure out, yes, but like where, like how far can you go before you start needing a planet to push that chemistry on sort of the march towards life?
And the other set of questions relates to what is the chemistry like in some potentially habitable environments that we might think about as uninhabitable. In our own solar system, we do have places apart from Earth that have liquid water in them. So these are some of the moons in the outer solar system. So they have a piece of water. We are pretty sure they have quite a lot of organic molecules as well that they probably inherited from these planet forming discs, if nothing else. And to think about is that sufficient to get the audience of life going. If it is, that would be awesome. We should go and check it out. If it isn’t, that provides some really important constraints on what this or the, the chemical transition to life could be like or was here on Earth.
Todd Ream: What lessons have you learned, in terms of serving as the leader for such a research team that has students and a good number of students and other colleagues who are involved in it that you think would be helpful for others to consider who are leading centers or institutes or comparable programs?
Karin Öberg: So one of the really nice things is that it turns out that working with human nature and seeing people as people actually also makes them really productive and smart. Uh, so you don’t actually have to choose between being good and being efficient or being sort of successful.
Many of my students have done very well. Uh, some of them are now professors in their own right, in places like Berkeley and Columbia and have their own research groups. And part of it is just that when you are at a place like Harvard, you will have access to a wonderful pool of talent. So that is, there’s just sort of the background. And I think within that, even within that pool of talent, I think I’ve done pretty well. And I think to a large extent that is coming back to what you talked about before.
One of the lessons I learned from my own PhD is to think about each student, what is the most fruitful thesis experience for them and tailor that, and it turns out that when you do that in collaboration, in a creative collaboration with the student, they will do really well. And together, you will make discoveries that are much cooler than the ones that I thought of to start with.
And I think that is one of the big lessons is that treating each and every student like a person of infinite dignity that have their own freedom, their own intellect, that is also how you are successful professor and get tenure. Like there’s no tension between the two.
Todd Ream: Yeah. They all work together and as you said, in creative collaboration. Yeah, love that, love that phrase. Yeah, thank you.
You also serve now on the board of directors for the Society of Catholic Scientists. In what ways has your service with them impacted your understanding of the academic vocation? Perhaps it’s impacted the reading list that you mentioned earlier and some of the individuals there, but how has it, how has it helped, you know, when you think about yourself as a scientist?
Karin Öberg: It’s a good question. So I do quite a few things right now. They’re sort of at the intersection of science and, and Catholicism or science and, and faith and religion. Uh, this was one of the first ones or this is one of the early ones. And I think one of the most important things there maybe has just been the fellowship. I think it is often easy to think that you you have to figure out everything from scratch yourself if you belong to an ideological or religious minority and being a Christian or say a theist of any kind you are a minority at today’s secular universities.
What I’ve since found out is that I’m not as small of a minority as I initially, initially thought. But I think even just having meeting others who are in a similar situation who have already thought about some of these things and or how to bring their faith, their commitments and their scientific pursuits together, I think it’s just really, really helpful.
And I have thoroughly enjoyed interacting with the other faculty and students who come to conferences or participate in other ways, and also become really good friends with the other directors of, of the board who are just really thoughtful scientists and really accomplished scientists, but also really, really thoughtful about matters of theology and philosophy and how they fit together.
Todd Ream: Yeah, and help recommend additions to your reading list there.
Karin Öberg: Yeah, no, for those who want a very quick introduction to the interface between science and religion, or might have some concerns or have family members that have concerns, there’s some really great, very accessible resources that we have put out. I think so one page answers to common questions or concerns. I think it’s a great place to start for people who don’t want to read a whole book, but they want to have a little bit more than what they could get from listening to a random podcast.
Todd Ream: Yeah. One of our previous guests was Stephen Barr who I equally enjoyed talking with as I am enjoying talking with you and the ways that these pieces-
Karin Öberg: I steal from him frequently when I give talks.
Todd Ream: You’re, you’re more honest about your theft than I am, so I greatly appreciate that, yeah.
As our time unfortunately is beginning to become short, I want to ask you a little bit more formally now about the academic vocation. What is do you view as the end or the good of it, and what characteristics come to define it?
Karin Öberg: The end is truth. I think this is a little bit different if you are in a professional school than if you are in the, what I’m in the fact of arts and sciences. Uh, so for, so I think you could, I think if you are in a med school or in law school, you might say the end is the good rather than truth. And I, or at least there’s some mix of, of those two.
But I think when you are in the non-applied sciences, I think it is pretty clear that it is truth and it has to be truth. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be the only thing that you go after, but things have to be ordered towards that. So even when I’m thinking about how am I treating my students I am treating them first and foremost as persons, but the reason that they are there under my care is to learn how to pursue the truth.
That is the kind of relationship we have is for me to help them pursue the truth and therefore, together unveiling a bit more of the truth, true nature of the universe or if we are in the humanities of human nature.
Uh, so I think that is just a really important thing to keep in mind, which I think is a little bit easier to do, though not at all exclusive, if you have good reason to think that there is an objective truth and that there’s some correspondence between that objective truth out there and our minds that you have hope in some sense, that you can access what that truth is.
Todd Ream: Yeah. When seeking to access truth then, what practices have you found that are most fundamental in order to sustain that pursuit and what forces may threaten it?
Karin Öberg: I think the second part is easier because I think we are all subject to it. Well, maybe I should just speak for myself. I think getting honors, winning knowing things before other people do is really nice. Like this is nice.
Todd Ream: You’re more honest than I’m again.
Karin Öberg: Um, yeah. And I, and I think it is really important to first, realize that those are good. It is good to learn something. It is good to be recognized for something that you did, but they’re not the primary good. They have to be in the right order towards what is the actual end which is the truth itself.
And there I think what helps good relationships with honest people, who will help tell you if you’re going astray, I think is a very useful start. I think also in some building up your soul, so you’re sensitive if you start hurting other people to get the advantages, even if it’s very in some small hurts. Noticing yourself, if you start regretting if your peers or colleagues get prizes instead of being able to celebrate with them.
Todd Ream: Right.
Karin Öberg: I think there are many, many things that you can do and both being introspective and forming good relationships to try to stay on the narrow path and just remind yourself what you’re in business for, and that that is ultimately the pursuit of truth.
In terms of more positive things to do I find that keeping that sense of curiosity alive having it be rewarded by awe and, and wonder rather than prizes, on a more like on, on a regular basis, is really, really helpful. And one of the things that I have tried to do, and it’s become harder and harder the further you come in your career, is to set aside time where I’m really just reading or trying to come up with new ideas, or even doing small projects myself, just to keep the muscles alive. That this is what we are, we’re trying to do.
Like even though my main job nowadays is to direct students and to train them in the pursuit of truth, to keep my own truth-pursuing muscles, alive has to me really important, to not get caught up in it’s just a competition and putting too much pressure on students in performing since they’re the ones who make me look good, nowadays. Uh, so that’s, that’s something I would say, especially for those who start being a little bit more advanced in their career where it is very tempting to let that go because there’s so many other things that are trying to get your time, is to not let it go, but set aside a little bit of time to do your own personal scholarship and keep those muscles alive.
Todd Ream: Along these lines, I think one of the lessons I learned as a postdoc myself that I’ve tried to continue to build in, but it gets, as you said, it gets harder was going to the library and browsing in particular sections and letting a good library, letting the resources sort of speak to you in certain ways, making sense of them, picking things off the shelf that you may not have otherwise read for a particular, like an urgent means, but allowing them to sort of, you know, foster your imagination and fuel it knowing that in the end it may lead to something, but there’s no immediate sort of path to it. And I think as we get older, we start trying to connect the dots too quickly and it decreases our imaginative capacities.
Karin Öberg: No, absolutely. So, so again, just encouragement to be disciplined about setting that aside. Put it on your schedule on a regular basis. That it is important, both for your own, I think, enjoyment of, of, of the work, but also for your own virtue and therefore, for your students in the profession as a whole.
Todd Ream: For our last set of questions then, I want to ask about the relationship that individuals and the community within astronomy, most broadly share with the Church because at times the Church and scholars who turned their gaze to the stars worked in harmony and mutual support, but at other times they proved to be adversaries even if they were sort of passing each other in certain ways.
In your estimation, in what ways can scholars and the Church be mutually supportive partners in the pursuit of truth within astronomy, but within astrochemistry in particular?
Karin Öberg: So astrochemistry might be too specialized because I don’t think the Church has too much to say about the details of astrochemistry. But I think more generally, I think the first thing to say is that is the natural thing. The reason that we find things like the Galileo affair so offensive is that that is unnatural. It should not, if we believe that there is one Creator of all truth, one writer of the book of the Bible, and one writer, the same writer of the book of nature, there should be no conflict.
Like I think our outrage when there is a conflict is correct because there shouldn’t be. Something has gone wrong when there is a conflict, whether that’s on the part of the, of the scientist or some secular institution or if it’s on the part of the Church, that can vary from time to time, but something has gone wrong.
But that’s also the good news because it means that if you’re not completely screwing up, it should be harmony. And, and that has certainly been my experience is that I have felt zero resistance from any Church authority in, in what I’m doing, even though I’m pursuing things like origins of life, which in some religious communities is a controversial topic, which I’m happy to get into, why and why it shouldn’t be.
Uh, I’ve only had gratitude from, from the Church when I’m speaking on these topics, including my best estimation of how to think about the relationship between science and religion.
I have also never had any hostility from any of my colleagues or students about that I am, I have this sort of side gig where I’m talking about science and religion a lot. As I said, Harvard is happy to have me teach on it. My colleagues have been super supportive. Uh, so my experience has been that of harmony both within, but also in my relationship with both my secular friends and with my faithful friends. And that is how it should be. There’s no reason that that’s not what it should be like.
Todd Ream: Yeah. In the age in which we live and the perceptions about academia that are out there and seem to be, I don’t know if they’re gaining traction, but they’re pronounced in certain communities, that’s wonderful to hear. And the way we should be able to nurture each other as colleagues in our pursuit of truth.
Karin Öberg: Yeah, absolutely. And I think there is, I mean my experience has been that of true pluralism, that there is, that even as we are not agreeing about things that are important, that it is still possible to have not just a tolerable, but a beautiful kind of friendship within the department or university.
I think though, what is required is that you have a goal in common, and I think that’s why it’s so important thinking back to the previous question and thinking about what are we in business for, and I think if you are agreeing as an astronomy department that you’re in business of trying to get to the truth of the matter of the stars, the planets, the galaxies, the cosmos as a whole, you have that shared goal. You can have a beautiful friendship around that shared goal that then tolerates a lot of different ideas on how to interpret it or different ideologies or, or faiths, and that’s certainly been my experience.
Todd Ream: Yeah. That’s great to hear. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our guest has been Karin Öberg, the Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard University. Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and wisdom with us.
Karin Öberg: Oh my pleasure.
—
Todd Ream: Thank you for joining us for Saturdays at seven Christian Scholars reviews conversation series with thought leaders about the academic vocation and the relationship that vocation shares with the Church. We invite you to join us again next week for Saturdays at Seven.
