Not much more to say about the Templeton Foundation, but in the interest of open discussion it seems fair to point to a couple of alternative viewpoints. My original post was republished at Slate, where there are over 3300 comments thus far, so apparently people like to talk about this stuff?
For a more pro-Templeton point of view, here’s Jason Wright, explaining why he didn’t think it was wrong to take money from JTF. While he is a self-described atheist, he thinks that “questions like the ultimate origin of the Universe and Natural Law may be beyond scientific inquiry,” and correspondingly in favor of dialogue between science and religion. To be as clear as possible, I have no objections at all to dialogue between scientists and religious believers, having participated in such and planning on continuing to do so. I just want to eliminate any possibility that my own contribution to such a dialogue will favor any position other than “religion is incorrect.” (Obviously that depends on one’s definition of “religion,” so if you want to indulge in a boring discussion of what the proper definition should be — be my guest.)
From an anti-Templeton perspective, here’s Jerry Coyne, who doesn’t accept that it’s okay to draw a line between JTF itself and distinct organizations that take money from them. (Jerry’s post is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree with it — but a short trip down to the comment section will give you a peer into the mind of the more fervently committed.) That’s fine — I admit from the start that this is a complicated issue, and people will draw the line in different places. But let’s admit that it is a complicated issue, and not pretend that there are any straightforward and easy answers.
One thing that seems to bother some people is that I agreed to be on the Board of Advisors for Nautilus, a new science magazine that takes funding from Templeton. It’s instructive to have a look at the Board of Advisors for the World Science Festival, another organization that takes funding from Templeton. It’s a long and distinguished list, and here are some of the names included: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Pinker, Steven Weinberg. Are these folks insufficiently sincere in their atheistic worldview? Alternatively, would the world be a better place if they all resigned? I would argue not, for the simple reason that the WSF does enormous good for the world, and is an organization well worth supporting, even if I don’t agree with all of their decisions.
Refusing to have anything to do with an organization that takes money from a foundation we don’t like is easier said than done. What about, say, the University of Chicago? Here they’re taking $3.7 million from Templeton for something called Expanding Spiritual Knowledge Through Science: Chicago Multidisciplinary Research Network. And here’s $5.6 million from Templeton for a program labeled New Frontiers in Astronomy and Cosmology, celebrating “a unique opportunity to honor the extraordinary vision of Sir John Templeton.” And here’s $2.2 million for a program on Understanding Human Nature to Harness Human Potential. Not to mention that the UofC has quite a prominent Divinity School (home of the best coffee shop on campus) and Seminary. (They also denied me tenure, which doubtless set the cause of reason and rationality back centuries.)
There’s no question that the University of Chicago has done much more to promote the cause of religion in the world than Nautilus has — which has been, to date, precisely nothing. One could say, with some justification, that some parts of the UofC have promoted religion, while other parts have not, and it’s okay to be involved with those other parts. But we begin to see how fuzzy the line is. Big grants like those above generally put a fraction of their funds toward “overhead,” which goes into general upkeep of the institution as a whole. Can we really be sure that, as we walk across the lawn, the groundskeeping was not partially paid for by the pernicious Templeton Foundation?
But that doesn’t mean that self-respecting atheists employed by the UofC should instantly resign. I’m sure you could play the same game with most big universities. The world would not be improved by having thousands of atheist professors abandon their posts out of principle.
It’s much more sensible to be a consequentialist rather than a deontologist when it comes to these ethical questions. I’m not going to stay away from Nautilus, or the World Science Festival, or the Foundational Questions Institute, out of some fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine according to which they have become forever tainted by accepting money from Templeton. Rather, I’m going to try to judge whether these organizations provide a net good for the world; I will complain when I think they are making a mistake; and if I think they’ve gone too far in a direction I don’t personally like, I will disengage. That’s the best I think I can do, according to my own conscience. Others will doubtless feel differently.
Gabe,
like I said in my reply to you, there were a handful of people throughout history that did not take it literally. What good is winning a debate if you have to live in an alternate reality to do so? 99% of humans who have lived on earth in recorded history have taken religion as a literal translation of events. You were able to name less than 10 people out of tens of billions; what percentage is that Gabe? Like I said before, you are either completely ignorant of historical facts, or you are willfully deceptive. Either way, it’s pointless to continue the conversation.
Religion is about morality, science about the physical properties of the world around us. I suppose many Atheists disagree with the moral principles of Christianity and that may be the reason, for many, of their disbelief of a Creator God. Faith is a gift. If you don’t have it than you don’t.
Atheists must believe that humans are just intelligent animals and should be used and experimented on as any other species. Abortion and experiments on babies and other less intelligent people could be justified for the greater good.
@vmarko
To those of us who live in the real, physical world, there is nothing outside of that world; everything that exists does so in the real world, and nothing that exists is outside of it. The supernatural refers to something outside of that world. Therefore, it does not exist. That’s why Sean can say that religious belief is wrong (or perhaps “in error”). One might argue that the supernatural exists in the same way that a fictional world, like Middle Earth, exists, but surely you wouldn’t equate your religious beliefs with Lord of the Rings fandom.
Tony,
You’re comment shows that you know nothing about atheism. If you want to know why most atheists don’t believe in god, then feel free to ask. The reason I’m not automatically putting it out there for you is because it’s going to be a little insulting to you and others who are religious; just as claiming that atheists must not believe in god because they are morally bankrupt is an insult to atheists.
@Tony Rz
While I will ignore your offensive language about atheists, I will admit to believing that humans are just animals of some level of intelligence. Given that belief, it makes more sense to expect atheists to value all life more, rather than all life less.
There is nothing I could say to convince anyone of you Atheists that God exists, your minds are closed. It’s Atheism belief that the intellect is the pinnacle of creation, it’s the old temptation from Genesis, “Know and you shall be like gods who know what is good or evil”. The battle between the intellect and the power of Love. Thereafter man spent centuries searching for truth and true knowledge, not finding neither. So it will be with those who want to make man’s intellect godlike. It’s a battle between Love and the mind, and which should reign supreme. Sean is searching philosophy in the hopes that in some future time it may result in some new morality when in the here and now Christianity has what is the true morality, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. That’s why Christ came into world, to show us the way and the Truth, how few there are that follow His example. Without Love to guide knowledge, man will fall into a pit.
Tony,
“There is nothing I could say to convince anyone of you Atheists that God exists, your minds are closed. ”
Tony, I’m afraid you are in the unenviable situation of a pot calling the kettle black . 🙂
Anyway, for those who want a quick, fun read on this topic, here is a post some time ago from Scott Aaronson:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=232
Tony, I started out as a believer, and only by opening my mind to the possibility that there really was no god was I able to think about and reach that conclusion. I spent a lot of time and effort tying to prove to myself that there was a god (like most religious apologists, who are not trying to convince you of the rightness of their beliefs, but themselves). I had to follow the facts and the logic to its conclusion. It was not a conclusion that I wanted to reach, but I could remain “religious” only by lying to myself.
Tony,
When you write these completely detached comments that have nothing to do with the conversation, well, it makes you seem batshit crazy. Take note from vmarko and make some sort of logical point rather than angrily rambling. All you do is talk about love yet you are so obviously full of hate for atheists simply because they don’t believe what you believe. By the standards you set, those few of us responding to you (who I assume are all atheists) are more christian than you are; and we think your religion is a fairy tale! Comments from crazies like you is what confirms atheism for most atheists.
The argument is about proving the existence of God, no I don’t hate you guys and gals just because we disagree. I don’t know you people personally, although Sean seems to be a really great guy, interesting as well, not to mention he has a great looking wife. A difference of opinion doesn’t mean one has to dislike the other, like so many politicians seem to do nowadays. When I say your minds are closed it means you have made up your minds and won’t change for whatever reason and that is your choice of course. When it comes to a proof of God there is no such thing, it comes down to faith and faith alone, although historically there have been instances of miraculous happenings, whether you accept those or not is up to you. I myself have had a few. However if someone says he has proof of God, he simply does not, there is no such thing. Science is science and religion is all about Love, or it should be and that’s why I talk about Love. I don’t know if Sean reads these posts or not, or merely amuses himself with all the quarreling.
Tony Rz: Do you believe in Thor, Ra, Shiva, Ea, Frigg, Janus or any of the other thousands of gods that various religions believe in? Why don’t you?
Just about any argument you can give why you believe in your god the religions that believe in the other gods give for their beliefs and you reject them when other use them. Why?
Instead of being skeptical of all gods except one religions atheist apply their skepticism across the board.
Tony Rz: When you say “When I say your minds are closed it means you have made up your minds and won’t change for whatever reason” you are very far from being accurate.
Many of the atheist I have talked to are very open to changing their opinions, all it takes is evidence. Show them a documented verified event that can only be explained by god’s intervention and they are very likely to change their mind.
Sean,
I’m not really seeing your comparison between you being on the board of advisers of a magazine that is 100% funded by Templeton (as far as I can tell) and someone working for U of C or working with the World Science Festival, neither of which are anywhere near 100% funded by Templeton. If 5% of the funding for Nautilus was from Templeton and the rest from other people I’m not sure people would think you being on the board of advisers conflicts with your previous statements about Templeton.
Hi Charles LaCour,
Nice to talk with you. You state the view that you’re sceptical across the board, and don’t believe in ANY of the gods, whereas the various religions are sceptical of all the gods except their own. (I hope that this is a fair paraphrasing of your position). Your position is a reasonable one, that I respect. But the Traditional Christian God, is not just one god among others. The Christian God is not one powerful empirical being, that is more powerful than anything else. He transcends all material objects, and is Being itself. He enables, all other contingent beings to exist. As Aquinas argued, every being, that exists in space/time is contingent; it depends on other contigent beings for its existence, but to prevent an infinite regress of contingent beings being the causes of the contingent beings that exist after them, (which really explains nothing, on an ultimate level), we need a being, that is Sufficient, that is not contingent; this being is God.
@Charles La Cour
Many of the atheist I have talked to are very open to changing their opinions, all it takes is evidence. Show them a documented verified event that can only be explained by god’s intervention and they are very likely to change their mind.
Oh, come on! 😀 most hardcore atheists would change their mind about God only if it appeared in front of them at dinner with his white long beard and yelled “here I am, do you see me?” 😀 actually, they probably would ascribe such an experience to allucinations 🙂 the point is that most of the time atheists (and new atheists à la Dawkins in particular) accept as decisive evidence for any given claim only empirical, (repeatable), third-person (objective) experiments. Anything that does not conform to this standard of evidence is essentially derubricated to illusion. Of course, a matter like the existence of God or the divinity of Christ is not something which you can provide evidence of this sort for. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with such a strong notion of evidence (although I think it is wrong :D), but to say “hey, just give me evidence of this sort for God and it’ll be fine, look how rational I am” is slightly preposterous.
@Bret Lythgoe
As Aquinas argued, every being, that exists in space/time is contingent; it depends on other contigent beings for its existence, but to prevent an infinite regress of contingent beings being the causes of the contingent beings that exist after them, (which really explains nothing, on an ultimate level), we need a being, that is Sufficient, that is not contingent; this being is God.
(I) Kant has given good reasons in his Critique of Pure Reason why this argument does not work. To make a long story short, the concept of “cause” brings with it a necessary reference to the possibility of its application to the empirical world. An infinite series of causes might very well be thought, but since it is something which can never be given in experience, we cannot conclude that is has objective reality, i.e., that it describes something real.
(II) I don’t see any problem with an infinite series which does not have a beginning. The integers make perfect sense even though they do not have a beginning, and there is nothing in the material world which supports the view that infinite series (e.g. of causes, or of interactions) are impossible.
If Sean should happen to change his mind would the rest of you consider it?
Tony,
there are a few things that you don’t understand,
1.) this is an argument about religion, not god. Christianity is a religion. God is the god of Christianity. Buddhism is is a religion. Buddha is the god of Buddhism. Yaweh is the god of the Jewish religion. Krishna is the primary god of the religion, Hinduism. A person who believes that the existence of a god is unknowable but equally likely is called agnostic. Basically someone who definitely does not believe in a religion, but does not refute the possibility of the existence of a god. Their religious classification is called agnosticism,
2.) I don’t care what Sean Carroll’s religious beliefs are; and I seriously doubt anyone else does either except as a point for starting a debate. What I mean by that is that Sean’s beliefs have no influence on my beliefs; though they do influence the level of respect I may or may not have for him. In fact, I think Sean barely cares enough to mention it. He cares about whatever the truth is,
3.) You are incredibly contradictory to all of you’re previous statements. You claim that you “KNOW that God the creator exists” but then say that anyone who says they have proof god exists, absolutely does not. This is why an argument over God and religion is such a boring argument to Sean; because there will always be people like you who are so irrational, closed minded, bigoted, and fucking stupid; who will make completely contradictory statements and then act like they said something profound instead of something that dribbled out of the mouth of a heavily sedated hospital patient. You immensely frustrate me Tony because I don’t know you, but you fit the stereotype of the bigoted, cognitively lazy, and ignorant religious nut 100% ; according to your comments. You are missing out on the true happiness that life has to offer people if they let go of their fears of death, struggle, and the fact that life is often times unfair. These are hard facts to face, but are absolutely necessary in order for life to continue to exist. Others, I have an intellectual disagreement with on this dead end debate; but you are intellectually lazy and intellectually immature when you don’t have to be. You are from the Kirk Cameron school of “here’s how to circumvent the logic of someone who doesn’t believe in god”. In other words “here’s how to spew bullshit until the debate is over”. Thank you for being my punching bag for a minute tony. My apologies for anything offensive.
@meh – slight correction
Just wanted to point out that Buddha is NOT the god of Buddhism. The buddha was a human being just like everybody else. This is one of the reasons why Buddhism is sometimes called an atheistic religion – no gods. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.
Bret Lythgoe: You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying that Christian believe that their god is the most powerful or supreme being among a multitude. My point is that a believer in a religion is not applying skepticism impartially. They are giving preference to reasons that support their existing belief while dismissing a the exact same reason used by a person in another religion gives to support theirs.
If there is no evidence or unique logical consistency how can one assumption be seen as more valid than another? In science if there are two theories that explain the same thing by different ideas and there is no test of observation that can be done to show one to be better or more accurate then bot are considered equally valid. This is not the case with religions.
The point that the view of God as a transcendent being is not unique to Christianity. The Aquinas argument for the uncaused cause is a tautology since the premise of everything requiring a cause has the built in fault of infinite regression of events.
Without God religion would be a total waste of time and energy. Religion and God can not be separated, at least a religion based on a belief in a creator. Calm down Meh, your throwing a tantrum, it could be worse, meaning you could be right, sorry I said that. By knowing there is a God I mean I have had actual experience of His existence, nothing more, though there is no way I could prove it, especially to you, and I do forgive you. This is a debate that could go on and on to no ones favor, you against me and each against the other to no ones satisfaction and I do understand why many disbelieve considering all the carnage happening in the world.
Riccardo: I can also say the same thing if Odin came down and showed himself the hardcore Christians or Muslims would say that it was a temptation to test them and not change their beliefs one bit.
People who are atheist as a rational choice do so for rational reasons, if they are given rational reasons to believe they are likely to change their minds. People who are atheist because they angry about a religion or other non-rational reason will not be swayed by rational reasons.
I fairly certain that even someone as hardcore atheist as Dawkins if presented with a documented verified event that can only be explained by god’s intervention he would change his mind.
The comment in my last post about differentiating one assumption from another is relevant to your comment as well. The reasons people give for belief in the existence of a specific god are like: “without god there is no morality”, “I feel his love”, “he heals people” or “he answers my prayers”. Deciding by what feels better or sounds more poetic or based on inaccurate observations are not really what I would consider valid reasons. What would you suggest as a criteria to make these kinds of distinctions?
From a rationalist perspective most if not all religions make claims that there have direct effects on the physical world that should be able to be observers and quantified by science. These are the points where the conflict between science and religion occur.
Bob Iles: Buddhism may have started as an atheistic philosophy but it has evolved so that there are some segments of Buddhism that believe in celestial bodhisattvas that are incarnations of the Buda that have achieved enlightenment but refrain from completly trancentding samsara to help others on the path of enlightenment. They are prayed and sacrificed to making them in my mind pretty much the same thing as gods especially since the bodhisattvas have the aspects of the Hindu gods.
http://www.closertotruth.com is a great web site for believers or unbelievers.