This year’s Templeton Prize has been awarded to British cosmologist John Barrow. Barrow is a renowned physicist, who has made important contributions in several areas of cosmology and gravitational physics, most recently to understanding the possibility that the constants of nature are changing with time in a measurable manner.
Barrow’s interests and successes extend to his Directorship of the Millenium Mathematics Project, his authorship of a number of books and a successful physics-based play, his wonderful public lectures and the production of excellent Ph.D. students who have become well-known cosmologists in their own right. In short: he’s an impressive guy.
While I am an admirer of Barrow’s science, I find his acceptance of the Templeton Prize unfortunate. Although I’m not going to make a huge fuss over it, I’m always a little disappointed when something like this happens. The Templeton Foundation isn’t the Discovery Institute (although they were involved in funding some of the same things for a while) and I suspect that they have pure, although in my view misguided, motives. Also, if it is truly one’s position that science and religion are reconcilable world-views, and that one should actively seek to smooth over any perceived points of contention, then I guess it is perfectly fine to accept support or prizes from them. Indeed, as Sean has pointed out, there are some scientists who are religious, and the goals of the Templeton Foundation presumably sit rather well with them.
However, I can’t for the life of me see how it is intellectually tenable to consider religion and science as complementary, and it does dismay me to see people for whom I have great respect falling into the other camp. When one accepts money or prizes from the Templeton Foundation, one’s name becomes inextricably linked - not only logically, but also explicitly, on their web site - with their philosophy, their goals and all their efforts.
For example, here is a quote by Sir John Marks Templeton himself, from their main science and religion page:
“There is here no knockdown argument for design and purpose, but certainly there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. … From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”
It isn’t clear what is meant by “strong hints of ultimate realities beyond our cosmos,” but I imagine it might refer to the discussions of the anthropic principle that have been taking place in a small subset of the physics community in the last few years. I also imagine that “self-organization” refers to the same thing. I think one would have to be deluded or dishonest to think, even if these ideas turned out to be correct, that there is any implication of a supernatural force outside the physical universe. Indeed, you’d be hard-pushed to find a string theorist who would claim that the idea of the landscape compels them to view it as “an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”
But the problem is that when the odd well-known scientist allows their name to be associated with ideas such as those pursued by the Templeton Foundation, it lends credence to non-scientific ideas, and ultimately does a disservice to science and the scientific method.
I’m not trying to give John Barrow a particularly hard time here - as I mentioned above, accepting the Templeton Prize is presumably commensurate with his philosophical views, and I expect he and I would just plain disagree over the validity of those views. But I do think it is worth pointing out the consequences of association with the Templeton Foundation, and to hope that, at the very least, scientists who do not subscribe to Templeton’s views of science and religion won’t allow their names to be used in support of them.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Roger Penrose writes:
He further says that
This is pure mysticism. E.g, “timeless”, “in no spatial location”, “perceivable only by intelligent beings”, “having an existence independent of our perceptions” indicate nothing in the physical universe. I would term them religious; but are they incompatible with science? If your answer is No, then you may agree that it is only if you term religion to mean what you get out of a literal reading of the Bible that you run into this science versus religion problem.
If you answer Yes, I’d love to see you debate Roger Penrose :).
March 20th, 2006 at 12:58 am
I should add that in my opinion, Roger Penrose’s ideas as expressed in the quote, constitute more than “strong hints of ultimate realities beyond our cosmos”. His Platonic world is real, and timeless and without spatial location - an extremely good candidate for an ultimate reality beyond our cosmos.
March 20th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Mark, I also thought: hey, that’s kind of strange that John would accept this kind of prize. At the homepage templeton.org they state, that “the Foundation typically seeks to focus the methods and resources of scientific inquiry on topical areas which have spiritual and theological significance”. The sp. and th. significance of John’s research is null, I think.
But, at any rate, $1.4 million is really a lot of money!
An Intelligent Choice, or signs of Intelligent Design? I’m not sure…
Regards, Kasper
March 20th, 2006 at 2:03 am
If I am given 1.5M bucks by the Church of England to support Christianity, I am pretty sure I don’t have the will to resist. Yes, I am weak, but 1.5M bucks is a lot of money…
March 20th, 2006 at 2:05 am
Science and religion at Cosmic Variance
Mark Trodden at Cosmic Variance thinks that cosmologist John Barrow shouldn’t have accepted the Templeton Prize but his argument consists of not much more than “it dismays me.” Granted, he doesn’t seem to think it is THAT big of a deal that he acce…
March 20th, 2006 at 2:43 am
A million pounds is a million pounds. The gratuitous trousering of large amounts of money by the soi-dissant upper echelons of British society has become a commonplace, from the occupants of 10 Downing Street down. It’s because they’re worth it. If the Templeton things were similar in value to, let us say, the Mann Booker award or the Turner Prize, it would be so much more easy to be principled. Then again, I don’t recall there being much fuss about the Gifford Lectures (which had much the same intent, of fostering a dialogue between science and religfion). Scientists of distinction (from Eddington through to Penrose and Dyson) - and one or two eccentrics like Bishop Barnes of Birmingham - were quite happy to bask in the kudos associated with them.
March 20th, 2006 at 5:29 am
Hmmmm… my impression is that the incompatibility of science and religion is particular to the American phenomenon of religion.
I know many religious people in Germany whos believes are absolutely compatible with science.
If you understand religion any specific implementation of religion, then it is often the case that they make claims that fall into the realm of science, and following their internal logic the other claims on issues outside of science might be interwoven with these.
But the religion I have encountered personally in Germany, especially among interlectuals, so far overwhelmingly has NOT been of the kind. It’s well disentangled from science. Of course these people would also count as bleeding heart liberals in the US.
The Tempelton quote reminds me of a beautiful essay by the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin who argued that the act of creation is still ongoing, that self organisation, natural evolution, and finally human cultural progress are the act of creation. This is, in a sense, a deist or perhaps pantheist picture of the world. In any case it is manifestly compatible with science, in fact it assigns to science the role that Einstein saw in it: To learn Gods thoughts and means.
My point is that to a (continental) European it seems entirely possible and legit to try to transform religion into something entirely non threatening and compatible with science. In fact that’s how much science around here is.
In this sense the meaning of accepting the Tempelton price is very very different here then there.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:03 am
What annoys me about Templeton is rewarding religious-style preaching by scientists, dressed up as teaching.
Davies (who won the Templeton prize in 1995) started out a good guy. His 1986 book “The forces of nature” is brilliant (I read it when 14, and it started off my interest in physics). It sets out all the facts using simple analogies, without prejudice. Great!
But later he wrote “The Mind of God”, “God and New Physics”, etc., and I felt uneasy. The same is true of Barrow. They started out good guys, writing books which set out known facts, but then they began describing extra-dimensional theory as being a search for the mind of God.
As soon as you get scientific missionaries, out to convert the world’s heathen to the mainstream theories which say there are 10/11 dimensions, unobservable superpartners, gravitons, and that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, you have a brainwashing, religious propaganda cult. The problem lies in the unification of scientist and teacher, circa 1850. True science should present facts, and use caution when presenting speculative ad hoc theory. It is not a crime to admit some uncertainty.
March 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Ten years ago or so, Barrow’s book “Theories of Everything” was a rather successful book in the Czech Republic and I could never understand why. It was such a vague and confusing mixture of religion, philosophy, and science that it was hard to finish it. John Barrow is one of the authors of the anthropic principle, in its very religious form, and I think he is ideologically identical to the Templeton Foundation. It is not surprising at all that they chose him.
As Kasper says, $1.4 million is a lot of money. One would have to be a really fanatical atheist to reject such a handsome amount. But I am not gonna discuss this topic on my blog because it’s just another million of dollars that are changing their owners every day in a fashion that is not quite deserved. The prize is ideological, and despite the fact that the money exceeds e.g. Gross’s share on the Nobel prize by a factor of five, I think that Barrow’s contributions don’t exceed a few percent of Gross’s.
March 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Mark, I tend to agree with you, but find demarcation to be a tricky issue. There are lots of funding sources, many of them are from people and organizations I don’t agree with…worse still many of them have funding policies that emphasize certain types of research over others (going beyond the usual peer-reviewed quality criteria), so I am not sure where to draw the line…
Certainly if the funding is predicated on certain result being obtained, that is an easy case, but that is not relevant here I think.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Philosophically I am of course on your side. But I cannot swear that I wouldn’t accept the Templeton Prize. (And I’m pretty sure that I’m at least on their short list.) That’s a lot of money! Think of all the atheism one could promulgate, in between trips to Vegas.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:29 am
I’m pretty sure you’re on some kind of list of theirs.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Mark,
It’s really pretty interesting that you bring this up. Actually I have a confession to make. I was their first choice. But I was philosphically forced to turn it down. They then turned to Barrow.
(sean if I win it again, I’ll take the money and we can go play poker…)
Elliot
March 20th, 2006 at 10:33 am
… or, for that matter, during trips to Vegas! The mind reels.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
one could imagine some very interesting experiments to prove/disprove the existence of God in Las Vegas. Maybe Templeton would fund these experiments.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
On a more serious note. The notion of “self-organizing complex systems” does potentially lead the discussion into areas that although are outside current physical theory does not necessarily require that it be so. For example the work of Stuart Kaufmann at Santa-Fe points to physical laws underlying complexity.
Lots to digest.
March 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Mark, I seem to recall this turning up in conversation, with you and Sean and others, in Tampa last year (in a bar)(a respectable one). I also don’t trust the motives of the donors, necessarily (and even less so, of course, those of the Discovery Institute, but that’s a different matter) but as Sean says, it’s a lot of money to be turning down. I do think that groups like this are trying to buy legitimacy (indeed, the funding of this prize is set to exceed that of the Nobel prizes, I gather, just to ensure that it does get some of the legitimacy that large sums of money tend to create) but to a large extent I don’t think that research scientists can be too fussy about where their money comes from; they are better off worrying about the nature of their research and its implications.
I don’t have enormous problems with the beliefs of people who think that science and religion don’t overlap (although I know that many of you do); my problem is with their methodology. However, money is useful, as I will demonstrate to anyone that wants to give me some.
March 20th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Those of you doing unusual physics-at-the-edge work, don’t fret about losing out on the Templeton Prize.. here’s another grant opportunity.
http://www.fqxi.org/grants.html
Not as well funded, but still interesting for a few of you, yes?
March 20th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Also Templeton funded.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
How fussy can physicists afford to be, then, when it comes to taking money? And is money from a bunch of people who are at worst religious propagandists really so bad, particularly if it’s given with no strings actually attached (but just for the benefit of PR of the ‘we gave this real scientist a lot of money and he took it’ sort)? Money doesn’t have a memory or a conscience, after all.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
It all depends on the individual. I consider the price (lending legitimacy to a cause I find to be misguided) to be too high in this case.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
The news piece I saw on this said Barrow was a churchgoing Christian, so I am sure he has no qualms about taking the money — and is no more “guilty” of blurring the line between science and religion (if that is indeed a sin) than he was before he won the prize. He is just a lot richer
March 20th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Hi Richard. Yes, that’s partly the point I made in the post when I mentioned that accepting this was presumably in agreement with his views.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:39 am
Hmmm.. I didn’t see that. It is in very small print here: http://www.fqxi.org/about.html
“Building on seed funding from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), the Institute”
But what means “seed funding”? An initial $1000? $100,000? They don’t appear to be contributing now from their written description, and with this Scientific Board, I find it unlikely that grants given would go in absurd directions: http://www.fqxi.org/who.html
March 21st, 2006 at 2:22 am
No, I am not a representative of the Templeton group for giving out the prize, Arun. Sorry. That kind of sucking up just won’t do:)You can see what kind of fighting is going on to get the money? Atrocious:)
Moshe’s point as to influencing, makes me wonder. Did they give Barrows the money first? Then, he wrote all that he did irresponsibly?
Next thing you know, we will become suspicisous of every individual that has some point of view to offer, is classed into a specific group.
I resent that Arun
March 21st, 2006 at 7:29 am
The thing is Amara, look on Templeton’s web site and you can see how this is being advertized. Once again it is an attempt to buy legitimacy for their philosophy by association with scientists. On the web site this is included along with all their other programs.
I don’t know how much seed funding there is and whether there is any other source at all right now. I do agree that the balance of funding sources might affect the eventual question of whether (for me, for example) to apply for funding from them.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:41 am
Mark, another consideration is the types of project they want to support, they have to be “foundational”. To separate out the foundational from the mere technicalities some of us may be fascinated with, here is an helpful list
http://www.fqxi.org/rfpexamples.html
This is probably the first thing you’d want to read to see if you need to apply or not.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:27 am
To consider another aspect of this discussion, it’s obvious that some of us (including myself) are uncomfortable with religion “creeping” into scientific discussions. What about the other way around where science subsumes religion in some sense. I use as examples, Frank Tipler’s “Physics of Immortality” and Gardner’s “The Selfish Biocosm”. Are people equivalently uncomfortable with the argument the other way as Tipler puts it “religion becomes a branch of physics”. Notwithstanding the flaws in his approach, is this as threatening as religion creeping into science?
I guess my question is are these areas that should forever be distinct or is there a possibility of some scientific (falsifiable theory) approach to religious beliefs.
I have some thoughts on this but would be interested in what others think.
Elliot
March 21st, 2006 at 10:10 am
On your points Elliot.
I was quickly reminded of Peter Woit’s stance on how String theory might look, as if, we were really dogmatic about the model used. Or, that the word “stringevangelism” could take on new meaning and context, if it were held religiously too.
So in that sense, the warnings and pulpit preachings, if it had seemed that way, might be part of the reguirements, where we might contrained ourselves with the expectations, that we also be careful and not put our eggs in one basket(psychologically what might this mean if we had so much invested?)
So in one sense “religious,” we try and balance perspectve. That we are careful not to discourage, based on some sightful appeal in our senses of religion taking over society and it becoming charged with all sorts of religious plans. A conspiracy theory maybe?
Strength and perpetuaty of our reason, and our emotive states, focused forward to science’s regard, and then I don’t think such an issue could be so written about, as to lead our youth into false gods and such. The issue is to build independancy, while adventuring forward, not halting perspectve roads to investigation.
You points would be appreciated as well.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I do wonder if some perspectives are born out of the environment that one makes science from as well as one’s age. I was a scientific programmer/quasi-astronomer in the US for 18 years before I moved to Europe, (first Germany, where I got my PhD, and now Italy) and a more conventional scientist. I kept strong boundaries against religion when I was working in the US, perhaps due to a stronger religious cultural environment and because I was young and more of a hell-raiser than now.
Italy is peculiar in many respects in the cultural attitudes towards religion, I find the people to be superstitious much more than religious, and so I don’t feel any need to place hard boundaries. In addition, the Jesuits I’ve met in my life are among the smartest people I’ve known, including some excellent scientists(Jesuits) who work at the Vatican Observatory up the road from me (we’ve become friends and colleagues). However, there is a sector of high level priests who have hooks into the Italian Parliament influencing some very bad legislation, and for that I become furious and a hell-raiser again.
For me the scientist-Jesuits are excellent bridges between extreme relgious and scientists. The precious bridge my Vatican astronomer friend can provide is that he can explain to fundamentalists how valuable is science. At the same time, he doesn’t need to justify or explain himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking the ‘big picture’, and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself with an extraordinarily long and respected publication record. If atheist scientists wish to gain the support of highly religious people, I think they will need people like him.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Plato,
The whole “stringvangelism” thing not what I am talking about. I am referring to real scientists making some falsifiable statatement about matters religious like the exsitence of a supernatural power, divine intervention, demonstrable (and repeatable)power of prayer etc or something like that.
Amara,
The Jesuits are an interesting group to consider.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I think I have good reason to believe that Dirac’s (repaired) Large Number Hypothesis IS the physics that defines the anthropic principle via the first principle that explains the structure of our universe, but science wrongfully **assumes** that it is beyond all that.
I also think that a complete non-taoutologous form of the anthropic principle defines the ToE.
At least Barrow is looking real physics.
Into the fourth year exclusively studying the anthropic curse, I’ve found x number of illogical reasons to dislike the anthropic principle, and one very important reason to respect it like no other.
Here are the top 4:
1) Misplaced geocentric arrogance - Many good scientists simply don’t like the implication that we hold a special place in the universe. They blame taoutologous form for not answering “why”, yet I’ve found that nobody bothers to try to find that reason because of the above assumption about human arrogance… speaking of circular reasoning.
2) Ideological pre-conceived prejudice - Do a Google search, and it quickly becomes quite evident that creationists are convinced that “specialness” is evidence for god, or, counter-fanatically motivated people are convinced that they’d better not give the creationists an inch, so they strictly deny all possible interpretations of evidence that we’re not here by accident. Unfortunately, this pre-conceived prejudice over-flows right into the mainstream.
3) Then there’s string theory - oh.no.Lenny.What.Have.You.Done
It didn’t take long for the attack against the multiverse to be redirected to an attack against the AP.
4) It runs directly contrary to the flow of mainstream science toward a universe that’s created from a purely random process, as supported by the uncertainty principle, as it is radically applied to just about anything that anybody wants to use it to “explain”, while enabling them to successfully dodge the causality bullet. That sets-off alarm bells for me.
~
One excellent reason to study the anthropic principle:
If the anthropic principle defines the most accurate cosmological principle, then it also defines the ToE, because it either, unifies the forces, or, more-probably… a complete non-tautologous form explains “why” the forces cannot be unified.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Given the parameters of the article written above and which comments supplied, my statements, in the post previously written, are appropriate.
You had to be working in the environment, as “opposing views” were sought, as to the basis of the model spoken and referred too.
I would also point to Robert Laughlin’s ideas in rebuttal to Witten’s statement. If you knew he was a Condense Matter Theorist, how “appropriate” his views in relation to Wittens.
LGQ and STrings? Amara may be right to point to that environment, and the conditions of knowledge according to the circumstances in which we are raised. We certainly do not want to supplant our “biased views” on others? Let them be selectve then. Pass by the post?:)
Casting a ideology over the pervasiveness of science with leaders in their positions , although sound in guiding our principles in regards to what is needed in science, had been less kind, in assigning features to “this and that” over the adoption of what ever model.
People do cast statements and tones in regards to others, that is not my way. Should it be discouraged? I think so.
The points about funding, to some prescribe agenda is ridiculous. If science was held in front, then how would you have been discouraged from acting repsonsibly( group made me do it?).
The “guidance” then might have been more appropriate to raise the points as they do, and let minds decide whether what they had said is right to them. Take forward the skills they had been offered, and allowed them to blossom. Lok at the statements and found reason with which that statement might not be fair. Prove their math.
Research would/should encourage individualistic pursuites to excellence, by example?
I don’t care if you are atheist, Buddhist or IDist as long as the validation and principals of science are upheld. That is all of our struggles, is to go over and check that we are not making mistakes, accepting them, and seeing if what is being used is in fact working, and applicable in other areas.
That’s Witten’s point also,I listed in quote. What year was that? I speculate then, that you and I might agree on this?:)
March 21st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Future of String Theory was 2004. I had thought it was earlier. Maybe, Peter has some effect? I would be happy if Peter just said String theory was not ID related so I didn’t feel I had been segregated to a group of a kind (that was?).:)
I am PLato( as the ego struggles to be himself)!
March 28th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
[…] The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) was mentioned in the comments of Mark’s post about John Barrow’s Templeton Prize. This is a new organization that is devoted to supporting innovative ideas at the frontiers of physics and cosmology. It is led by Max Tegmark of MIT and Anthony Aguirre of UCSC, two leading young cosmologists, backed up by an extremely prestigious Scientific Advisory Panel. […]
April 6th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Horgan on the End of Science and Religion
John Horgan was one of the first batch of Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellows in Science and Religion. As he reports,
The 10 fellows were to spend several weeks at the University of Cambridge, listening to scientists and philosophers pontificate o…
May 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
[…] Right on the spot, if you ask me. Another exponent of what i’m talking about is Sean Carroll, who recently turned down a prize form the TP, as he explains in this post (see also here and here for more debate on the issue at CosmicVariance). […]
June 28th, 2006 at 12:58 am
[…] My views on all this are well-known. However, Horgan ends his essay with an interesting suggestion First, the foundation should state clearly that it is not committed to any particular conclusion of the science-religion dialogue, and that one possible conclusion is that religion — at least in its traditional, supernatural manifestations — is not compatible with science. To demonstrate its open-mindedness, the foundation should award the Templeton Prize to an opponent of religion, such as Steven Weinberg or Richard Dawkins. At the very least, the foundation should post this essay on its Web site. […]
August 29th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
[…] […]
September 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
[…] Templeton Foundation has every right to exist, and sponsor conferences. And there is undoubtedly a danger among atheists […]