Pharyngula::That's integrity

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

That's integrity

PZ Myers • 15 Comments

I'm impressed. Sean Carroll got invited to a conference in honor of Charles Townes with an impressive honorarium ($2000!), and he turned it down. Why? Because it was funded by the Templeton Foundation, and was clearly going to be window dressing for religion.

The point is that the entire purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking. It's all about appearances. You have a splashy scientific conference featuring a long list of respected participants, and then you proudly tout the event on a separate web page for your program to bring science and religion together.

Not that I have any prospects for being invited to such a well-paid conference, but if I were, I'd have a hard time making that kind of responsible decision. I'd be looking at that pile of tuition bills I'm dreading next year, and then I'd look at the promise of a few thousand dollars for just talking. And the wife would be looking at those bills and giving me that look. It would be so tempting to sell out…but no. Like Sean says,

Religious belief is the Big Lie of our contemporary intellectual life, and scientists more than any other group should be intellectually rigorous about the absolutely real differences between science and faith.

I don't see any difference between the Templeton Foundation and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church—both are endowed with overflowing buckets of money and a dearth of reason, and are pouring that cash into efforts to subsidize public insanity.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2187/vmsFUtMt/

Comments:

#22241: Rob Loftis — 04/19 at 07:33 AM
I dunno. Although I am an atheist, and I recognize the destructive power of most religion, denouncing the Templeton Foundation seems like saying "not only am I an atheist, but I refuse to have any theist friends." If people of good conscience can believe in God, why not accept an honor from a religious organization?

When it comes to blurring the line between science and religion, I think it all depends on what you mean by “religion.” (Science is well defined: religion is not.) We North Americans tend to draw our picture of religion from a very narrow range of religious practice: we think of the big monotheisms, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. As a result, we assume that either faith or belief in an infinite being or both is necessary for religion. But the Greek gods were quite finite. Many forms of Buddhism lack a creator god all together. (In general I’ve found that Theraveda Buddhism, which sticks closest to the original texts, has the least amount of weirdo metaphysics.) The whole idea of belief on faith is basically a product of early Christianity. Its really a local aberration.

Because science is a well defined enterprise and religion is not, the templeton people mostly succeed in expanding our notion of what counts as religion ("progress in religion" what an odd phrase.) This strikes me as a good thing.

#22242: Andrew Brown — 04/19 at 07:46 AM
I have taken money from Templeton in the past, though for journalistic, not scientific activities. I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. I know a number of Templeton beneficiaries who are perfectly good solid scientists (I wouldn't actually describe any of them as theologically orthodox Christians).

More to the point, personal contact between real scientists and believers has to be a good thing. How else are the believers to learn what science is? No one demands that you pretend at a Templeton lecture to anything that you don't believe. I've just had an invitation to one at the Royal Society. If the speaker (from Harvard) makes any egregiously religious pronouncements, we can be sure they will be heckled.

To behave as if scientists were Exclusive Brethren and withdraw yourselves from the great unsaved, seems to me bloody stupid. If Templeton wants to blur the boundaries between science and faith, take his money and give a talk that makes them clear again.

There's also a considerable to Templeton personally in assuming he's on the side of the fundies. ONth econtrary, he wa actually taught by Stokes, and one of th epurposes of his foundation is to endure that creationism does not seem the only way out for religious believers in a scientific world.

#22244: Andrew Brown — 04/19 at 07:47 AM
arrgh. Must preview. "Stokes" should be "Scopes" -- as in the trial. and "a considerable" should be "a considerable injustice".

#22245: Republic of Palau — 04/19 at 07:51 AM
"When it comes to blurring the line between science and religion, I think it all depends on what you mean by “religion."

Religion is faith in things unseen. Faith is not rational belief in observed evidence, faith is irrational belief in ideas that have no concrete, observable or testable proofs. Science is the exact opposite.

HTH, HAND.

#22246: Andrew Brown — 04/19 at 07:55 AM
No. It doesn't help in the slightest. It merely offers a tendentious definition which assumes what you are trying to prove.

#22247: PZ Myers — 04/19 at 08:17 AM
I think Carroll was very clear on this matter: it doesn't mean that he refuses to associate with the religious, or that he can't be friends with religious people, or that he wants to slap religious people around. It just means he won't be party to an agenda with which he disagrees, the promotion of a blurring of the line between faith and science.

I'm with all of that.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22257: Rob Loftis — 04/19 at 09:40 AM
I understand that Sean does not mean to send the message "I will not be friends with the religious", and I should have made that clear. Nevertheless, I'm worried that this is the message he is sending.

Right now I'm thinking that kmeson has the best comment.

#22319: — 04/19 at 03:23 PM
Where do you get the idea that the Templeton Foundation is all about "blurring the lines?" I'll admit to being a bit uncomfortable with Templeton's personal enthusiastic religiosity, but the foundation stuff always struck me as a reasonable outlet for a sincere desire to bring conciliation to reason and belief, and not a forced reconciliation, either.

Does the Templeton Foundation say something specific that puts you off, PZ?

I think you're too enthusiastically negative. (Yeah, that's my campaign speech to succeed Greenspan . . .)

#22321: PZ Myers — 04/19 at 03:37 PM
I'm sure they sincerely believe that religion and science can be brought together in love, peace, and harmony. Thinking nice thoughts does not make them right, however, and the Templeton Foundation is a big package of baloney covered with whipped cream and sugar frosting. Unpalatable, to say the least.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22349: — 04/19 at 07:45 PM
Just don't go creationist on us, PZ, and take a position for which the evidence makes no foundation.

The Templeton Foundation is pretty active, really -- it could be a force to stand up to the Discovery Institute, and in exactly the way we need, on the basis of religion.

But you could be right. Here's something to rejoice over, or worry about, depending on which way the thing turned: http://www.templeton.org/humble04/

One key thing is not to drive the Templeton folks into the arms of the Discovery Institute. They are separate now, and the greater their separation, the better for us all.

#22352: PZ Myers — 04/19 at 08:18 PM
What position would that be? I'm familiar with Townes and the Templeton Foundation, and I think both are damned annoying.

And no, I see no virtue in having the Templeton on "our side". We are supposed to be on the side of evidence and reason, not bogus superstition and wishful thinking. I also don't see any further harm in having them join forces with the Discovery Institute—they're already on the same wavelength.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22353: — 04/19 at 08:25 PM
I agree with Rob Loftis, when saying that kmeson has the best comment about Sean's (otherwise valiant) decision.

kmeson (on Preposterous Universe):

I understand your stance, however I feel a twinge of regret that a) someone less deserving will get the kick back, b) No one at the conference will have three introductory slides reminding (informing?) participants of the motivation behind the purse strings, and c) No one at the conference will have a concluding slide that undercuts those motives (at least not explicitly).

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#22373: — 04/19 at 09:24 PM
What position?

Well, the one that suggests the Templeton Foundation is not much different from the Unification Church is one. That's tantamount to saying the Discovery Institute isn't much different from the paleontology department (say) at Notre Dame (to pluck an example out of thin air).

At a minimum, we should use the evidence we have to be more discerning than the foam-at-the-mouth ID wackoes.

#22387: Andrew Brown — 04/20 at 02:00 AM
Honestly, PZ, you're about as much on the side of evidence and reason in this debate as Pope Benedict XVI. The whole point about Templeton is that they play by the same rules as us. They are prepared to accept evidence and to respect the facts. They believe that this will lead to their conclusions -- but the point is that this is arguable. They don't cheat. they don't claim to have one when they haven't. At worst, they produce clouds of ink like John Polkinghorne, but that's a long way from the Discovery Institute.

#22394: PZ Myers — 04/20 at 06:31 AM
No, they do not play by the same rules: they are trying to massage the evidence to reach a pre-determined conclusion. I've read some of the work of the Templeton Prize winners, and it's appalling dreck.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Grand Rounds XXX

Previous entry: Smartypants on parade

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

That's integrity

Info