Transcript Blog

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 socalled self-organization.
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 socalled self-organization.
From a theological perspective it is indeed
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 socalled self-organization.
From a theological perspective it is indeed
From a theological perspective it is indeed
tempting to see this remarkable selforganizing 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 superpartners, 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
“…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 socalled 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 “selforganization” 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.