…and this is a 
Speak the name "Templeton" and the prim, dutiful servants of the foundation will appear. If you look at the recent articles from Coyne, Dawkins, and me, you'll discover the same comment, shown below, from a representative of the Templeton Foundation. I've seen these guys in action before. They are very serious, somber fellows in their nice suits, with the dignitas of boodles of cash behind them, who will calmly state their position with an air of dispassionate certitude.
They remind me of Mafia lawyers.
A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett have refused to talk to a serious journalist (Edwin Cartlidge of Physics World) about a serious subject (philosophical materialism) because the journalism fellowship under which he is pursuing this subject is sponsored by the Templeton Foundation. They will have nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation, they say, because our aim is somehow to "muddy the waters" about the relationship between science and religion.
That's not how we see it at all. First-rate, peer-reviewed science is essential to our work at the Foundation and to the progressive vision of the late Sir John Templeton, who was deeply committed to scientific discovery. Many of our largest grants go to pure scientific research (like our support for the Foundational Questions Institute in Physics and Cosmology, the Godel Centenary Research Prize Fellowships, and the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard).
But, yes, we do like to include philosophers and theologians in many of our projects. Excellent science is crucial to what we do, but it is not all that we do. We are a "Big Questions" foundation, not a science foundation, and we believe that the world's philosophical and religious traditions have much to contribute to understanding human experience and our place in the universe. For Grayling and Dennett to compare this rich, expansive discussion to a dialogue with astrologers is silly. They know better.
Gary Rosen
Chief External Affairs Officer
John Templeton Foundation
Materialism, philosophical or otherwise, is a serious and useful subject. The bit he left off, though, is that the Templeton Foundation opposes it. For instance, they give a series of prizes, many of which reward people for making the best excuses for inserting superstition into research: the Templeton Prize, for "affirming life's spiritual dimension"; the Award for Theological Promise, for the best thesis on "God and spirituality"; the Religion Reporter of the Year; the European Religion Writer of the Year; the Religion Story of the Year; the Epiphany Prize, for shows that "increase man's understanding and love of God"; the Kairos Prize, for movies that "result in a greater increase in either man's understanding or love of God"; you get the idea. Let's have no illusions. First and foremost, the Templeton Foundation's purpose is the promotion of religion…they have simply chosen to pursue that goal by dressing up as philanthropists supporting a certain kind of science. They are what the Discovery Institute wishes they could be, if they were staffed with grown-ups and had $1.5 billion to play with.
They do aim to muddy the waters. They want to blur the boundaries between legitimate science, which questions traditional dogma, and religion, which is traditional dogma, by playing favorites with religion in a game that apes scientific institutions. Yes, they certainly do spend money on real science projects; it's part of their aim to entangle valid, secular science in the financial webs of a religiously motivated agency. Again, look at the Mafia for a model. Diversify and get your hands in real businesses like trucking or garbage collection or construction, and when someone asks difficult questions, just say "Hey, look — fleet of garbage trucks!" And meanwhile, build up a network of obligations — do a little, perfectly legal favor for some little guy, and when the time comes, you can ask him to return the favor, to your advantage.
Now of course, the Templeton Foundation is doing nothing illegal, and the comparison to a criminal organization does not extend to actual criminality. The only place it holds up is in the way they maintain a pretext of doing one thing, while actually profiting most off another activity altogether. Look at Mr Rosen's comment. Nowhere does he admit outright that what they fund is the introduction of a religious perspective in science. Instead, we get euphemisms. They are a "Big Questions" foundation, whatever that means. He will not come right out and state plainly that what they think is a "Big Question" is the role of a god in creating and maintaining the universe and humankind.
That's not a big question. It's a bad question.
I have never found a discussion with a theologian about their favorite deities to be "rich, expansive" — just saying it is so doesn't make it so, but is actually the crux of the argument. They are trying to buy their way into the debate, rather than earning it. I don't think they know Grayling and Dennett very well at all, either, because they do know better, and the comparison with a dialog with astrologers is spot on — they won't be disavowing it any time soon.
I'll stand by my Mafia comparison, too. It's an organization that gets a lot of mileage out of making offers people can't refuse.
Comments
Posted by: Jared Cormier
|
June 22, 2009 5:07 PM
To be fair, at least the Mafia let you KNOW what they are doing even if you can't prove it.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 22, 2009 5:08 PM
At least with the mafia, you have perks like sawed off horse heads in your bed. What do you get with Templeton Funds? Money for garbage research? I'll take the horse head.
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 22, 2009 5:11 PM
I think the Templeton Foundation should answer a simple question: if one of the researchers they fund came to the conclusion that spirituality is an evolutionary byproduct and religion directly conflicts with science, would the TF still fund this researcher?
Posted by: Bill C | June 22, 2009 5:12 PM
Maybe I'm late to the party or just stating the blatantly obvious with this one, but isn't the current trend toward "accommodation" just the religious apologists' softer version of "teach the controversy"?
Accommodation, not unlike Templeton's attempt to "bridge the gap", seems a boon to the agenda of New Agey or liberal-Christian types less concerned about the advancement of science than they are concerned about the preservation of supernatural ideas in the twenty-first century. And just by the very act of participating, atheists are complicit in convincing everyone of how important and intractable religious support is to the worth of any idea. Ew.
Posted by: blf | June 22, 2009 5:13 PM
Ok, I'll try…
Templeton.
Templeton.
TEMMMMPPPLATIOOOOON!
Nothing yet…
Hum… Hasn't worked. Do I have to throw a Petter over my shoulder or something?
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 22, 2009 5:13 PM
I've got a nice Small Answer for them.
But I think you already gave it to them.
Posted by: John Pieret | June 22, 2009 5:14 PM
If that is any indication, Mafia lawyers give better value to their clients. They don't send PR materials to the FBI.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 22, 2009 5:16 PM
@3: Well, this report from John Horgan ought to give you some idea of the TF's approach to dissent:
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 22, 2009 5:16 PM
I think the Templeton Foundation should answer a simple question: if one of the researchers they fund came to the conclusion that spirituality is an evolutionary byproduct and religion directly conflicts with science, would the TF still fund this researcher?
In 1968 Honda pulled out of GP motorcycle racing but still paid Mike Hailwood, the world's best rider, today's equivalent of a million dollars not to ride for anyone else. Of course they'd still fund the guy; silence has its price.
Posted by: TheEngima32 | June 22, 2009 5:16 PM
That's not a big question. It's a bad question.
To some people that's a big question. To them, it's "how can we shoehorn belief in a place where it doesn't belong?"
To the rest of us who either don't believe in a deity or maintain a belief where said deity doesn't interact with the world by any meaningful fashion, it's not a big question at all. It's an empty one, without meaning at all. Sort of like the stupid question "Well, what came before the Big Bang?"
- Enigma
Posted by: TheEngima32 | June 22, 2009 5:19 PM
That's not a big question. It's a bad question.
To some people that's a big question. To them, it's "how can we shoehorn belief in a place where it doesn't belong?"
To the rest of us who either don't believe in a deity or maintain a belief where said deity doesn't interact with the world by any meaningful fashion, it's not a big question at all. It's an empty one, without meaning at all. Sort of like the stupid question "Well, what came before the Big Bang?"
- Enigma
Posted by: TheEngima32 | June 22, 2009 5:22 PM
Damn it. My browser fucked up.
sorry for the double post.
- Enigma
Posted by: Todd Hollywood | June 22, 2009 5:25 PM
Anyone who tries to deflect criticism of a critic by saying that the criticism is "silly" and that the critic "knows better" is a douche.
Posted by: Jim Lund | June 22, 2009 5:26 PM
Saying their name three times summons them...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 22, 2009 5:29 PM
If they fund honest science, I wouldn't worry much about them. Watch them, but science can use the money.
I never forget how they made ID look stupid(er) by trying to fund ID science, and getting none (sure, there were purported ID proposals, but I believe none really was--I can't imagine a serious ID proposal). Even on the religion side, then, they can be useful to truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Felix | June 22, 2009 5:30 PM
Does a question become big by the number of people asking it, or by the number of people being told that it's a big question? Perhaps the average intelligence of the questioners plays a role. Telling a lot of people what the big questions are is child's play in today's media society. Actually distilling the big questions from the nearly infinite number of questions we could come up with is precisely the job of good philosophers. Looking at that huge pile of widely varyingly relevant questions and declaring which questions must be the big ones by discerning which ones could yield the desired answer if posed to the right people is the theologians's job.
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 22, 2009 5:30 PM
@#8
The Templeton method: with enough money, you can buy the results you want. Now that's good science.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
June 22, 2009 5:34 PM
I'm a bit curious as to why their awards all specify capital-G God. Awfully setting of a specific set of theistic beliefs. If my work furthers, say, animism, or polytheism, will they group me with the atheists? (If so, that's a pretty clear 'only certain religions'.)
Or for that matter, I suppose it's possible to both be an atheist and a non-materialist -- say, one believes that a non-material soul and afterlife (or reincarnation cycle) are built into the universe, but that there exists nothing identifiable as a deity, only humans and other life*. Could one of these get a Templeton award?
* I suppose this might count as animism or pantheism. The fantasy writer in me likes to play with definitions -- with the solace that if I can come up with it as a story idea, someone else probably has come up with it as a serious cosmology.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 5:37 PM
"if one of the researchers they fund came to the conclusion that spirituality is an evolutionary byproduct and religion directly conflicts with science, would the TF still fund this researcher?"
Of course they wouldn't fund him. TF has made it clear that they are interested in funding research at the intersection of religion and science. To go back and tell them that religion directly conflicts with science; where is the intersection. You would not meet the primary criterion for funding.
Their funding in based on how well a researcher is able to intergrate religion and science; not whether they can completely separate them.
That may not sit well with non-theists but it is their money and they can spend it however they want.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 22, 2009 5:43 PM
Where is John Templeton buried?
Can we have a yearly dance on Templeton's grave circus?
Posted by: zombie | June 22, 2009 5:44 PM
Serious!
SERIOUS!!!
YOU WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY!!!
THEY MEAN SERIOUS BUSINESS!
Posted by: cdx | June 22, 2009 5:44 PM
Saying their name three times summons them
It's called "Google Alert", and it's a pest...
He will not come right out and state plainly that what they think is a "Big Question" is the role of a god in creating and maintaining the universe and humankind.
It's never just the Creationism, it's- more importantly- the teleology that the Creationism supports (i.e. that the human ego must be immortal and, like good or bad egos in life, gets punished or rewarded in the "afterlife").
Posted by: Seth
|
June 22, 2009 5:47 PM
@ #19 Silver Fox
Every post by PZ and those he has linked to say just that, their money and they spend it how they choose. The request is that the TF stop pretending that they fund science. Funding real research means accepting whatever result may come. You seem to accept that TF only wants research done that will support religion. Next you just need to accept that predetermined results are not products of science.
Posted by: JJR | June 22, 2009 5:48 PM
Now I'm thinking of that Monty Python skit where the cast plays a bunch of Catholic priests as Mafiosi..."it's da bishop!"
I'm also trying to think of a good joke invoking mafia gangster cliches like "Sleeps with da fishes" and Jesus's alleged miracles but I'm stumped...
Posted by: Jardmonkey | June 22, 2009 5:48 PM
Huge Templeton Foundation banner on Bad Astronomer today that I hadn't seen before. Kinda annoying. Kinda funny/ironic.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 22, 2009 5:50 PM
Translation: We're annoyed that Grayling and Dennett suggest that our pet woo is comparable to some other brand of woo.
Posted by: eewolf | June 22, 2009 5:57 PM
Religion does not deal in questions, big or small. It spews assumptions as conclusions. So, their "big question" is another lie. They have no interest in an evidence-based answer. They have the answer tucked away in their minds out of reach of reason.
Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 22, 2009 6:04 PM
#24 JJR:
The Bishop!
Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | June 22, 2009 6:21 PM
"For Grayling and Dennett to compare this rich, expansive discussion to a dialogue with astrologers is silly. "
Yeah, because astrologers make fanciful claims that have no evidence behind them, whereas religious figures. . . look, garbage trucks!
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | June 22, 2009 6:31 PM
Their funding in based on how well a researcher is able to intergrate religion and science; not whether they can completely separate them.
That may not sit well with non-theists but it is their money and they can spend it however they want.
Which is anathema to science. If this were Pfizer paying people to write about the benefits of a new drug, regardless of what the research actually says, we'd see the inherent conflict of interest.
Science is about testing the hell out of a proposition, to see the truth of it. Whenever science is forced to defend or reject a proposition regardless of evidence, the resulting work is debased.
Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | June 22, 2009 6:35 PM
"Religion does not deal in questions, big or small. It spews assumptions as conclusions. "
And the questions it does ask are ways of avoiding reality. "Should mass be given in Latin or English?" Meanwhile our economy burns down and people die because there is no national health care policy.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 6:41 PM
"Next you just need to accept that predetermined results are not products of science."
They are not looking for "products of science". They are looking for discussions on how religion and science might go together. If you think they do not go together in any way, they aren't looking for anything from you. So, try another funding source; maybe the American Humanist Society.
Posted by: tsig | June 22, 2009 6:45 PM
Is the big question measured by length or girth?
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 6:55 PM
"If this were Pfizer paying people to write about the benefits of a new drug, regardless of what the research actually says, we'd see the inherent conflict of interest."
TF is not Pfizer funding drug research. TF wants a discussion on how religion and science can intersect. If you see no intersection, don't take their money because you would have a clear conflict of interest - your interest and their's would not coincide. There are many scientists, including atheistic ones, who are willing to take the money on the terms laid out.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 7:02 PM
Silver 'Artemis guide my way' Fox,
TF wants a discussion on how
religionmagic andsciencereality can intersect and, although anyone with half a brain or an ounce of intellectual honesty knows it doesn't, it won't stop them paying a lot of people to say otherwise.Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Heraclides | June 22, 2009 7:07 PM
Your description of them makes me think of JWs. No connection? I like the mafia comparison, though, it lets the money speak as it were :-)
I'd have to say that their prizes give the game away just a little...
As someone in the other thread pointed out their "Big Question" seems to be "allowed" to only have an answer of one kind. A commenter in the other thread asked if they would accept an outcome that affirmed a lack of "spiritual dimension" (comments #3, #8, etc., here take this up too). I think it's a telling question, one their prizes would seem to indicate that, no they wouldn't. Their approach seems incredibly dishonest, eh?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 22, 2009 7:07 PM
Silver Fox, still showing us why you are a leading candidate for elimination on the next round of Survivor Pharyngula. Here's a hint: out of sight, out of mind.
Posted by: Dr. Bad | June 22, 2009 7:08 PM
"the progressive vision of the late Sir John Templeton" How progressive, let alone cool, can you be when you've knighted. (look at the quality of Elton and Paul's music since)
Posted by: Brian | June 22, 2009 7:52 PM
I know that's certainly how I view the output of the Templeton Foundation.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 22, 2009 7:56 PM
Well, no, because only living people can get Templeton awards, and the Buddha is dead – well, not according to Lamaism, but then, according to Lamaism, the world is chock full of ghosts, so Lamaism (like most other forms of contemporary Buddhism) doesn't fit your description in the first place.
Posted by: JennieL
|
June 22, 2009 7:59 PM
Also, what's with the repeated reference to "religion and philosophy" - as if they are related categories? If you can't get sciencey-ness to rub off on your superstition, try to get your brand of woolly thinking joined up with philosophy!
Stupid theologians. Keep your grubby little hands away from my discipline.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 8:12 PM
Science and Religion:
"although anyone with half a brain or an ounce of intellectual honesty knows it doesn't, it won't stop them paying a lot of people to say otherwise.
Charles H. Townes, Ph.D.(Summa Cum laud)
Nobel Prize Physics 1964
Templeton Prize 2005
He was born in Greenville, South Carolina to Baptist parents. He is a brother of Pi Kappa Phi, Delta Chapter. He is a Protestant Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. His father was an attorney. He has four daughters and seven grandchildren. He considers that "science and religion [are] quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge".
Imagine that: Ph.D. Summa and Nobel Prize with half a brain. That's amazing.
Posted by: RHM | June 22, 2009 8:19 PM
Mr. Rosen's claim that they fund some "pure" scientific research suggests to me he is well aware of the inherent dichotomy between religion and science, and therefore, the disingenuousness of the goals of the foundation. I agree that your Mafia comparison is apt, PZ.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 8:26 PM
Silver 'All hail the lords of Kobol' Fox,
Try reading my post again; this time try using some perception. Here's a hint: look for the phrase: ...or an ounce of intellectual honesty.
Though, given your history here, and your moral and intellectual cowardice in making ridiculous claims and then running away when asked to back them up, I'm not all that surprised you don't actually know what 'intellectual honesty' is.
I don't care how many trophies your living-in-denial, god-soaked fools have; that they can't see past the security blanket they've got over their heads means they aren't - here's the term again - intellectually honest.
Does he believe in faires and unicorns and leprechauns and the tooth fairy as well? Are they not 'parallel with science'? If not, why not?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 22, 2009 8:36 PM
Silver Faux, you are now #1 on my elimination list for the next round of Survivor Pharyngula. Something to do with not keeping a low profile in spite of warnings to do so...
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | June 22, 2009 8:40 PM
Since Templeton's execs include first-rate geophysicists to whom we are obliged for calling the Discovery Institute's bluff, it seems , well, pusillanimous to play the godfather card in this context.
I'd rather see Dennett on their board than PZ flirting with Godwin's law-nothing like intellectual seriousness to give direction to gravitas
Posted by: Douglas McClean | June 22, 2009 8:45 PM
#5, and actually this whole thread, remind me of a certain ethically-challenged fictional rat.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 22, 2009 8:53 PM
Polyester Mather DD #46
Concern troll is concerned.
BTW, Mather, that is a good nom de blog.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 9:03 PM
I find Silver Fox a novelty worth suffering to stay; he's determined enough to nip at the heels of his betters but far to stupid to realise just how ineffectual he is, and has no idea how much people laugh at him for his pathetic attempts at argument, and even more tragic attempts at wit.
Besides, he does a great job of demonstrating just how empty Christianity is - keeping him around only helps Christians who are on the fence realise how little it has to offer anyone with sufficient character to ask the hard questions.
Posted by: charley
|
June 22, 2009 9:16 PM
Dear Mr. Rosen
How much of Sir John's money have you spent so far, and what big questions have you answered? Are you making any progress on any of them? Can you direct me to some actual results? Opinions, panel discussions, symposia and the like don't count. If you don't have any answers yet, when can we expect some? How much will it cost?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | June 22, 2009 9:23 PM
They are a "Big" questions institution?
Gee, size does matter. Freud was onto something, after all.
Silver Fox: you can't expect someone to understand something if his salary or Templteton prize depends on not understanding it.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 22, 2009 9:37 PM
Umm - I would point out that Grayling and Dennet haven't applied for Fellowships or been offered prizes by the TF. They have only refused to be interviewed by a journalist who has a Fellowship with it. Gees, I should think anyone has a right to choose their interviewer. It isn't like evolutionary biologists have never be burned by trusting the integrity of those who interview them.....
Why is Rosen making a public issue of these men having a perfect right to talk to or not talk to whomever they chose? Did they go public with their refusal and offend the TI?
Posted by: jstein
|
June 22, 2009 9:38 PM
I wish that A.C. Grayling and Dennett would talk to them. Grayling especially, because the guy is such a wit. Dennett's a little too cerebral for a group full of morons. Grayling, I would think, could make clear how ridiculous these guys are.
Posted by: John Templeman | June 22, 2009 9:50 PM
I'm willing to help set up the John Templeman Foundation to fight these people. Now all I need is the $1.5Bn
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 22, 2009 10:08 PM
Wowbagger, you have a point. He is like any libertarian who posts here-he shows how morally bankrupt the philosophy is.Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 10:17 PM
Science and Religion:
"although anyone with half a brain or an ounce of intellectual honesty knows it doesn't, it won't stop them paying a lot of people to say otherwise.
Charles H. Townes, Ph.D.(Summa Cum laud)
Nobel Prize Physics 1964
Templeton Prize 2005
He was born in Greenville, South Carolina to Baptist parents. He is a brother of Pi Kappa Phi, Delta Chapter. He is a Protestant Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. His father was an attorney. He has four daughters and seven grandchildren. He considers that "science and religion [are] quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge".
Imagine that: Ph.D. Summa and Nobel Prize with half a brain. That's amazing.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 10:21 PM
Astrologers would beg to differ on this matter... funny seeing a faith-head trivialising a different flavour of woo. Completely missing the point, but what else do you expect from faith-heads?Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 10:26 PM
Silver 'If it's in the Kalevala it must be true' Fox,
Why the repost? We read - and laughed at, and demolished as inane - your ill-conceived blather the first time you foolishly chose to post it.
But thanks for illustrating my point.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 22, 2009 10:28 PM
Wow, Silver Fox, your post #56 is like deja vu all over again. Are you being repititiously redundant on purpose?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 22, 2009 10:36 PM
'Tis in his nature. Yawn, zzzzzzzzz.Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | June 22, 2009 10:36 PM
Silver Fox even you should know better
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 22, 2009 10:42 PM
"repititiously redundant"
Is that a tautological phrase?
In structural analysis redundancy sometimes works when dealing with people who have difficulty with visual or auditory processing.
Just a little housekeeping matter, but isn't repetitiously spelled with a second e.
Posted by: DLC | June 22, 2009 10:45 PM
The Gambinos have their fans too, SF.
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | June 22, 2009 10:48 PM
It hasn't worked with you.
Homework?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 22, 2009 10:52 PM
That explains your lack of comprehension, not ours. That explains your lack of comprehension, not ours. That explains your lack of comprehension, not ours.Posted by: nygradstudent | June 22, 2009 10:56 PM
Who cares if the Templeton Institute opposes materialism? I mean, I understand that you, unlike most people (probably scientists included), are a good little materialist. And I understand that the vast majority of your commentors are good little materlist acolytes as well.
But (and I'll be bold here) you have no good reasons to cite in defense of your materalism. And you have no scientific evidence that materialism is true. You may hope it's true all you wish, but whether or not materialism is true is not something science is anywhere close to establishing (or even could establish). You'd be better off adopting something like methodological naturalism and just admitting you hope it's true (rather than parading around on your high horse), but then, chances are you have no idea how to define either materialism or naturalism. (Let's be honest. That's quite the vexed philosophical question and I doubt you have anything to add.)
But in any case, keep having fun getting pissed off at people who oppose something you probably can't even define.
The rest of your criticisms are fine. The little tidbit you threw in here regarding your wishful materialist thinking is really irrelevant to your criticism anyway. Sorry, but your materalist ranting and raving is just annoying.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 11:03 PM
Okay Silver Fox, now is your time to shine. If science and religion are truly compatible, then just what role does God play in the universe?
Be careful now, for if you say God actually does anything, then you are infringing on science. We live in the natural world, we see, we touch, we feel, etc. If there were a supernatural realm on top of that, then there must be an interface between the natural and the supernatural. So how does theism resolve itself with science and get past the interface problem?
Posted by: 386sx | June 22, 2009 11:04 PM
But (and I'll be bold here) you have no good reasons to cite in defense of your materalism.
It's all over the place isn't it? Is there something that is not materalism? I think you're kind of over stating your case there a little bit.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 11:10 PM
The material exists, we know the material exists. We've even split the atom, so yes we have scientific evidence that the material exists. Yet we don't have a shred of evidence that anything other than the material exists. So while we can't prove that everything is material, there's no evidence or reason to think otherwise.If you want to falsify materialism, show that something other than the material exists. It's very simple, a demonstration of anything immaterial (or doesn't have a material origin, so things like sound or thoughts don't count) would demonstrate materialism wrong. Can a single dualist / non-materialist even conjure up a whiff of evidence that supports their worldview? Complaining about materialists is just deflecting the burden of proof. We know the material exists, what do you have?
Posted by: H.H. | June 22, 2009 11:12 PM
nygradstudent, we already know we live in a materialistic universe. If anyone wants to assert there there exists more than the mere material, then it is up to them to provide evidence of that assertion. We don't have to prove there isn't anything extra. So until they, you, or anyone else provides the appropriate evidence, we can comfortably and correctly label their views unsupported nonsense. And I suggesting dropping the "materialist acolyte" bullshit until then.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 22, 2009 11:14 PM
nygradstudent #66 wrote:
If they claim to be using the best science and philosophy to 'search' for an understanding of the nature of the universe, they shouldn't rule out this option in advance, should they? That would be intellectually dishonest.
Science doesn't 'establish' final answers. Materialism and naturalism, however, are both well-supported working theories (so well-supported that we can even talk about 'methodological naturalism), and the burden of proof is therefore on supernaturalism. That's why Templeton is trying to fund the 'research' and spending all the money: to counter naturalistic materialism with something. Anything.
Posted by: alison | June 22, 2009 11:16 PM
Heraclides @ #36: JWs? Pratchett's 'auditors' was my first thought when I read PZ's first paragraphs :-)
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | June 22, 2009 11:34 PM
PZ:
Except with this “Mob”, they make you an offer you can’t understand.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 23, 2009 12:21 AM
I can't resist commenting on this post, I don't know if it will work or not because I have not been keeping track of the rules lately, just lurking.
I think a comparison to the Mafia is really over generous to the Templeton Foundation. When I was a student in NY some decades past the local numbers runner would come in every night to the place I worked and take up bets. The odds were 500 to 1. It was a simple system. If you won, they paid. So despite the fact they were fleecing lots of people, they were honest to the extent that they lived up to what they promised.
The Templeton Foundation cannot do that and they know it. Their whole scam is a blatent and bald ass lie. There simply isn't any such thing as the supernatural, the divine, the gift of dog to the trembling masses. It is just a cruel unmititgated scam. They can't deliver jack. And they never will.
I haven't read the rest of the comments in this thread because I simply don't have the time, but unless someone else has pointed out this obvious fact, I think it is justified to say, that the TF is actually WORSE than the Cosa Nostra.
Somebody appoint me attorney general and I will go after the racketerring of the religious crime syndicates. There are billions of dollars there to appropriate. Actually, the number is probably trillions.
None of them are immune due to their status because they have abdicated that immunity by participating in politics.
Yes we all know, law is selectively enforced against the weak, the poor and the disenfranchised.
May I suggest that the best way to counter the TF is for legitimate researchers to apply to them and squander their money on firvolous studies? Well, yes that would be dishonest and contrary to our foundational devotion to the idea of discovering new knowledge. But it would also effectively neuter them. So it should be considered.
Regards,
Posted by: articulett | June 23, 2009 12:32 AM
The materialists aren't the one's claiming to have special divine knowledge... they use the same evidence to support their claims that is available to everyone--even believers in the supernatural.
The supernaturalists have nothing... just like all the supestitious wack jobs they find "silly". All the faith heads are in the same magisteria... the supernatural magisteria... the one that is indistinguishable from imaginary magisteria. Until they have empirical data, they are all stuck with each other in that same magisteria, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 1:23 AM
You know a position is pretty much indefensible when all one side has is complains that the other side doesn't have it either. The material exists, no-one disputes that. We know what the material is made of and how it operates within our world. All someone who wants to show that materialism is not all there is has to do is show the immaterial exists, that's all. If they do that, materialism is falsified. But no, we get complains about the inadequacy of materialism without any evidence to show why materialism is wrong.
Through material means we build computers, send probes to distant world, crack the human genome, set up a global communications network, put electricity and running water into people's homes, cure diseases and more. And what do dualists do? What does dualism do for us?
Posted by: H.H. | June 23, 2009 1:37 AM
Oh, that drives me crazy. Every once in awhile at another religion forum I frequent, some moron comes along and starts a thread proclaiming that the atheists and theists have both got it wrong because neither side can be "proved." And I have to step up and say, "No, moron. The theists' lack of proof is the basis for my position." My other favorite is "For a believer no evidence is necessary. For a disbeliever no evidence is sufficient." So they admit they have no evidence, but they haven't bothered to look for any because they know beforehand it won't be good enough to convince anyone? I can't seem to understand why so many people seem to take such pride in their gullibility.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 23, 2009 1:45 AM
Martin Luther did say that reason was greatest enemy that faith had. And numerous Christians illustrate his point with almost everything they write/say.
Posted by: Heraclides | June 23, 2009 1:53 AM
Hi Alison :-)
Good thought! The last of his books I read was "Hogfather", for that matter.
Posted by: Chris Richards | June 23, 2009 2:36 AM
Materialism could be false. We ought to grant the possibility. It doesn't do anyone harm to say that there might be more to the world than the completely physical. But if materialism is false, that doesn't automatically mean that some spiritual or religious perspective is true. It doesn't even need to mean that there are immortal souls or anything at all. Something just has to be...not material. Doesn't sound like anti-materialism is necessarily anti-scientific to me (though, obviously, it can be). There's no reason to say that scientists can only investigate the material and that everything else (if something else there be) is outside the limits of science. If there actually was something else beyond the purely physical, why couldn't scientists in principle study it?
Anti-materialism and anti-naturalism are two different things.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2009 3:21 AM
@Silver Fox
They are not looking for "products of science". They are looking for discussions on how religion and science might go together. If you think they do not go together in any way, they aren't looking for anything from you.
They are looking for interviews from Grayling and Dennett. You really don't grasp how thoroughly you have contradicted Mr. Rosen, do you?
@nygradstudent
Who cares if the Templeton Institute opposes materialism?
People who aren't fools. People who understand that it's like the Discovery Institute funding a journalist seeking interviews from evolutionary biologists.
But (and I'll be bold here) you have no good reasons to cite in defense of your materalism.
Saying that you doubt that he has good reasons would be bold (but stupid); stating it as a fact that he has none is just being an ass. In any case, PZ merely noted that materialism is a serious and useful subject and that the TF opposes it; he didn't defend it, so it's quite ironic that you are complaining about him ranting about it when it is clearly you who are doing so.
Materialism is the default ontological position and needs no defense; Ockham's Razor puts that burden on those who would reject it.
Posted by: Oldcola
|
June 23, 2009 3:48 AM
Gary "the censor" Rosen :-)
Why "the censor"? I have a good reasonto say so. Started this way.
Manipulating a comment's text to make it "softer", without notification to the commenter, misrepresenting his views. You may expect the same attitude for any comment, including those in interviews, don't you?
Hello Dr Rosen, my best to Dr Harper.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 23, 2009 5:19 AM
"All someone who wants to show that materialism is not all there is has to do is show the immaterial exists, that's all. If they do that, materialism is falsified."
Look, Plato did that a long long time ago with the Theory of Forms. Why would anyone want to re-plow that ground.
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 5:32 AM
What? I guess us materialists must have missed the 2300 year old memo. Sorry guys, Plato kicked our back before Christ...fucktard
Posted by: windy | June 23, 2009 5:44 AM
Those aren't mafiosi! He's some sort of crime-fighting bishop.
Posted by: SAWells | June 23, 2009 6:07 AM
Plato's ideal forms fail instantly once you start to consider a nested heirarchy. If there is a Platonic Ideal Man and a Platonic Ideal Woman, then there can't be a Platonic Ideal Human; if there's a Platonic Ideal Human and Platonic Ideal Orangutan then there can't be a Platonic Ideal Ape; if there's a Platonic Ideal Ladybird and a Platonic Ideal Grasshopper then there can't be a Platonic Ideal Insect. Plato was wrong about everything, to a first approximation.
Posted by: ice9 | June 23, 2009 9:14 AM
'dignitas' -- perfect. I hope it's your coinage.
The perfect distinction in this messy conversation. Among the aligned believers, people who have intentionally or accidentally organized themselves into a homogeneous audience, there is no attempt to cover dogma with a shawl of equanimity, either as a sop to the liberal conventions of American liberty or (more likely) as the passive-aggressive faux-politeness we know up here as 'minnesota nice.' That's why Comfort, or any of the other fools, look so silly; they aren't just preaching to the choir, the choir is amening them so confidently that the most egregious fallacies pass as wink-nod gospel in a neat little closed system that now happens to be visible to all.
It's amusing, and a tad disheartening, to watch those closed conversations about idiocies and to not be able to make a dent. It is especially frustrating when so many of the issues those people shriek about aren't just individual choices about what to mumble but are real decisions, like keeping children ignorant or hating the dumpy, taxpaying folks up the street because they are gay.
But those arenas of discussion are receding. As they recede, they concentrate, of course. That's inevitable, and attracts a lot of attention as the tide goes out and all but the most certain and unconcerned nuts are left, with no self-awareness beyond a nagging paranoia that they are alone. Which they are. However, I've noticed that the people like this I know are increasingly defensive, careful, and, in a few remarkable cases, alert. The real world is penetrating to them.
So, dignitas. That's a sign of victory, if you ask me. People who attempt to dignify their arguments with trappings of logic, research, or reasonableness--or even just sober suits and complete sentences an proper use of capitals--have stepped on the playing field with the rest of us. They seem to realize that they can't retreat without engaging. A veneer of dignity is a common component, a concession, a conciliation.
I can't speak for the Templetonians, but you can also see this shift in some of the internet news organizations, who have been squeezed into a narrow space where the empty assertions and easily debunked claims are hurting their numbers as more and more readers make use of the resources (powered by their sense of dignity, I think) to verify, compare, and deeply consider what is being written. They must become more dignified to keep their audience as the audience becomes more sophisticated and demanding. First comes the attempt to seem dignified--the dignitas--then comes the failure, or success, to maintain that dignity in the face of real conversation, evidence, logic.
Several marginal shrieking blogs, for example, have been so battered by refutations and the contempt that arises from closing or doctoring comment threads that they have either retreated and accepted their fate, or have adopted the dignitas of citation, sourcing, and support. That process can only be moderating, if indeed the writers can even manage the form (most can't, and so fail to create a really dignified offering for a sophisticated marketplace of ideas.)
Witness the recent George Will climate-change fiasco. Georgy is the very image of conservative dignitas, but as any thoughtful reader knows their conclusions come first and the support and evidence comes later, if possible. The first denier column, though, was riddled with errors. Most people just shrugged, but I saw a shift in Will's approach. He tried to play science, and got spanked. Will typically relies on elliptical, insider-Village cases with airy allusions and clever diction, but to throw down on climate change he had to go full-dignitas. He was forced actually to cite reports and numbers. His case is corrupt, and he knows only what his researchers have been fed, so he was hung out to curdle. Then he had to take the extraordinary step of attempting a defense (with airy allusion and elliptical arrogance, but still). Leaving him looking like a bow-tied ninny, of course, but penetrating that calm didactic certainty that has been so annoying, and so wrong, for so long. I see it as progress.
So--yay for dignitas!
ice
Posted by: ice9 | June 23, 2009 9:23 AM
'dignitas' -- perfect. I hope it's your coinage.
The perfect distinction in this messy conversation. Among the aligned believers, people who have intentionally or accidentally organized themselves into a homogeneous audience, there is no attempt to cover dogma with a shawl of equanimity, either as a sop to the liberal conventions of American liberty or (more likely) as the passive-aggressive faux-politeness we know up here as 'minnesota nice.' That's why Comfort, or any of the other fools, look so silly; they aren't just preaching to the choir, the choir is amening them so confidently that the most egregious fallacies pass as wink-nod gospel in a neat little closed system that now happens to be visible to all.
It's amusing, and a tad disheartening, to watch those closed conversations about idiocies and to not be able to make a dent. It is especially frustrating when so many of the issues those people shriek about aren't just individual choices about what to mumble but are real decisions, like keeping children ignorant or hating the dumpy, taxpaying folks up the street because they are gay.
But those arenas of discussion are receding. As they recede, they concentrate, of course. That's inevitable, and attracts a lot of attention as the tide goes out and all but the most certain and unconcerned nuts are left, with no self-awareness beyond a nagging paranoia that they are alone. Which they are. However, I've noticed that the people like this I know are increasingly defensive, careful, and, in a few remarkable cases, alert. The real world is penetrating to them.
So, dignitas. That's a sign of victory, if you ask me. People who attempt to dignify their arguments with trappings of logic, research, or reasonableness--or even just sober suits and complete sentences an proper use of capitals--have stepped on the playing field with the rest of us. They seem to realize that they can't retreat without engaging. A veneer of dignity is a common component, a concession, a conciliation.
I can't speak for the Templetonians, but you can also see this shift in some of the internet news organizations, who have been squeezed into a narrow space where the empty assertions and easily debunked claims are hurting their numbers as more and more readers make use of the resources (powered by their sense of dignity, I think) to verify, compare, and deeply consider what is being written. They must become more dignified to keep their audience as the audience becomes more sophisticated and demanding. First comes the attempt to seem dignified--the dignitas--then comes the failure, or success, to maintain that dignity in the face of real conversation, evidence, logic.
Several marginal shrieking blogs, for example, have been so battered by refutations and the contempt that arises from closing or doctoring comment threads that they have either retreated and accepted their fate, or have adopted the dignitas of citation, sourcing, and support. That process can only be moderating, if indeed the writers can even manage the form (most can't, and so fail to create a really dignified offering for a sophisticated marketplace of ideas.)
Witness the recent George Will climate-change fiasco. Georgy is the very image of conservative dignitas, but as any thoughtful reader knows their conclusions come first and the support and evidence comes later, if possible. The first denier column, though, was riddled with errors. Most people just shrugged, but I saw a shift in Will's approach. He tried to play science, and got spanked. Will typically relies on elliptical, insider-Village cases with airy allusions and clever diction, but to throw down on climate change he had to go full-dignitas. He was forced actually to cite reports and numbers. His case is corrupt, and he knows only what his researchers have been fed, so he was hung out to curdle. Then he had to take the extraordinary step of attempting a defense (with airy allusion and elliptical arrogance, but still). Leaving him looking like a bow-tied ninny, of course, but penetrating that calm didactic certainty that has been so annoying, and so wrong, for so long. I see it as progress.
So--yay for dignitas!
ice
Posted by: Dr Fraser watts | June 23, 2009 10:08 AM
The journalism fellowships program in science and religion is funded by the
John Templeton Foundation, but its policies are set by the directors of the
program. Its seminars address a range of
issues relevant to both science and religion. Speakers on the Fellowships
program have a variety of personal opinions on religion, and we always
ensure that the full range of views - from serious belief to atheism - is
covered in an open-minded and academically rigorous way. Our objective is to
help journalists handle issues on the interface of science and religion in a
more knowledgeable and sophisticated way. We do not ask about the personal
religious ideas of our Fellows and thus have no data on
that. We are fairly sure, however, from comments and conversations
over the years that the majority of our Fellows have almost surely not
themselves been religious. That in no way conflicts with the
objectives of the program, and is not something we seek to influence,
one way or the other.
Fraser Watts, Julia Vitullo-Martin, Brian Heap
Directors of the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships Program in
Science and Religion
Posted by: Dr Fraser watts | June 23, 2009 10:12 AM
The journalism fellowships program in science and religion is funded by the
John Templeton Foundation, but its policies are set by the directors of the
program. Its seminars address a range of
issues relevant to both science and religion. Speakers on the Fellowships
program have a variety of personal opinions on religion, and we always
ensure that the full range of views - from serious belief to atheism - is
covered in an open-minded and academically rigorous way. Our objective is to
help journalists handle issues on the interface of science and religion in a
more knowledgeable and sophisticated way. We do not ask about the personal
religious ideas of our Fellows and thus have no data on
that. We are fairly sure, however, from comments and conversations
over the years that the majority of our Fellows have almost surely not
themselves been religious. That in no way conflicts with the
objectives of the program, and is not something we seek to influence,
one way or the other.
Fraser Watts, Julia Vitullo-Martin, Brian Heap
Directors of the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships Program in
Science and Religion
Posted by: gillt | June 23, 2009 10:57 AM
"The journalism fellowships program in science and religion is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, but its policies are set by the directors of the program."
As a journalist yourself Dr. Watts (or is that like Hunter Thompson's "I'm a Doctor of Journalism, Dammit!") who pays the program directors salary?
Posted by: David the Astronomer | June 23, 2009 11:09 AM
The latest Jesus and Mo comic pokes fun at the Templeton Foundation.
Posted by: tsg | June 23, 2009 11:17 AM
#90 is almost a verbatim copy/paste from here.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2009 12:14 PM
nygradstudent, #66
Cuttlefish can't be a product of your imagination, you don't write that well.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
June 23, 2009 1:27 PM
If Templeton really is officially opposed to materialism, then it seems to me that they have a problem. Many years ago, it was carefully explained to me by a theologically minded friend that Christianity itself is a fundamentally materialist faith. This is why the historical truth of the incarnation is so important to most Christians; it ties their spiritual ideas firmly to the material world, and they seem to find this terribly important.
Posted by: Alexis
|
June 23, 2009 4:50 PM
And check out the latest Jesus and Mo cartoon...http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/06/23/size/
Posted by: Dan L. | June 23, 2009 4:59 PM
@Silver Fox:
They are funding scientific research that seeks to demonstrate a particular hypothesis. This is antithetical to any scientific program. Real scientists with pet hypotheses are supposed to do their level-best to disprove them. The activities of the Templeton foundation are antithetical to scientific methodology.
The point is this: consider the notion that perhaps science and religion are incompatible; as you seem to say above, they would not fund research that supports this hypothesis. But if this hypothesis is true, then it becomes clear that the Templeton Foundation is not concerned about truth, but with proving their pet hypothesis.
This is simply intellectually dishonest. It's not a crime, but it's unethical. All we're doing is pointing this out. It's actually a great example of religious belief failing to prevent unethical behavior.
"Theory of Forms," huh? I suppose, seeing as it is a theory, that it is a rigorous scientific theory that has been tested experimentally? And what were the results?
Try reading some Dennett, you arrogant little nitwit.
Others have already stated this, but just to make it absolutely clear: those of us who aren't solipsists know that the material exists. There is no reason for us to go around trying to prove it. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever of anything "immaterial" except for examples that don't help your case. One could make an argument, for sure, that the "US Government" or "differential geometry" or "Microsoft Windows" are immaterial, but all of these things can be reconciled with materialism if we simply make the assumption (actually, admission) that we simply don't yet know how the material brain works.
But otherwise, what would it mean for the "immaterial" to exist? In other words, what could it mean for something to be "immaterial"? The best examples come from physics: dark matter is not EM interactive (but it is very gravitationally active, so not quite "immaterial); neutrinos have no charge and almost no mass. Yet in both cases we can detect and study these things. Despite their bizarre properties, they are easily normalized into the framework of natural (material) phenomena.
What would be a phenomenon that couldn't be fit into this framework? The only notion that even begins to make sense is a phenomenon that does not interact in any way with the sorts of matter with which we are familiar. But then, how would we learn of its existence? How is it relevant at all? How could our causal models require an element with no affects?
Others have made the point that materialism is the default position and that it is dualism that must produce some sort of "immaterial" matter to gain any credibility. I'll go one further. The very idea of dualism is incoherent. If there is a conduit by which the "immaterial" can affect the material, then the "immaterial" is not "immaterial at all -- it has physical affects, and those effects can be studied to tease out the properties of the "immaterial." This is something I realized before I was 12: that there can't possibly be such a thing as the supernatural. If it exists, it is a part of nature -- natural -- and its properties can be studied.
Posted by: Dan L. | June 23, 2009 5:20 PM
@97:
Mixed up "affects" with "effects" at least once, and possibly several times. I think the meaning should still be clear.
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | June 23, 2009 7:31 PM
re Tis Himself 48/46
My humble superstition is materialism.
What is yours ?
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | June 23, 2009 7:31 PM
re Tis Himself 48/46
My humble superstition is materialism.
What is yours ?
Posted by: Dan L. | June 23, 2009 8:08 PM
@Polyester Mather DD:
"Since Stalin did so much to defeat the Nazis, it seems, well, pusillanimous to play the indiscriminate yet systematic murder of millions card." Preventing a bad thing does not give you license to do that bad thing. Templeton discrediting one group of anti-science bozos does not give them license to be somewhat less offensive anti-science bozos.
Oh, that explains it! Concern troll is concerned.
Not really a metaphor/figurative language guy, huh? Did you read the post? He explains exactly why the comparison is there to be made. And note: he does not say TF is as bad as the mafia. He simply points out some ways in which they -- and this is his word -- remind him of the mafia. Funny, though, most of us materialist/atheist types don't have that much trouble with metaphor.
Posted by: Dan L. | June 23, 2009 8:10 PM
Oops, screwed up the order. Middle blockquote and accompanying response belonged at the bottom.
Posted by: The Swordfish | August 16, 2009 3:20 PM
@ #2: And don't forget the free dead fish & newspapers.