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 on topics related to science and religion. The fellowship not only sounded like fun, it also paid all expenses and threw in an extra $15,000 — a tempting sum for a freelancer, which I was at the time. On the other hand, as an agnostic increasingly disturbed by religion’s influence on human affairs, I had misgivings about the foundation’s agenda of reconciling religion and science.
Horgan took the money and went to Cambridge, but what he encountered makes me feel all the more certain that allowing oneself to be used to blur the line between science and religion is absolutely the wrong choice.
For the whole story, read his piece at Edge.com. For now, let me give you a couple of gems from the meeting he attended
Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at Cambridge and an adviser to the Templeton Foundation, ridiculed intelligent design as nonsense that no respectable biologist could accept.
[…]
And yet Morris, a Catholic, revealed in response to questions that he believes Christ was a supernatural figure who performed miracles and was resurrected after his death. Other Templeton speakers also rejected intelligent design while espousing beliefs at least as lacking in scientific substance.
It gets worse:
The physicist F. Russell Stannard, a member of the Templeton Foundation Board of Trustees, contended that prayers can heal the sick — not through the placebo effect, which is an established fact, but through the intercession of God. In fact the foundation has supported studies of the effectiveness of so-called intercessory prayer, which have been inconclusive.
[But lets not forget that some studies have been conclusive, and found intercessory prayer to be, not to put too fine a point on it, a load of bollocks. Actually, to be fair, the main page of the Templeton foundation site, today reports that the Templeton-funded “Largest Study of Third-Party Remote Intercessory Prayer Suggests Prayer Not Effective in Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery”. I must confess to being impressed by them reporting this on the main page, although they do say in the statement that “Prayer research is a fascinating topic…”, whereas I would have said that “Prayer research is a waste of time, since intercessory prayer would violate well-established laws of physics”. But you can’t have everything.]
And finally, back to Horgan’s story; here’s the money shot
One Templeton official made what I felt were inappropriate remarks about the foundation’s expectations of us fellows. She told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion. But when I told her one evening at dinner that — given all the problems caused by religion throughout human history — I didn’t want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion, she replied that she didn’t think someone with those opinions should have accepted a fellowship.
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.
So in order not to be negative the whole time, I will state (and don’t pretend like I don’t wield awesome power in these matters) that I am prepared to apply for Templeton money if they award the Templeton Prize to Richard Dawkins.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Of course your timing is impeccable Mark, with Peter’s Trackback.:) What did you think about Anthony’s group and their proposal? I had to read it, to be sure.
The essence of the debate was sidestepped I thought in Anthony’s article and presentation. I honed in on Sean becuase of what I had seen in the past.
And sure enough….a declaration is being made here again.
Has that issue been resolved with regard’s to Anthony’s presentation? Is there an association to the templeton group as far as you know?
As a layman I am putting my trust into the good science people here. Who is going to speak for the public?
I would rather see the information flow about good science, then to see it hide behind motivated agendas? Tis is the essence is it not? We would have to know when we are being hoodwinked, as our education increases, their is sure to be less dependancy on the statements and agendas, if we feel confident enough in ourselves, as we learn?
April 7th, 2006 at 9:28 am
What is the point of urging the Templeton Foundation to lie? If they want to subsidize the reconciliation of science and religion, Democrats and Republics, slavery and freedom, or apples and oranges — well, hey, it’s a free country.
Those unsympathetic to their clearly stated objectives, should not accept their grants.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am
They are lying now. They consistently say that they are simply encouraging people to ask big questions and contemplate deep issues. But really they do have a conclusion in mind, and don’t appreciate it if you don’t go along, as Horgan’s anecdote above demonstrates. It’s okay to push an agenda, but you should be open about it; I imagine a lot more scientists and journalists would be reluctant to take money from Templeton if they understood that they were supposed to use it to promote the reconciliation of science and religion.
Also, I have decided that, if the Templeton Foundation wanted to prove its open-mindedness by awarding me their Prize, I would accept it.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? by Frank J. Tipler
I think what has troubled me most, is that personally I could have held beliefs about life contrary to the athestic positon, templeton agenda, thinking all positions equally being valid from the conditions which may arise from “our accepting.” Would have been an attribute of “personal choice about truth” as we would have taken it in life?
If it was wrong, we would of course have to accept all things that sprung from it, retrospect, having been given the choice “to accept or not.”
So ultimately, accepting, that all things will precede as of their own consequence, should the quest for good science be held less valid for some, because of belief while others might perish?
Some might have never recognized the internal struggle for truth, yet it is out there for us all to consider, our asessments of reality and the ownership we will place on cyclical evolutionary standards towards excellence?
Educative, or just in the understanding of correcting and engaging attitude adjustments, as, towards the emotive consequences of life memory induced.
We’d want to be flexible would we not, if such a position held too, might have us face the choices made, as the truth had been far from what we had said it was, and now, we face the consequence of our making?
I didn’t need a referred journal to tell me this.
The diversity of our views are increased in the internet capabilties and opportunities to record our thinkins. The numbers had increased dramatically in contributions from the commentors, while the statistical results of students enrolling, dropping in science?
Their still out there.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:34 am
“Prayer research is a fascinating topic…”, whereas I would have said that “Prayer research is a waste of time, since intercessory prayer would violate well-established laws of physics”.
Prayer research is a very beneficial topic, because there is a large chunk of our population who can’t be reached by quoting well-established laws of physics. If debunking copper bracelets or the medical effectiveness of prayer teaches these people anything about the universe, then it is a worthwhile study.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:46 am
It is possible that finding another way to show that something that obviously can’t work doesn’t, in fact, work, is beneficial, I agree. But it most certainly isn’t fascinating, since the results are clearly predictable ahead of time.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
something that obviously can’t work
If you are speaking as a physicist, then you are over-reaching. Physics (like all of science) cannot make statements about super-natural entities or effects. I don’t believe in anything supernatural, but the possibility exists (or at least cannot be disproven). Where supernatural effects (such as intercessory prayer) are supposed to impact the natural world, scientists can measure results (or lack thereof), but that is as far as science can go.
To tell people that science can disprove the existence of G/god(s) is a misrepresentation. It is also a statement that is likely to harm public acceptance of science, scientists, and the funding of scientific projects.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Nobody is saying science disproves the existence of God (you are putting that misinterpretation out there, not me). It does, however, through repeated experiment, show that many religious claims are nonsense. Are we supposed to do expensive experiments to test every possible idea that every superstition comes up with that contradicts known physics? And, the part of my post that you seem to be taking issue with, are we supposed to think of studying every such superstitious claim as “fascinating”?
If Templeton wants to fund such research, it is their money and they should feel free. However, we shouldn’t pretend that we don’t have a clue what the answer is. We do, and it will be null.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Mark, read your comment #6 again. When you said that intercessory prayer ‘obviously can’t work’, you were in effect saying that the Judeo-Christian G/god can’t exist. If an omnipotent god exists, then intercessory prayer (and/or human sacrifice) could work.
I’m not trying to pick a fight; our ‘beliefs’ are probably nearly identical. I would just hate to see John Stewart playing a clip of Pat Robertson declaring a fatwah on you.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I say “Bring it on Robertson!”
April 7th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
I suspect that the Templeton Foundation are going to be none to happy about Daniel Dennett’s new book: “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”
It is one of his better efforts and represents quality critical thinking on many of the comments some have made above. It should be required reading in high schools across the country.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Sean,
Yes, they are lying. [Although this is not realized by their more naive grant recipients and employees.] There is no point in encouraging them to lie further, contrary to what Horgan suggests. They should instead be encouraged to be candid about their foregone conclusions.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Belizean, I agree with you that it is silly to encourage them to lie. But that’s not what this quote is about. What Horgan is saying, if you read the whole piece (perhaps it is my fault for partially quoting him), is that he suspects “that some of the new fellows have doubts about jumping on the Templeton bandwagon.” and that if they want to, “The foundation could assuage the misgivings of those and other grantees with a few simple acts.”, such as those mentioned in the quote I gave.
In other words, if they are not really interested in an impartial investigation of the relationship of reason to nonsense (my clarifying version of the words they use :)), then they should say so up front and not pretend they are.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Shouldn’t we all take some satisfaction in the fact that the “truth” will eventually come out. I mean truth in its most basic and fundamental sense that the world is made up of x, y, and z, which interact in certain ways etc. A million Templeton Foundations can’t change the truth or buy the truth.
What I am saying is that at some point it doesn’t matter who “believes” what. The evidence will speak for itself.
Perhaps there are dark ages ahead before that time, but I remain optimistic.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:51 am
The truth will only come out if you work on it.
If society starts questioning science funding because it leads to “immorality and atheism”, then ultimately the money will dry up and the search for the “truth” will stop. I think there is a real danger of this happening in the US.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:48 am
The bit about Morris makes no sense. He says that ID is crap but believes in Christ’s Resurrection and this is some sort of problem? So long as he didn’t claim that Christ’s Resurrection was a scientifically explicable natural process, I don’t see why anyone would have any problem with it, much as they wouldn’t have any problems if a scientist said ‘I believe in an external world’ (another non-scientific belief). If there is some sort of standard that requires scientists to have a wholly scientific belief set, then we’ll all fail. The mixing of science and religious belief is where danger lies, not in the existence of religious belief.
I don’t know if humanity will ‘outgrow religion’ but I don’t think that it’s likely that it will ‘outgrow’ spiritualism and other preoccupations with the supernatural.
I don’t trust the Templeton foundation, but what you describe as ‘the money shot’ is the comment of one ‘Templeton official’, which doesn’t appear, on the face of it, to be much of a smoking gun.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Since Sean feels that accepting money from the Templeton Foundation means that one implicitly endorses its mission, and since he has now agreed that he will do so for $1.4m, but not $2k, I suppose we now know his price range. If I thought the Templeton Foundation was interested in simply buying off scientists I would advise them to open negotiations immediately
Anthony
April 8th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Anthony, you have to read carefully! In the context of this discussion, it should be clear that I was simply offering myself as a test case, to allow the Templeton Foundation to demonstrate its committment to support deep thinkers regardless of their religious inclinations. Naturally, I would donate the prize money to my favorite charities (the Jaguar Motor Corporation, the Bellagio, the Cayman Islands Tourist Bureau…).
April 8th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Interesting bet by the way?:)
April 8th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Sean,
I understand the context; but despite your generous philanthropic contributions to the organizations you mention, the effect of your acceptance would be to help Templeton’s image by demonstrating that it is openminded, right?
Or are you arguing that by doing respectable things Templeton increases its respectability? Hmm, I would agree with that…
April 8th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Anthony, in all seriousness, I’m perfectly happy to accept money from the Templeton Foundation (or wherever) in a context where I can make my views known with perfect clarity. When I was invited to a science-and-religion conference at Notre Dame a few years ago to give a talk on cosmology, I said I would go but only if they let me talk about atheism, which they were happy to do. That conference had Templeton funding, with which I have no problem. But I didn’t want to go to the Townes symposium just to give a talk on dark energy, nor did I want to rail against the existence of God at Charlie Townes’s 90th birthday party. I heard that there was some talk of having a science-and-religion panel at that conference, but it never got off the ground; I would have been happy to attend (and take their money) as part of that.
April 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I’m not sure that the space-time continuum could withstand the increase in Dawkins’ ego that might result from another award.
Put Dawkins in the same concrete bunker as Steve Jobs, for the Good of All.