Science & Religion on Morning Edition tomorrow

Hangers-on from my days at Preposterous Universe will recall how (with encouragement from Mark) I managed to avoid a tempting apple offered by a slick-talking serpent … okay, that’s probably a bad metaphor. What I actually did was decide not to go to a conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, so as to not give even implicit support to that organization’s attempt to encourage reconciliation between science and religion.

I mentioned this incident to NPR science correspondent David Kestenbaum, who became interested in the entanglement between Templeton and the physics community. He’s been working on a piece about the story for a while now, and it’s finally scheduled to air on Morning Edition tomorrow. Details will vary, but in many places it will air between 6 and 6:30 a.m. Eastern time, and be repeated two and four hours later. It should eventually appear on the web site, and I’ll put up a link when it does. I haven’t heard the piece myself, so if I’m quoted saying anything especially silly — well, I’m sure I’ll come up with some excuse.

Tomorrow’s news today — all in a day’s work here at Cosmic Variance.

Update: Here’s the story; audio not available yet, but it will be soon. I didn’t say anything I’d take back; in fact, I think David chose not to use some of my more confrontational statements. The story brought out one aspect of the Templeton rhetorical strategy that hadn’t been clear before: rather than explicitly promoting “religious” themes in a scientific context, they try to promote discussion of “foundational” issues, the “big questions” that get lost in ordinary scientific discourse.

22 Comments

22 thoughts on “Science & Religion on Morning Edition tomorrow”

  1. I happened to catch this while driving this morning. Sean and Lawrence Krauss on one side of the question of taking Templeton money. Max Tegmark and a physicist nun (didn’t get the name) on the other side. Nothing was said that will surprise anyone here, but then the story was for a general audience.

  2. Sure, you said all the right things, Sean… but principles shminciples – $8000 is almost enough to buy yourself a seat at the world series of poker. And you call yourself a gambler….

  3. I didn’t feel the piece was very balanced. I might have missed it, but I didn’t hear a clear exposition from a scientist about the reasons for turning down an invitation to speak at a Templeton conference, i.e. why bringing science and religion closer together might, in fact, be a bad thing. See Copernincus, Galileo, the dark ages etc etc

  4. “What I actually did was decide not to go to a conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, so as to not give even implicit support to that organization’s attempt to encourage reconciliation between science and religion.”

    Sean, do you not want reconciliation between science and religion? Or were you suspicious of this organization’s true intentions? Or both? Or something else?

  5. I do not want a reconciliation between science and religion. I think that scientific reasoning leads you to conclude that religion is not correct.

  6. Josh, I hadn’t thought of the WSOP angle. If I had just won the tournament, I would never have to apply for grant money again. Okay, next time I’m taking the Templeton money.

  7. Sean, you sounded very sensible. But I’d have to agree with Samantha: I was dissapointed not to hear you actually say (or very likely you said it and it wasn’t included in the piece) what your true problem with the organization is.
    Ie, exactly what you said above and said clearly on PU when you turned them down.

  8. Well, I said all sorts of intemperate things; David interviewed me for almost an hour. But he chose to use only fairly factual statements. True, my real objections didn’t come through very clearly.

  9. Well, to be fair, no objections came through clearly other than that “we” (scientists) in general want nothing to do with “them” (the Templeton Foundation). And this is in spite of the fact that they a) throw fun conferences b) pay good money and c) have physicist nuns on their side.

  10. Sean,

    I can understand why you turned down Templeton, but do you think it is wise to be so publicly (on radio, internet) “anti-religion” ? One of the scientific community’s biggest goals should be to educate the public and get them to trust science. People are not going to abandon religion in our lifetime, so it seems like science is not going to gain more support without being diplomatic. Also, advertising atheism could perpetuate stereotypes that cause people to dislike/mistrust scientists.

    I know I sound terrible because I’m basically suggesting that you hide your beliefs. Some people may find that unacceptible (I’m not even sure if I’m ok with it), but do you see any virtue in doing so?

  11. Anonymous,

    If you really meant the word “virtue,” then the virtue being pursued here would be “honesty.” However, if you meant “benefit,” then no, I don’t think being a vocal atheist could have any positive impact on scientist’s career or social perspectives on scientists. In most cases it would have no effect (as it should), and in a few cases it might have a negative one.

    As long as folks don’t let their vocal opinions leak into inappropriate places (such as ranting about religion during a lecture on gravity), then we’re better off with people honestly expressing their views. Templeton provides outlets for those with the view that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. If the speakers are there because they sincerely agree with that view, and not because they get an audience and an honorarium, then mission accomplished. We are reminded that not all physicists are atheists. No need for the atheists to be silent to achieve that goal.

    Just because there is a stereotype doesn’t mean we should all strive to be the opposite of it. 🙂

  12. “If you really meant the word “virtue,” then the virtue being pursued here would be “honesty.”

    Oh yeah – that’s the one. 🙂 But I think there is such a thing as a virtuous lie or virtuous silence.

    “…I don’t think being a vocal atheist could have any positive impact on scientist’s career or social perspectives on scientists. In most cases it would have no effect (as it should), and in a few cases it might have a negative one.”

    I agree that it SHOULD have no effect on social perspectives, but I disagree that it rarely DOES. I think that most people aren’t quite as rational as, say, the readers of this weblog.

    “Just because there is a stereotype doesn’t mean we should all strive to be the opposite of it. :)”

    I’m not suggesting striving to be the opposite. By all means, be an atheist if that’s what you believe. I’m just dabbling with the idea that total disclosure isn’t the best way for some scientists to go. People are already uncomfortable with what science has to say. Atheism can only make them more uncomfortable. One might say, well that’s THEIR problem, but it’s science’s problem too if it makes them anti-science. Maybe the world needs to take baby steps.

    Or maybe honesty IS the best policy (so says dear old mom). I admit that covering up the truth can lead to more problems down the road.

  13. Anonymous,

    I take your point. One thing to avoid (which can be rather hard on the Internet) is being a pushy jerk about expressing your opinion. That’s really an orthogonal consideraton to the opinion being expressed, but it is good to keep in mind. People who find ways to wedge their pet soapbox into every discussion might think they are being “vocal” when they are really being “annoying.” (It’s more likely when the speaker perceives him or herself as being in a minority group, such as those near the edges of the political spectrum, some Linux and/or Mac users, etc. I’ll stop before I invite flames upon me. 🙂 )

    I usually avoid political discussions because there is a strong tendency for them to turn into “smug asshole” contests, which usually leave you disgusted with the side you were already unsympathetic toward. (Sure, the guy arguing your side was a smug asshole too, but he was *your* smug asshole.)

    Anyway, I’m wandering. I guess my take is that the image of science will probably do fine if (a) scientists take the time to explain the science they do, and (b) avoid using their position to bludgeon people with their non-science opinions.

    Mom always said to be honest, but she also said to be polite. 🙂

  14. It’s a good question, how honest we should be when talking about religion — both as a matter of maintaining public support for science, and as a matter of simple politeness. Having said that, my own view is that I should be perfectly honest when I do address the question. My role here is that of a scholar/intellectual, not that of a politician or advocate. If I’m not telling the truth, there’s no reason to be doing what I do for a living. That doesn’t mean that I have to denigrate religion at every opportunity, nor do I. If I’m giving a science talk or teaching a physics course, religion won’t get mentioned. If I’m writing on a blog, or talking at a forum specifically devoted to the question of science and religion, I’ll tell the truth as I see it.

  15. I already knew what you thought about Templeton so I concentrated on your voice. In some odd way it reminded me of Carl Sagan. Is that merely lunacy on my part or did you listen to him as a kid or something?

  16. I am coming to this late, but I saw the original discussion on Sean’s blog, and caught the NPR show quite by chance (always a bit of a shock to hear people you know on the radio).

    I must admit, my initial take on the issue was it was an essentially an argument between Mark and Sean as to which was the more dedicated atheist:

    Mark: I am such a staunch atheist, if wouldn’t go to a Templeton Conference EVEN IF YOU PAID ME!

    Sean: What a coincidence, the Templeton people just offered me $6,000 to go their conference.

    Mark: Not even if you paid me $6,000!!!!

    Sean: OK, OK, I am such a staunch athiest, I am going to put my money where Mark’s mouth is! I won’t go the Templeton conference, even though they would pay me $6,000. Sigh.

  17. Richard, you forgot the last line, in which Mark calls up the Templeton folks and tries to take my slot. (Not that he will admit it.)

  18. The question is Sean, what comes next? Did Mark outwit you and make you give up $6000, or did you out-atheist Mark by giving up $6000? If the latter, then Mark, how are you going to top Sean? If the former, then Sean, how are you going to get your own back and go one better? Inquiring minds need to know!

    -cvj

  19. The skinny is that Richard Dawkins gave me 2-1 odds that I could convince Sean to back out. I took him up on it and bet $6,000, netting myself a cool $12,000 which I was then able to split with Sean for going along with my ploy. This way we both made money and Sean didn’t have to sacrifice his “principles”.

  20. Let me guess: Sean offered Mark a signed copy of “Why I am not a Christian” if he won, against a promise that Mark would take Christmas Day off work this year if lost? And the bet was that the Templeton Foundation would come back with a counter-offer of $10K??

    (You have to feel a little bit sorry for the Templeton people — they are trapped in a game of Brewster’s Millions: there they are with a billion dollars in the piggy-bank, and they can’t even give it away)

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top