Brian Keating: I’m Spending $200 Million To Explore Existence! How God Fits Into Science Explained!

Keating’s new Chilean observatory (funded heavily by Jim Simons) is designed to detect subtle patterns in the cosmic microwave background—specifically polarization signatures that would only exist if the universe underwent a rapid inflationary phase after a true Big Bang singularity. Detecting these patterns would strongly support a “universe with a beginning,” while finding nothing would bolster alternative models (eternal, cyclic, or non-singular cosmologies). Either result would reshape how theologians and atheists alike frame creation narratives.

The BICEP experiment at the South Pole briefly appeared to detect the “baby picture” of the universe: microwave patterns interpreted as gravitational waves from inflation. The team was on front pages worldwide and widely tipped for a Nobel Prize before subsequent analysis showed their signal was actually dust in our own galaxy mimicking the pattern. They had to retract the claim—what Keating calls the most crushing experience a scientist can have—yet he insists real science demands you keep experimenting, even after devastating setbacks.

As a “devout agnostic” and practicing Jew, Keating argues that science is about evidence (he doesn’t ‘believe’ in gravity; he measures it) while God is fundamentally beyond empirical proof or disproof. He criticizes scientists who dismiss God as stupid and religious people who invoke God as a lazy explanation for everyday phenomena (“God made the rainbow”). For him, God-as-creator and universe-as-creation are “inexorably linked,” but the honest position is to live and practice within unanswered questions, not pretend certainty.

To get us, Keating says, the Earth needed: (1) a colossal planetary collision to form the Moon (stabilizing tides and climate), (2) comet bombardment to deliver just the right amount of water, and (3) a dinosaur‑killing asteroid at exactly the right time to clear evolutionary space for mammals. Even if each of these events had only a 1‑in‑10,000 chance, combining just a handful drives the overall probability below the number of planets in the observable universe. His conclusion: it’s plausible—and maybe likely—that we’re alone, which should increase our sense of responsibility, not nihilism.

Keating challenges Steven’s agnosticism by asking: if you truly think God might exist, how does that show up in your behavior? He argues that “God has common sense” and wouldn’t damn an earnest seeker who picked the ‘wrong’ tradition, and that practices like charity, Sabbath, community, and ritualized gratitude measurably improve life—even if God turned out not to exist. He likens it to exercise: if you discovered it shortened lifespan slightly but massively improved quality of life, you’d likely still do it.

Earlier in his career, Keating’s meaning was dominated by the quest for a Nobel Prize, partly to outdo his scientist father. Over time—and especially after his father’s death—he’s shifted: the core of meaning is “to do as many things that, if taken away, would devastate you,” especially relationships with his wife and children. He notes that even Nobel laureates suffer imposter syndrome when they see their names alongside Einstein and Curie, demonstrating that external accolades don’t resolve inner insecurity.

On simulation theory, Keating explains how future computing could in principle simulate entire worlds, but notes there’s currently no empirical sign we’re in one; some astrophysical tests even argue against certain simulation models. On aliens, he stresses that while the universe is vast, “possibility ≠ probability,” and we have 0% confirmed evidence of life beyond Earth—down to not even a microbe on Mars. Astrology, in his view, fails basic tests of causation and predictive power; correlations on birth dates (e.g., post‑Christmas conceptions) don’t imply cosmic influence.