Not long ago, an executive with the John Templeton Foundation (JTF) invited me to dinner on his dime. His aim was twofold: to discuss my latest book, which he was going to review (clearly not positively!), and, more important, to convince me that I had the Foundation all wrong: that it wasn’t really interested in advancing religion, but was becoming more scientific. We palavered about this meeting: I insisted, for instance, that the JTF would not pay for my dinner, so this gentleman kindly offered to pay out of his own pocket. But I ultimately decided not to go, for I envisioned it as a one-way conversation in which the Templeton guy would propagandize me and ignore my own complaints about his Foundation. After all, why would a billion-dollar enterprise like the JTF listen to a tiny critic like me? I may have been wrong about what would have transpired, but I’ll never know, for I eschewed the dinner (it was at a fancy place, too!).
But what I’m not wrong about is that the JTF has NOT changed, for it continues to promote religion with one hand, science with the other, and then with both hands mix them into a toxic brew of science-y woo. Their continued conflation of science with religion merely confuses people about the relationship of these areas, yet many scientists—among them are atheists!—are eager to line up for a place at the Templeton Trough. (JTF gives millions away annually.) The World Science Festival in New York, for instance, is partly sponsored by Templeton, and always has some “Big Questions” seminars that give credibility to the JTF.
But whatever credibility the JTF gains by supporting science is eroded by their real mission, which is stated clearly on their website (my emphasis):
The John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality. We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.
Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton’s optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship. The Foundation’s motto, “How little we know, how eager to learn,” exemplifies our support for open-minded inquiry and our hope for advancing human progress through breakthrough discoveries.
Before I begin, could someone explain to me what they mean by “ultimate” reality? Is there any other kind of reality? (Of course they’re talking about God—or so I think).
Just remember that everything the JTF does, including trying to burnish its image by supporting “pure” science, is ultimately aimed at acquiring “new spiritual information” through science, for Sir John believed that science could ultimately tell us stuff about the supernatural. If you think Templeton has reformed, or if you want to take money from this Foundation, first have a look at how the JTF has just wasted £1.6 million pounds on a useless study, founding a Christian institute at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. The 1.6 million pounds follows another half million pounds given earlier to the same recipient:
SCOTTISH theologians are taking the world lead in a controversial study of the existence and nature of God at a new international institute.
Experts at St Andrews University will tackle the biggest questions facing humanity, including confronting religious belief and analysing the challenges of hostility, sectarianism and terrorism.
The new Logos Institute – logos being the Greek for word or study – is being launched by a £1.6 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research relating to the major questions of human purpose and ultimate reality, and will be the centre for excellence in the study of analytic and exegetical theology.
The work of the institute was founded by father and son academics Alan Torrance, professor of systematic theology at St Mary’s College of the University of St Andrews, and Dr Andrew Torrance of the university’s School of Divinity.
. . . The new institute, which will open in the summer of 2016, builds on existing resources at St Andrews University and the funding will help pay for part-time positions of four leading international thinkers and a further full-time senior appointment.
There will also be research fellowships, six PhD scholarships and a new Masters programme as well as a series of public lectures, a blog, a website and podcasts.
What questions will this institute address? (These Black Holes of Money never answer the Big Questions, they just address them.) The Scotsman reports further:
The range of questions it will consider relate to the existence and nature of God, God’s relationship to time, the nature of the person and the conceptual and social challenges confronting religious belief, which will also look at analysing the challenges of religious hostility, sectarianism and terrorism.
. . .[Alan Torrance]: “Our primary concern will be to explore the immense explanatory power of Christian theism and its relevance for how we understand the ultimate significance of human life. We shall be doing this in dialogue with exciting new developments in contemporary Biblical scholarship. One of the key research topics will be the nature of forgiveness and what this central Christian notion might mean for how we approach religious enmity, sectarianism and terrorism.”
Well I certainly look forward to the answers they’ll provide about the existence and nature of God, and the perennial and vexing question about His relationship to time! Seriously, what progress can be made spinning one’s wheels about these unanswerable questions involving fictitious beings? It’s as if the JTF funded an institute to discover how Santa could really deliver presents to every deserving child within a single night, and about the challenges to Santa-ism. Can Santa do that because he’s outside of time?
And can we expect that JTF will fund atheists to represent “the conceptual challenges confronting Christianity”? I think not, for they’re only accepting fellow members of the asylum (see below).
And really—Christian theism has “immense explanatory power”? What power is that, exactly? What does it explain? Certainly nothing about reality, though it can explain why certain people believe the things they do. And does Christianity have more explanatory power than, say, Islam or Hinduism?
The end of the Scotsman piece shows the intellectual futility of this conference, and also how they’re limiting participation to those with similar beliefs (I’ve put the euphemism in bold). No atheists allowed!
Andrew Torrance said: “At its best, the task of theology gathers together and engages a diverse range of perspectives. Not only does it draw on the insights of biblical scholarship and philosophy, it also draws on the insights of the natural and social sciences. Further, it seeks to be attentive to the religious communities that have devoted themselves to pursuing a knowledge of God.
“Such a diverse conversation is not easy, however. For constructive conversation to take place, those at the table need to share the same language, and this requires conceptual clarity and discipline.”
I’d like to know what the task of theology really is, and how it will be aided by discoveries in natural and social sciences. I could go on, but enterprises like the Logos Institute, which coopt smart people into discussing unaswerable and silly questions, sicken me. As Hitchens insisted, they should be mocked and reviled.
I wonder how the gentleman who invited me to dinner, assuring me that the JTF has changed, can face himself in the mirror each day in light of things like the Logos Institute. Truly, Templeton is throwing away good money in a desperate attempt to meet Sir John’s aims: find out how science can tell us stuff about God. What a waste of time, money, and brainpower!
h/t: Alexander
I never really thought about how dumb this phrase is. Reality is reality. Putting adjectives like “ultimate” in front of it implies that reality isn’t really real. Dumb. Kind of like “my reality” or “your reality”.
I was going to make a joke about “penultimate reality”, but it seems that term is used a fair amount as well.
Personally, after the penultimate and the ultimate scenes I like to wait for the epilogue before I’m completely satisfied. So if theology gives me ultimate reality, I’d still wait for science to give me epilogual reality.
I think they mean they want to find and try the Red Pill.
I hope they like violence and guns.
I think the only adjective you could use safely and accurately would be “virtual”… Nothing else comes easily to mind.
More charitably, one could read “ultimate reality” as distinct from mere constructed realities, i.e., brute reality as opposed to naïve reality. But I think Jerry’s right, they’re referring to God and human purpose.
To me, ‘ultimate reality’ is a bit blurred in its meaning, but I think what they were reaching for is an ‘ultimate understanding of reality’. Like a child lives in the same reality that you and I do, but I am a bit closer at understanding what that reality really is.
I agree that they of course expect that there is Wizard pulling on cosmic ropes and pulleys behind the curtain.
Sorry, you too are closer to understanding that reality.
In other words, “real reality”?
“Ultimate reality”
That is, as opposed to ordinary everyday reality, which as we know is a social construct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality
😉
cr
“I have a firm grasp on reality. Now I can strangle it” – old tagline
You might want to review that first paragraph Jerry.
Also paragraph five: “…for Sir John believed that science could ultimately tell us stuff the supernatural.”
That’s what I say, “Stuff the supernatural!” 🙂
…where it cannot be seen!
Oh wait.
Re:
“But I ultimately decided not to go, for I envisioned it as a one-way conversation in which the Templeton guy would propagandize me and _not_ _ignore_ [empbasis is mine] my own complaints about his Foundation” —
Why would you avoid a meeting where you thought that the other person (even a propagandist) would _not_ ignore your complaints?
That was a typo, which has been fixed.
As always, I fail to see how they can study the nature of God before they have confirmed His existence. If they’re going to study God in a scientific manner, they should logically stick to that before moving on to the questions that assume He does exist.
In some cases it can be perfectly reasonable to explore conditional claims. Analyzing “if X is true, what follows?” does not require that I know X to be true. For example, the theodicy problem is of this sort: if the tri-Omni characteristics are right, why does evil occur? And this is private money, so if the patron wants some conditional analysis of Christian theology done, well then its perfectly okay for them to buy that sort of effort. I think Jerry’s larger point still holds though, which is that when a patron funds stuff like this, it greatly undermines their implied claim to be neutral or objective when it comes to religion.
If Santa exists, how does he get down 4 billion chimneys in one night? Ya.
Would someone please define “systematic theology” for me? What is a student introduced to by a Professor of Systematic Theology? It seems to me that they only talk about what supports their world view, and that certainly isn’t “systematic.”
I had to look that one up. Wikipedia says:
Doesn’t all academic theology strive to be orderly, rational, and coherent? Sounds like someone is trying to embiggen their title.
“…an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith…” Sounds a bit oxymoronic (or just moronic) to me.
I believe it is opposed to “popular”.
At first I though systematics = taxonomy, but that doesn’t make sense here.
Technically, systematic theology attempts to integrate all sub-areas of theology, ethics, the nature of the church, end of the world, etc.
I would like to know what new information (I won’t say evidence) the various participants will bring to this discussion. Obviously no new religious information, because, unless I missed the headlines, the Bible hasn’t changed much since the Protestants threw out the Apocrypha. Frankly, it sounds like another exercise in terrorist apologetics.
This book blurb provides some insight into what is meant by “exegetical theology.” In essence, training priests how to take an academic analysis of the bible and render it into good sermons and other outreach type communications.
So your answer appears to be: “no new theological or empirical information.” Instead, this is really about coming up with new/improved practices for preaching.
It is just more tiresome, training in ‘advanced apologetics.’ Which I categorize as a populous species within the genus of Sophistry: how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger (and in the Christian case, to ease the faithful’s unease.
In too much of a hurry: please ignore superfluous comma after ‘tiresome.’
thanks
I wouldn’t have done dinner under such circumstances, either. Dinner is too friendly and intimate a setting for what he was proposing.
I’d have been okay with meeting at a coffee house, or even (if I had an office) in my office with me supplying the coffee. Neutral ground at least if not my own home turf. But I wouldn’t be interested in being wined and dined by somebody who only wants to save my soul and / or recruit me to the cause of soul saving. It’d feel too much like I was a politician being lobbied to vote for some pork-barrel project crucial for meeting quarterly shareholder profit expectations.
b&
Yeah I don’t really like mixing business with pleasure that way either. I just don’t want to have that sort of conversation in a restaurant. Its one thing if you and a co-worker are continuing an ongoing work discussion over food – I find nothing wrong with that and have done that quite often. But its quite another thing to go to a restaurant knowing someone is meeting you there to sell you something. For stuff like that, I’d much rather keep the professional stuff to the professional setting and let my meals be about enjoying the food.
In part, this is because “dinner” may be the seller’s way of getting 60 minutes of your time when they have an idea that probably is only worth 10 minutes of it. A restaurant table may also be their way of avoiding having to give technical details. Its also in part because I want to feel free to express myself in ‘not suitable for decent company’ language. And lastly, its in part because if their cause or idea is really crazy, I might not want to be seen with them in public at all.
Yes, the Templeton representative should have reined it in and judiciously invited Jerry out for pie.
It would at least indicate he’d done his homework….
b&
Or pake? (It’s been ages since we had pake.)
/@
Notice how the quoted statement cannily omits the Christian meaning of “logos” from their oh so bland definition and rationale for naming this oh so Christian institute, when in “ultimate reality,” it’s patently obvious to anyone familiar with such things that they’re referring to the Logos with a capital “L,” i.e., Christ, “The Word Made Flesh,” whatever that “ultimately” means.
This is a conscious and meretricious deception, demonstrating again that these folks want not just to have their metaphysical cake and eat it, too, but cozen unsuspecting others into eating it as well. Not very Christian to me.
Christians took the philosophical concept of Logos from the Jewish philosopher/historian Philo before adapting it to their own purposes (first in the Gospel of John).
But it could still be a Trojan horse.
Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
what concerns me is how much they are offering funding, thereby twisting the research to meet their goals rather than where research leads
I attended an event at UBC’s anthropology department and the presentations done by the people who had taken Templeton funds were clearly lesser than the other presentations
I was also a bit concerned that indigenous studies also seem to requiring treating those beliefs as being real rather than beliefs of the group being studied.
something weird is going on in academia
White Man’s Colonization burden on one hand and NeoPaganism on the other, leaving science out of the equation.
How do I get on this Templeton gravy train?
First, you gotta be able to make gravy. Preferably the sophisticated® kind.
/@
Love the bolded euphemism at the end of the piece. Says it all, really.
You were completely right to not go. They could have ‘used’ your conversation in the manner they saw fit. At the very least the talk would have gone nowhere. I see on CNN how a spokesperson is ‘useful’ for a fruitful ‘discussion’. In other words they are not. No matter how clearly they are wrong they will just go on and on, glazed eyed, about the policies they are paid to shovel.
I’m also looking forward to them addressing the classic big questions of theism, such as that of Quantitative Nano-Scale Angelic Terpsichore. The answers to that are just as likely to be forthcoming, and useful, as the rest of their slate of topics.
I searched for Terpsichore and figured out what you were getting at. It’s hard to discount such grandness and importance in a range of questions.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t think of a fancy way to say “on the head of a pin.” However, I do think there must be a Templeton paper for someone who phrases “study how many angles can dance on the head of a pin” right. Maybe, “The metaphysics of quantitative angelic Terpsichore: a semiotical hermeneutics” or something…
They’re talking about God unless you don’t believe in God in which case they’re talking about whatever makes you comfortable using the phrase. After which the topic starts back on a slow, gradual creep towards being about God again. Ta da! Surprise!
Out of curiosity I googled the question “what does ultimate reality mean” and you’re obviously not the first to wonder about that. The first link is a no-frills definition at Merriam Webster:
Note the fact that there’s a bit of wiggle room even here, since what’s “supreme, final, and fundamental” to an atheist might not be what meets the criteria for one of the People of the Book.
But for the imo best example of the argle-bargle jimmery-pokery nature of the concept of “ultimate reality,” my money is on one of the other popular links, the one at Universe Spirit. Read this mess:
(My bold.)No shit, Sherlock.
Reread my first paragraph. “Ultimate Reality” is a fine example of a deepity, with the true but trivial jockeying for position with the extraordinary but false. One of the main problems with the concept is that there’s a lot of gray area in what is, or isn’t, “ultimate” because, as they admit, there are at least a dozen perspectives and applications. If you think matter and energy are the basic ground of reality, then is a physics chart going to help us decide what to do in the Middle East? It’s like calling God “the greatest being conceivable” and expecting everyone to agree on what THAT would mean.
I would have liked to think that you were confident enough of your conversational ability to take full advantage of this chance to talk more sense into the Templeton leader’s head! Sorry you missed that opportunity. I would have gone and then invited him back for a chance to give him a few new ideas of my own.
Is this Arnie?
“Our primary concern will be to explore the immense explanatory power of Christian theism and its relevance for how we understand the ultimate significance of human life. We shall be doing this in dialogue with exciting new developments in contemporary Biblical scholarship. One of the key research topics will be the nature of forgiveness and what this central Christian notion might mean for how we approach religious enmity, sectarianism and terrorism.”
Typical word salad that says nothing.
When they start throwing around:
approach
relevance
explore
concern
immense
explanatory power
ultimate significance
new developments
Biblical scholarship
notion might mean
in more or less random combinations, you know that nothing useful is planned or possible. It’ll be a love fest for self congratulation on their various imaginary friends.
I recommend this site for a wonderful lampooning of the purported “proofs” of the existence of this fictional character, God.
My personal favorite continues to be this one (ISIS seems to like it):
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION, a.k.a. TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA’S ARGUMENT
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists
. . .[Alan Torrance]: “Our primary concern will be to explore the immense explanatory power of Christian theism and its relevance for how we understand the ultimate significance of human life.”
That’s about a closed shop as you can get and an exploration into a waste of time.
“..living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see,
it’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out… BECAUSE(my emphasis)
it doesn’t matter much to me”
John Lennon/ Paul McCartney
Please be gentle with the Scots they have been going through a long divorce procedure and that can sap the intellect and lead to strange behaviour, such as wandering around ancient, dusty, corridors and muttering nonsense when they could have been out playing golf.
I venture to advance a hypothesis here: that this farrago of armchair philosophy and unevidenced deepities will have absolutely f***-all influence on anything. It will not result in one more bum in the pew; nor one more penny in the plate. Nobody will cite its results, if any, or even take any notice of them. Maybe the Torrance family will be able to buy a new holiday home. That’s about it; except of course that the absurd sums of money could have been put to much more productive ends.
Atheists are let into some stuff by Templeton.
Their “Big Questions Essay” series includes contributions by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rebecca Goldstein, Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Victor Stenger, and Lawrence Krauss (as well as various religious luminaries like Francis Collins and religious NON-luminaries like Rick Santorum).
However, it does seem as if the “logos” institute is not inviting atheists into the conversation.
I think they are more interested in the Logos of St. John’s Gospel and a bit less interested in the logic of Mr. Spock.
What is the sum of money involved in this?
Or even the logic of a good logic program – which, IIRC, St. Andrews has.
“We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.”
As soon as the theists are actually informed, this might work. As it is, all Templeton is saying is that the only thing we think civil and informed is agreeing with us and not showing us for the liars we are.
I wonder if they would fund my Exploration of the relevance of Freya and Thor in understanding our existence and the reason Odin created the Universe just for us.?
I think Tim Kreider beat you to it –
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229a.htm
cr
JAC: “And really—Christian theism has ‘immense explanatory power’? What power is that, exactly? What does it explain? Certainly nothing about reality, though it can explain why certain people believe the things they do. And does Christianity have more explanatory power than, say, Islam or Hinduism?'”
Did Jerry really mean to say ” . . .Christian theism . . . can explain why certain people believe the things they do?” I don’t understand how theism can do this when scientists are still wrestling with the question of belief formation. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the statement.
” . . .Christian theism . . . can explain why certain people believe the things they do?” I don’t understand how theism can do this…”
I think Jerry was subtly and ironically changing the meaning of ‘explain why’. A play on words.
Substitute ‘account for’ in the above and it becomes clear.
Try ‘Last week’s landslide explains why people in the valley are nervous’. The landslide itself isn’t trying to ‘explain’ anything.
cr
Ah! Yes, now I see. Thanks!
I wonder if these conferences that TF bankrolls for millions of pounds could ever produce findings so vacuous that TF would consider it a waste of their money.