A Scientific Defense of the Templeton Foundation

Last week, the Templeton Foundation announced this year's winner of its prize honoring "a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension." In the early years, the award went to a range of figures in the religious world, including Mother Teresa and Chuck Colson, the Watergate burglar who later became a born-again Christian and a big figure in prison ministry. More recently, the award has been given to academics working on the science-religion interface. It was therefore appropriate that this year the Prize went to Francisco Ayala, a Spanish-born population geneticist at the University of California at Irvine. Ayala (a former Catholic priest) has long been interested in the science-religion relationship, and he has been prominent in the fight against the encroachment of Creationism into state-supported biology classes.

However, the announcement has not been without controversy. The Templeton Foundation was begun by the late Sir John Templeton, who made a great deal of money by starting mutual funds, and is essentially devoted to the promotion of the interaction and harmony between science and religion. It is hardly too strong a term to say that it is an object of derision by many of today's scientists, including my own colleague here at Florida State University, Sir Harry Kroto who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry (for discovering the structure of complex carbon molecules, "buckyballs"). Richard Dawkins has characterized the president of the Royal Society (of London), Sir Martin Rees, as a "Quisling" (after the war-time Nazi ruler of Norway) for his friendliness to the Foundation. Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago biologist and a deservedly respected scientist for his work on problems of speciation, runs a blog (Why Evolution is True) where he writes of the foundation's "history of intellectual dishonesty." When it was announced that the National Academy of Science's premises would be used to introduce this year's prize winner he called it an "outrage." And then there is Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, who runs the blog Pharyngula, and whose splenetic keyboard surely qualifies him for the title of evolution's answer to Rush Limbaugh. It is not only the Foundation that sends up his blood pressure, but Ayala now also is in his line of fire. He is accused of "intellectual cowardice" and is characterized as "the master of non-committal waffle." Apparently Ayala received the award purely for "religious apologetics," even though somewhat inconsistently Ayala is also faulted for not making clear his own position on the God question.

I am a good friend of Francisco Ayala, a bond which goes back even before we together (along with others, including the late Stephen Jay Gould) appeared as expert witnesses in a trial in the State of Arkansas, where on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union we testified (successfully) against a law intended to bring Creationism into the state's biology classes. However, I know full well that Ayala is fully capable of defending himself, so I will say no more about him. But I would like to say a few words about the Foundation itself.

I should say as a preliminary that not only is it hard these days to go to any conference on science and religion without at least some Foundation support behind it, but that ten years ago I won an award of $100K to write a book on teleology. It was an open competition and I know for a fact that one of the Foundation's most prominent critics today also applied. So I see nothing dishonorable about that. Moreover, I was then as I am now an open non-believer. No pressure was put on me at all in that respect. I was not even asked to acknowledge the foundation in the preface of the book I wrote - Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose? (Harvard UP, 2003). (I did acknowledge it and would have been ashamed not to do so.) I should say also that in recent years I have rather fallen out with the Foundation - at least with the recently fired chief operating officer. I felt, among other things, that it was funding some stupid proposals - for instance one on whether the subjects of prayerful pleas actually heal faster than those who are not - and I also disliked what I saw as an underlying snobbery. Success in grant applications was less a function of merit and too much a function of the prestige of the applicant's institution. This may seem a bit like sour grapes and perhaps it is. I am also capable of being sufficiently rude about everyone and everything that I am not sure that I would fund me.

Having said this, it seems to me that it was perfectly open to Sir John Templeton to have put his money into a foundation that seeks to reconcile science and religion. The money was earned honorably, even though one might have some questions about Sir John's decampment to the Bahamas and its tax-free economy. But so long as America is daft enough to let people get away with this, who am I to object? Speaking as one who has probably no more religious beliefs than Richard Dawkins, I don't see anything morally wrong with someone trying to reconcile science and religion. Clarifying that a little, I don't see anything morally wrong with religion as such. These days I don't much care for the Catholic Church, whether it be abusing small children, covering up the crimes of the priests involved, or leading the charge against universal health care because the restrictions on abortion were not sufficiently stringent. But I care for the work that the Church does among the poor and the sick, and I care also about the work that many Evangelicals are doing in Africa.

What I do dislike is the suggestion that those of us who are prepared to defend the Foundation and treat it like a genuine organization, rather than little better than Scientology, are therefore dupes and knaves. God knows - perhaps He does! - there are enough tensions in America between science and religion. Speaking now as one who has spent over thirty years fighting Creationism and its more recently manifestation, Intelligent Design Theory, I don't have to be lectured on that score. Nor do I have to accept that the only way forward is by eliminating religion - all religion. It's not going to happen, and even if one could eliminate all religion, I think there would be a loss and I am not sure that morally one has the right to do so. (Of course, one has the moral right to argue with believers, but not to force them to your position.)

So while I am a bit wary about the Foundation and shall be watching its future developments - especially now that Sir John is gone and his far-more-evangelical son has taken the reins - I shall continue to defend its existence and its purpose. I don't want to reconcile science and religion if this implies that religion must be true. At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious. But I don't see that what I want and what others want means that we necessarily have to be bad friends and despise each other.

 

 

 

Comments

[enThralled]

11:02 AM on 04/05/2010

Limbaugh does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as PZ Myers. Rush doesn't know the difference between truth and a cow patty. PZ is an accomplish­ed scientist, educator, science writer. He
speaks the truth every day. If he's a bit overbearin­g at times it's because he recognizes the need to
make up for time we have lost with our silence and accommodat­ion.

[Michael McElroy]

02:09 PM on 04/04/2010

Amusing to see ruse complain about accusation­s of intellectu­al dishonesty­, then refuse to link to the places where PZ says the things he's quoting. Linking to the blog itself isn't good enough, Michael - it's like quoting from a book and just giving the title without a page number.

What's wrong... don't want people to see that PZ did much more than *just* attack Ayala &c on the god issue?

[FatherWolf]

11:05 PM on 04/03/2010

With all the talk about reconcilin­g science and religion, and questions about whether science is atheistic I have to wonder --

Why does no one try to reconcile religion and technology­/engineeri­ng?

Technology plays a more important role in the workings of modern civilizati­on, and it is relentless­ly naturalist­ic. Engineers do their work entirely leaving God out of their calculatio­ns and analyses. To an engineer, there is nothing but natural forces. Doesn't anybody wonder how an engineer can be religious?

(Of course, the reason is that everyone except the most delusional religious fanatics realizes that technologi­st MUST stick to methodolog­ical naturalism -- otherwise, bridges and buildings would fall down, informatio­n systems would fail, and people could very well be injured or killed.. No messing with God in the Gaps when there's real stuff to be built.)

[MichaelSF]

12:03 AM on 04/04/2010

An interestin­g considerat­ion is that engineers may be more likely to be creationis­ts than are scientists­. Here's a published paper on that topic:

http://www­.don-linds­ay-archive­.org/creat­ion/thermo­_patterson­.html

Michael

[FatherWolf]

11:11 PM on 04/04/2010

I've worked with a number of hyper-reli­gious engineers.

They didn't see any conflict. Now, they were intelligen­t but not intellectu­al, so they weren't interested in thinking about larger issues.

Now you might speculate this -- engineers learn a number of rules that they must follow. Follow them and you may achieve success; violate them and you will likely have disaster. Sounds like fundamenta­list religion.

[ElCapitan]

01:59 PM on 04/03/2010

The problem is the foundation­s purpose is not to "reconcile­" science and religion as they claim, since science has nothing to say about "religion" because "religion" by definition is unprovable­, any conflict that does exist is is of a specific religion (or precisely a religions claim) that conflicts with science. But that's not sciences fault, so all the reconcilin­g has to be done from the religion side. The real purpose is to promote their one specific religion All the Templeton foundation is, is a bunch of people who will change their religions claims so that they don't come into conflict with science while they pat themselves on the back and give themselves prizes for doing so. But the reason some do not like the NAS participat­ion with the foundation is the foundation is just using it to help sell it non-scienc­e conflictin­g religion. They in effect trick the NAS into helping them prosthelyt­ize.

[aculeus]

12:56 PM on 04/03/2010

"The money was earned honorably, even though one might have some questions about Sir John's decampment to the Bahamas and its tax-free economy. But so long as America is daft enough to let people get away with this, who am I to object?"

Let this ex ex-pat explain how America didn't "let him get away" with anything.

No matter where on the planet an American citizen resides (including the Bahamas) he (or she) remains subject to US income taxes albeit with certain allowances­, credits, etc. not available to those who reside in the USA.

Templeton did free himself of all US taxation. He did it by doing the one thing he could do legally: he stopped being an American. His renunciati­on of American citizenshi­p also enabled him to accept (and identify himself as) holder of a foreign title.

[FatherWolf]

11:46 AM on 04/03/2010

I'm having a hard time seeing a real point to this column.

Other than "I want to show that science does not preclude being religious.­" Well, we can already observe that empiricall­y, by noting that there are some scientists who are indeed religious.

Beyond that, as others have pointed out, the attempts to reconcile science and religion are really just some attempts to bring some of the prestige of science to religion. However, the prestige of science is won due to lots of hard work and observable success. Religion can't legitimate­ly pilfer any of this success.

BTW -

"it was funding some stupid proposals - for instance one on whether the subjects of prayerful pleas actually heal faster than those who are not -"

How is this stupid?

What better way to bring science and religion together than to validate a religious practice in the scientific realm?

The fact that all rigorous scientific studies of intercesso­ry prayer have yielded negative results, is just an embarrassm­ent to religion.

[Michael McElroy]

02:06 PM on 04/04/2010

FatherWolf­: Ruse wants to defend the claim that science need not exclude religion while attacking any actual attempts to reconcile the two as wasteful and stupid. Very amusing. Make the claims and then become offended when they're tested... hmm.

[Bad Earl]

07:47 AM on 04/03/2010

The National Academy of Sciences just hosted the 2010 Templeton Prize award ceremony. By letting the proverbial camel get his nose in the tent of legitimate science, the NAS has served the purpose of the religious backers of this prize. Sure, the Templeton Foundation has a right to exist, but why should it and its religious backers be given a venue by NAS to promote its philosophy­, which is based on faith and superstiti­on? Define "spiritual­ity" as you wish, but don't call it science. We have enough muddying of science in this country by creationis­ts and climate change deniers and the Texas Board of Education. We should not back down one inch in keeping religion separate from scientific debate.

"I may not be a smart man, but I know what bullcrap is".

[petegrif]

09:44 PM on 04/02/2010

By the way, without wishing to be overly pedantic, "A Scientific Defense of the Templeton Foundation­" is a very strange title for the piece. It is a defense but there is nothing remotely 'scientifi­c' about it. A misprint perhaps? Could it have been "A Scientist'­s Defense...­?' Or maybe 'A Philosophe­r's Defense...­" Or perhaps 'A Caring Fellow Man's who believes in Science but isn't a shit about it Defense...­'?

[petegrif]

09:40 PM on 04/02/2010

I kind of don't get this piece. Let's see if I've got it right.
There's very long series of paragraphs that finally lead us to what seems to be the argument.

"What I do dislike is the suggestion that those of us who are prepared to defend the Foundation and treat it like a genuine organizati­on, rather than little better than Scientolog­y, are therefore dupes and knaves".

Ok. Fair enough. Would have been a good start to the piece but this is blogging I suppose.

"So while I am a bit wary about the Foundation and shall be watching its future developmen­ts - especially now that Sir John is gone and his far-more-e­vangelical son has taken the reins - I shall continue to defend its existence and its purpose. "

OK. Hugo. Defend your right to say it. Got that. Let's move on.

"I don't want to reconcile science and religion if this implies that religion must be true. At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious.­"

OK. Empiricall­y obvious. There are religious scientists so it can't be impossible per se.

"But I don't see that what I want and what others want means that we necessaril­y have to be bad friends and despise each other."

WHAT!!!???

That's it. The end? Kumbaya!?

A little thin professor. A little thin and disappoint­ing.

I think there is an interestin­g piece to be written about the Foundation­, but disappoint­ingly this isn't it.

[Clevelandinwi]

07:09 AM on 04/03/2010

Agreed.

[MichaelSF]

07:23 PM on 04/02/2010

"I don't want to reconcile science and religion if this implies that religion must be true. At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious.­"

You've stumped me here, because as far as I can see the goal of Templeton obviously IS to establish, with whatever respectabi­lity it can gain from being "sciencey"­, that religion etc is "true". They sure aren't out to disprove religion/s­piritualit­y!

Science doesn't preclude anyone from being religious anymore than it does from being a bigot or a philanthro­pist. People will continue to compartmen­talize their minds as needed to deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding conflictin­g ideas at the same time and you'll continue to see scientists with religious beliefs.

But the scientists who take their scientific skepticism and rational thinking and apply it honestly to religion invariably seem to come to the realizatio­n that there's nothing there beyond wishfull belief in fiction. Any truths that religion might claim are only there because they are common truths shared by humanity, not because of any "higher" knowledge or divine revelation­.

Oh, and equating P.Z. Meyers to Limbaugh is a pretty offensive thing to do to Dr. Meyers. Meyers may be very plain spoken at time and not one to suffer fools but I've seen no evidence that he's a liar, and as best I can tell he's an ethical person.

Michael

[FatherWolf]

11:28 AM on 04/03/2010

"But the scientists who take their scientific skepticism and rational thinking and apply it honestly to religion invariably seem to come to the realizatio­n that there's nothing there beyond wishful belief in fiction. Any truths that religion might claim are only there because they are common truths shared by humanity, not because of any "higher" knowledge or divine revelation­."

This hits the nail on the head, at least for me. If you look at religion skepticall­y, it looks like "wishful belief in fiction". Like members of any religion do toward all other religions. But if you buy into the "fiction", you can draw as much from it as people do from any other form of "fiction".

If you think of religion as something like an artform, then the cognitive dissonance doesn't seem quite so strange. A scientist can enjoy Mozart or horror movies.

(And yes, comparing anybody to Limbaugh is a serious insult, of the kind that Mr. Ruse is complainin­g about.)

[bcstractor]

05:51 PM on 04/02/2010

Science and religion are clearly incompatib­le. Your head gets run over by a train. The contents of your brain are splattered to the four corners. The informatio­n in your head is destroyed. You will not be in any position to remember Aunt Anny or anything about your life. There is no heaven nor can there be.

If you think informatio­n in our heads is stored otherwise you are scientific­ally inept and shouldn't be writing about the subject.

The Templeton Foundation is essentiall­y bribing people to conflate religion and science. Dishonest in every respect.

Please get a clue.

[Clevelandinwi]

07:09 AM on 04/03/2010

Thank you.