I myself have nothing against organizations which accept Templeton money. I do not believe much in the absolute ‘purity of science’, and I generally think that the more events the better.

What I think is interesing is more of the other side of the question, that is to ask ourselves what is the criterion which underlies the choices of the Foundation itself. How did they achieve the absolute discernment on what counts as a ‘Big Question’ and what does not?
And we should turn the question on ourselves. In fact –forgive my fastidiousness– what do you mean by ‘purely about science’? How is the ‘time panel’ not purely about science, according to your standards?

Anyway, I’ll look forward to your post about them to raise once again this kind of issues: I would like to know if you consider your own work as tentatively answering a ‘big question’, or if you don’t accept the concept of ‘big question’ at all.

What I don’t want to do is to attend a conference that is purely about science, sponsored purely by the Templeton foundation, because I would rather not lend them undeserved credibility. But there are many very good organizations that, despite my advice, take money from Templeton. I’ve decided that there’s little to be gained by avoiding them all, although I appreciate the arguments on both sides.