Quietly but doggedly, the John Templeton Foundation pursues its goal of trying to harmonize and integrate science and religion. Here’s an example of Templeton money being spent on a project in Northern Ireland aimed at proving that there need be no conflict between the two areas. The conference, held in October, would have escaped my attention had it not been for reader John from Belfast, who sent a link and his opinion:

[If you have time], have a quick look at this seminar that some of the “smart/stupid” people in Northern Ireland felt the need to organise recently in the panic they are now running from before the scientific onslaught on faith and belief.

John Lennox (our biggest embarrassment) leads the charge of course but dip into the address on Genesis by Desmond Alexander to really see a rabbit caught in the headlights. [Lennox, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, is described by Wikipedia as a “Christian apologist.”]

Its so good to see that these guys are on the run……..and they are!

The Templetonian project is called “Explaining Away“: one couldn’t find a better name for this odious accommodationist/apologist endeavor. It’s on the Templeton website, which shows that the Foundation gave the University of Ulster nearly $200,000 for the project:

A common theme in popular discourse is that scientific explanations of the world have “explained away” the need for religion. This project investigates the concept of “explaining away” in  the science-religion context and considers whether there is any need for a religious explanation in addition to a scientific explanation or, more specifically, under what circumstances a scientific explanation might undermine a religious one.

The project will clarify the conditions which need to be satisfied for one explanation to “explain away” another, and will use computer simulations to model the changes of beliefs in social groups. An academic workshop on the project topic, and a training day on the wider issues of science and religion aimed at an audience of ministers of religion and laymen will be organized.

Given Templeton’s history, what do you think the chances are that the program would conclude—or even consider—that science might undermine religious explanations? Yes, you’re right—NONE.

To see this, have a look at October the “Explaining and Explaining Away” workshop held in Belfast. Here’s the program:

Dr David Glass/ Dr Mark McCartney ‘Explaining and Explaining Away’
Today’s workshop is part of a larger project entitled ‘Explaining and explaining away’, funded by the John Templeton Foundation.  In this talk we  give an overview of the idea of ‘explaining away’ – in particular do certain scientific explanations ‘explain away’ the need for God? We will also look at recent census data on the decline of religious belief in Northern Ireland.

Translation: The speakers will explain away not religion itself, but the supposed conflict between science and religion. They will also show that, properly interpreted, the “decline” or religious belief in Ulster is spurious.

Dr Desmond Alexander ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1-3’
How should we read the opening chapters of Genesis? What may appear to be a simple question is fraught with all kinds of complications. To put the question is another form, Is Genesis 1-3 a text about cosmology or theology?. . .

Translation: Whoever thinks that the book of Genesis was intended to be taken literally, or even was taken literally by a single theologian over the millennia since it was composed, is a chowderhead. The whole book was clearly meant to be an allegory.

Rev. Barry Forde ‘Science, Religion and Undergraduates: Train tracks or crossroads?’ 
University is often perceived as a time for exploration, debate, for discussion and the opening of minds to new schools of thought, ideas, and perspectives. To what extent are Christian students in particular happy to simply live in a world in which science gets taught in the academy, faith in the church, and, rather like parallel train tracks, never the twain shall meet? What happens to both faith and science when neither is really allowed to critique the other, especially when a parallel universe gives way and inevitable collisions occur? In his address Barry will offer up his own observations borne out of experience as a University Chaplain, along with feedback and insights from current students on science and religion.

Translation: Faith and science may appear to clash but, properly interpreted, they really don’t.

Dr Eddie McGee ‘Science and Religion in the Classroom’
This talk begins by reviewing how science and religion are currently integrated within the post-primary school curriculum in Northern Ireland. Through an analysis of ‘value systems’, it will explore how interface and boundary issues between these fields of study provides a context and foundation for understanding emergent ethical and epistemological tensions both for teachers of science and religion and for the wider public. Finally, it will examine how the theories of education according to Piaget and Vygotsky can contribute to comprehending and resolving such tensions in the classroom and signpost pedagogical strategies which might facilitate greater integration between science and religion in the future.

Translation: Dr. McGee will emit a fog of impenetrable academic speech to obfuscate the issues but also to reiterate that science and religion can be “integrated.” He will also demonstrate the use of mixed metaphors by signposting many pedagogical strategies.

Dr Diarmid Finnegan ‘Myths and Milestones in the History of Science and Religion’
It is commonly assumed that the history of science and religion has been driven by conflict between two starkly opposing ways of explaining the world.  This master narrative has produced a number of persistent myths about how the relationship between science and religion played out during key moments in the development of scientific knowledge.  Historians of science and religion have long sought to deflate the cultural potency of these myths and contest or complicate the assumption of persistently unfruitful conflict between religious and scientific ways of knowing.  This talk will explore some of this ‘myth-busting’ scholarship.

Translation: The so-called “clashes” between science and religion, instantiated in the l’affaire Galileo and the Scopes Trial, weren’t really about an incompatibility or animosity between the two areas. Instead, they were examples of struggles for political power, of personal animus, and of clashes between different “cultures.” Religion has never, ever been in conflict with science, and those who say so are just dumb.

Prof. John Lennox ‘Has Science Buried God’
If we believe many modern commentators, science has squeezed God into a corner, killed and then buried him with its all-embracing explanations. Atheism, we are told, is the only intellectually tenable position, and any attempt to reintroduce God is likely to impeded the progress of science. In this talk, John Lennox will examine such claims. Is it really true that everything in science points towards atheism? Could it be possible that theism sits more comfortably with science than atheism?

Translation: Plenary speaker Lennox, the prize Oxford thoroughbred in our stable, will give a resounding “No way!” to the question at issue. He’ll also perform the intellectual equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat by demonstrating that science is actually more compatible with religious belief than with atheism. This latter feat alone will be worth the price of admission.

*******

I agree with reader John that this conference demonstrates that religious apologists are indeed on the run. If there weren’t a public perception that science and religion are in conflict—a perception that—as I argue in The Albatross—is based on a real dichotomy in how those two areas seek and identify what they consider true about the Universe, there would be no need for such conferences , or for Templeton to pour millions of dollars yearly into accommodationism. These science-and-religion lovefests are pervasive and frequent, and demonstrate to me that the issue hasn’t been resolved. If it had, why do they continue?

Finally, Templeton continues to demonstrate its resolve to integrate science and religion. It continues to baffle me that nonbelieving scientists take money from their foundation.  The usual argument is this: “Hey, they’re paying me to do real science, not fund accommodationism.” But Templeton uses their achievements to give a patina of respectability to its own mission, which is manifestly not to fund pure science.  Would you take money from a National Accommodation Foundation if some of their budget went to promote Christianity?

~