http://cosmicvariance.com/risa

When one accepts money or prizes from the Templeton Foundation, one’s name becomes inextricably linked - not only logically, but also explicitly, on their web site – with their philosophy, their goals and all their efforts.

For example, here is a quote by Sir John Marks Templeton himself:

“…there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos.

One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization.

From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”

For example, here is a quote by Sir John Marks Templeton himself:“…there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos.

One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization.

From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”

For example, here is a quote by Sir John Marks Templeton himself:“…there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos.

One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization.

From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”

From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”

…accepting the Templeton Prize is presumably commensurate with his philosophical views, and I expect he and I would just plain disagree over the validity of those views.

But I do think it is worth pointing out the consequences of association with the Templeton Foundation, and to hope that, at the very least, scientists who do not subscribe to Templeton’s views of science and religion won’t allow their names to be used in support of them.

Eugene on Mar 20th, 2006

If I am given 1.5Million bucks by the Church of England to support Christianity, I am pretty sure I don’t have the will to resist.

Yes, I am weak, but 1.5M bucks is a lot of money…

What annoys me about Templeton is rewarding religious-style preaching by scientists, dressed up as teaching.

Davies (who won the Templeton prize in 1995) started out a good guy. His 1986 book “The forces of nature” is brilliant (I read it when 14, and it started off my interest in physics). It sets out all the facts using simple analogies, without prejudice. Great!

But later he wrote “The Mind of God”, “God and New Physics”, etc., and I felt uneasy. The same is true of Barrow. They started out good guys, writing books which set out known facts, but then they began describing extra-dimensional theory as being a search for the mind of God.

As soon as you get scientific missionaries, out to convert the world’s heathen to the mainstream theories which say there are 10/11 dimensions, unobservable super-partners, gravitons, and that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, you have a brainwashing, religious propaganda cult.

Lubos Motl on Mar 20th, 2006

Ten years ago or so, Barrow’s book “Theories of Everything” was a rather successful book in the Czech Republic and I could never understand why. It was such a vague and confusing mixture of religion, philosophy, and science that it was hard to finish it.

John Barrow is one of the authors of the anthropic principle, in its very religious form, and I think he is ideologically identical to the Templeton Foundation. It is not surprising at all that they chose him.

I do think that groups like this are trying to buy legitimacy (indeed, the funding of this prize is set to exceed that of the Nobel prizes, I gather, just to ensure that it does get some of the legitimacy that large sums of money tend to create)…

…but to a large extent I don’t think that research scientists can be too fussy about where their money comes from; they are better off worrying about the nature of their research and its implications.

As soon as you get scientific missionaries, out to convert the world’s heathen to the mainstream theories which say there are 10/11 dimensions, unobservable superpartners, gravitons, and that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, you have a brainwashing, religious propaganda cult. The problem lies in the unification of scientist and teacher, circa 1850. True science should present facts, and use caution when presenting speculative ad hoc theory. It is not a crime to admit some uncertainty

As soon as you get scientific missionaries, out to convert the world’s heathen to the mainstream theories which say there are 10/11 dimensions, unobservable superpartners, gravitons, and that 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, you have a brainwashing, religious propaganda cult. The problem lies in the unification of scientist and teacher, circa 1850. True science should present facts, and use caution when presenting speculative ad hoc theory. It is not a crime to admit some uncertainty

Lubos Motl on Mar 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am

Ten years ago or so, Barrow’s book “Theories of Everything” was a rather successful book in the Czech Republic and I could never understand why. It was such a vague and confusing mixture of religion, philosophy, and science that it was hard to finish it. John Barrow is one of the authors of the anthropic principle, in its very religious form, and I think he is ideologically identical to the Templeton Foundation. It is not surprising at all that they chose him.

I do think that groups like this are trying to buy legitimacy (indeed, the funding of this prize is set to exceed that of the Nobel prizes, I gather, just to ensure that it does get some of the legitimacy that large sums of money tend to create) but to a large extent I don’t think that research scientists can be too fussy about where their money comes from; they are better off worrying about the nature of their research and its implications.

Mar 20th, 2006 at

What annoys me about Templeton is rewarding religious-style preaching by scientists, dressed up as teaching.

Davies (who won the Templeton prize in 1995) started out a good guy. His 1986 book “The forces of nature” is brilliant (I read it when 14, and it started off my interest in physics). It sets out all the facts using simple analogies, without prejudice. Great!But later he wrote “The Mind of God”, “God and New Physics”, etc., and I felt uneasy. The same is true of Barrow. They started out good guys, writing books which set out known facts, but then they began describing extra-dimensional theory as being a search for the mind of God.

“…there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. … From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.”

I’m not trying to give John Barrow a particularly hard time here - as I mentioned above, accepting the Templeton Prize is presumably commensurate with his philosophical views, and I expect he and I would just plain disagree over the validity of those views. But I do think it is worth pointing out the consequences of association with the Templeton Foundation, and to hope that, at the very least, scientists who do not subscribe to Templeton’s views of science and religion won’t allow their names to be used in support of them.

Science, Religion | Email This post

Mark, I also thought: hey, that’s kind of strange that John would accept this kind of prize. At the homepage Templeton.org they state, that “the Foundation typically seeks to focus the methods and resources of scientific inquiry on topical areas which have spiritual and theological significance”. The sp. and th. significance of John’s research is null, I think.

But, at any rate, $1.4 million is really a lot of money! An Intelligent Choice, or signs of Intelligent Design? I’m not sure…

Regards, Kasper

Mark on Mar 21st, 2006 at 7:29 am The thing is Amara, look on Templeton’s web site and you can see how this is being advertized. Once again it is an attempt to buy legitimacy for their philosophy by association with scientists. On the web site this is included along with all their other programs. I don’t know how much seed funding there is and whether there is any other source at all right now. I do agree that the balance of funding sources might affect the eventual question of whether (for me, for example) to apply for funding from them.

It isn’t clear what is meant by “strong hints of ultimate realities beyond our cosmos”, but I imagine it might refer to the discussions of the anthropic principle that have been taking place in a small subset of the physics community in the last few years. I also imagine that “self-organization” refers to the same thing. I think one would have to be deluded or dishonest to think, even if these ideas turned out to be correct, that there is any implication of a supernatural force outside the physical universe.

Indeed, you’d be hard-pushed to find a string theorist who would claim that the idea of the landscape compels them to view it as “an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe.” But the problem is that when the odd well-known scientist allows their name to be associated with ideas such as those pursued by the Templeton Foundation, it lends credence to non-scientific ideas, and ultimately does a disservice to science and the scientific method.

As Kasper says, $1.4 million is a lot of money. One would have to be a really fanatical atheist to reject such a handsome amount. But I am not gonna discuss this topic on my blog because it’s just another million of dollars that are changing their owners every day in a fashion that is not quite deserved. The prize is ideological, and despite the fact that the money exceeds e.g. Gross’s share on the Nobel prize by a factor of five, I think that Barrow’s contributions don’t exceed a few percent of Gross’s.

Mark on Mar 20th, 2006 at 5:09 pm Also Templeton funded. adam on Mar 20th, 2006 at 8:25 pm How fussy can physicists afford to be, then, when it comes to taking money? And is money from a bunch of people who are at worst religious propagandists really so bad, particularly if it’s given with no strings actually attached (but just for the benefit of PR of the ‘we gave this real scientist a lot of money and he took it’ sort)? Money doesn’t have a memory or a conscience, after all.

Mark on Mar 20th, 2006 at 8:32 pm It all depends on the individual. I consider the price (lending legitimacy to a cause I find to be misguided) to be too high in this case.

Adam on Mar 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm

Mark, I seem to recall this turning up in conversation, with you and Sean and others, in Tampa last year (in a bar)(a respectable one). I also don’t trust the motives of the donors, necessarily (and even less so, of course, those of the Discovery Institute, but that’s a different matter) but as Sean says, it’s a lot of money to be turning down.

I don’t have enormous problems with the beliefs of people who think that science and religion don’t overlap (although I know that many of you do); my problem is with their methodology. However, money is useful, as I will demonstrate to anyone that wants to give me some.