Templeton gives a philosopher $5 million to study the afterlife

August 2, 2012 • 4:32 am

With its deep pockets and agenda to conflate (and harmonize) science and religion, the John Templeton Foundation is a corrupting influence on science.  Though impecunious scientists and other scholars might not deliberately corrupt their work to cater to the Templeton agenda, they have to conform to the “Templeton mission” in their research proposals. And this is Templeton’s stated mission (they’ve conveniently eliminated the word “religion”, replacing it with the euphemism “Big Questions”):

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.

The problem, of course, is that there is no “human purpose” beyond the purposes we each give to our individual lives. The notion that there is some Bigger Purpose out there comes purely from religion, and there is no such purpose.  And of course theologians have nothing to say on this issue—at least nothing that approaches an answer. If they did, different theologians and different faiths would not arrive at different conceptions of the Purpose of Our Lives.

In addition, recipients get installed in Templeton’s Stable of Prize Ponies, which, often on display, reassures the viewer that yes, science and religion are best friends forever.  The Templeton Prize is one of the main vehicles for roping ponies into their stalls.

The latest Templeton Travesty, as reported by the University of California at Riverside’s blurbsite UCR Today, is that a philosopher at UCR, John Fischer, has been given the sum of five million dollars to study—wait for it—immortality and the afterlife.

For millennia, humans have pondered their mortality and whether death is the end of existence or a gateway to an afterlife. Millions of Americans have reported near-death or out-of-body experiences. And adherents of the world’s major religions believe in an afterlife, from reincarnation to resurrection and immortality.

Anecdotal reports of glimpses of an afterlife abound, but there has been no comprehensive and rigorous, scientific study of global reports about near-death and other experiences, or of how belief in immortality influences human behavior. That will change with the award of a three-year, $5 million grant by the John Templeton Foundation to John Martin Fischer, distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, to undertake a rigorous examination of a wide range of issues related to immortality. It is the largest grant ever awarded to a humanities professor at UC Riverside, and one of the largest given to an individual at the university.

“People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,” said Fischer, the principal investigator of The Immortality Project. “Much of the discussion has been in literature, especially in fantasy and science fiction, and in theology in the context of an afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory and karma. No one has taken a comprehensive and sustained look at immortality that brings together the science, theology and philosophy.”

The John Templeton Foundation, located near Philadelphia, supports research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will.

Half of the $5 million grant will be awarded for research projects. The grant will also fund two conferences, the first of which will be held at the end of the project’s second year and the second at the end of the grant period. A website will include a variety of resources, from glossaries and bibliographies to announcements of research conferences and links to published research. Some recent work in Anglo-American philosophy will be translated for German philosophers who, in the last 30 years, have been increasingly studying the work of American philosophers.

Well, of course this project won’t help us at all in figuring out what happens after death. It’s a huge amount of money for a philosopher, and appealing to Templeton’s agenda is the only way a philosopher can get this kind of dosh.

Now I’m not suggesting that Fischer is corrupt here; far from it, for his webpage suggests a sober and serious academic who has done respectable work. I’m suggesting, instead, that most of the project is a waste of money, and further cheapens science by mixing it with theology. I’m also suggesting that in order to bring in that kind of money, Fischer was forced to conform to what Templeton wants.  And that is dragging in religion and theologians.

As I read the UCR blurb, I see three parts of this project.

  • An attempt to collate and interpret what philosophers have said about the afterlife, and how average people conceive of their possible immortality.  There’s also a suggestion about looking at the way different cultures see near-death experiences (NDEs):

One of the questions [Fischer] hopes researchers will address is cultural variations in reports of near-death experiences. For example, the millions of Americans who have experienced the phenomenon consistently report a tunnel with a bright light at the end. In Japan, reports often find the individual tending a garden.

“Is there something in our culture that leads people to see tunnels while the Japanese see gardens?” he asked. “Are there variations in other cultures?” What can we learn about our own values and the meanings of our finite lives by studying near-death experiences cross-culturally (as well as within our own culture)?

Well, part of the answer is already in: there are cultural influences. That’s why Christian NDEs, for example, sometimes involve seeing Jesus (see my post on Colton Burpo’s NDE). If you hadn’t ever been exposed to Jesus but saw him in a NDE, now that would be something! And I’m sure that there are physiological commonalities of one’s brain approaching death that produces similar characteristics, like out-of-body sensations and tunnels.  This has been amply discussed in the literature, and we know that certain chemicals, like ketamine, can give symptoms very similar to those of NDEs.

I do think there’s some value (but not $5 million dollars’ worth!), in collating and analyzing reports of NDEs and attitudes towards immortality. It tells us, at the least, how different cultures regard afterlife.  But the separation of physiological versus cultural influences on NDEs is not something this project can accomplish. That’s because there’s not enough money to achieve the second aim:

  • Scientific studies of the biology of near-death experiences.  There is not enough money in the grant to do the kinds of psychological and neurological work needed to seriously address what people experience when they are about to die, or are near death.  That kind of work is the purview of scientists, with perhaps some input of philosophers and sociologists. But as any researcher knows, $5,000,000 is not enough to even start working on this.  The UCR blurb says this:

Anecdotal reports of near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences and past lives are plentiful, but it is important to subject these reports to careful analysis, Fischer said. The Immortality Project will solicit research proposals from eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians whose work will be reviewed by respected leaders in their fields and published in academic and popular journals.

“We will be very careful in documenting near-death experiences and other phenomena, trying to figure out if these offer plausible glimpses of an afterlife or are biologically induced illusions,” Fischer said. “Our approach will be uncompromisingly scientifically rigorous. We’re not going to spend money to study alien-abduction reports. We will look at near-death experiences and try to find out what’s going on there — what is promising, what is nonsense, and what is scientifically debunked. We may find something important about our lives and our values, even if not glimpses into an afterlife.”

Note that there have already been several tests of “out of body” experiences, for example physicians pinning notes to the ceiling that could only have been read by a real out-of-body patient (naturally, none ever are).  But that’s the kind of thing, combined with examining the effects of drugs, brain scans, and so on, that are needed to properly study NDEs.  And sociologists can contribute for looking for cultural factors affecting NDEs as well.

But note that they’ve dragged in theologians here.  Theologians have absolutely nothing to say about immortality, afterlife, or NDEs, because they don’t study things rationally—they make them up. They can’t even agree whether there is an afterlife (Jews dissent, and Hindus think we’re all recycled), and even those who think there is an afterlife can’t agree on what form it takes. That brings us to the third and most misguided of the study’s aims:

  • An attempt to find out if there is an afterlife, and, if so, what form it takes. The UCR blurb notes:

Other questions philosophers may consider are: Is immortality potentially worthwhile or not? Would existence in an afterlife be repetitive or boring? Does death give meaning to life? Could we still have virtues like courage if we knew we couldn’t die? What can we learn about the meaning of our lives by thinking about immortality?

Theologians and philosophers who examine various concepts of an afterlife may delve into the relationship between belief in life after death and individual behavior, and how individuals could survive death as the same person.

“Many people and religions hold there is an afterlife, and that often gives people consolation when faced with death,” Fischer said. “Philosophy and theology are slightly different ways to bring reason to beliefs about religion to evaluate their rationality. If you believe we exist as immortal beings, you could ask how we could survive death as the very same person in an afterlife. If you believe in reincarnation, how can the very same person exist if you start over with no memories? . . .

For example, “We think that free will is very important to us theologically and philosophically. And heaven in the Judeo-Christian tradition is supposed to be the best place. Yet we arguably wouldn’t have free will in heaven. How do you fit these ideas together?”

This is all nonsense. First of all, theologians (and some misguided philosophers) have been pondering these questions for centuries, and have come to no conclusion. There is no need to fund further lucubrations. I’ve been reading theologians on the afterlife, and they’re all over the map. Some say we don’t have it, others (like John Haught) envision not some kind of personal translation to Heaven but the enfolding of our collective memories into the bosom of Jesus, and of course many others see us up there floating on clouds and plucking harps. Others see us coming back as cockroaches or dogs. (I personally would like to be Russell Blackford’s cat).

There’s no way to decide among all these speculations, and the endeavor isn’t worthwhile given the complete absence of evidence for a god or an afterlife.  Speculating about this stuff before we know whether there’s a deity is the purview of philosophers like Michael Ruse and Elliott Sober, and in my judgment is a futile endeavor. It’s like speculating about how Santa Claus can deliver all those presents in one night.

And why bother with trying to decide if we have free will in heaven before we know whether heaven exists? Even if we found out it did, arguing about free will there is a useless endeavor, meant only to keep underemployed theologians off the streets. (See chapter 12 of John Loftus’s Why I Became an Atheist for a précis of theological thought on free will in heaven. It’s hilarious to see how theologians have wasted their time on this problem.)

The worst part of this project is the dragging in of theologians alongside scientists and philosophers.  At least the last two groups are wedded to logic and reason, and their disciplines prevent them from making stuff up out of thin air. Note what Fischer says above, which does make me worry a bit about him:

“Philosophy and theology are slightly different ways to bring reason to beliefs about religion to evaluate their rationality.”

Slightly different?  Give me a break! They’re hugely different, and that’s why most philosophers are atheists.  Their application of reason has dispelled any notions about gods and heavens.

In the end, this is just another waste of money by Templeton on The Big Questions, and another corruption of science—and now philosophy.  Those who want this kind of money must conform to Templeton’s faith-soaked agenda, and that agenda is deeply injurious to rationality. It is the conflation of reason and woo.

Guest post: journalists fume while nonbelievers chip away at religious privilege

August 2, 2012 • 4:11 am

We have another guest post from the indefatigable Sigmund. He uses a recent column by Lisa Miller to make an important point: by working together and pointing out the follies of unsubstantiated belief, all of us, not just “atheist celebrities,” can advance the movement.

____________________

Lisa Miller fumes at “small minded” atheists

by Sigmund

Lisa Miller is annoyed with atheists again. Miller, a regular religious contributor to the Washington Post’s ‘On Faith’ section, takes issue with recent remarks of Tom Flynn, executive Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. Flynn had written a blog post complaining about Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s statement about the current U.S. drought during a White House press conference:

“I get on my knees every day,” he [Vilsack] said, “and I’m saying an extra prayer right now. If I had a rain prayer or a rain dance, I would do it.”

Flynn provides three reasons why the Agriculture Secretary might be advised to keep his personal religious thoughts private.

“First, farmers need to keep doing whatever they can to mitigate the drought’s impact. Time spent praying is time they can’t devote to efforts to save their crops or livestock. Second, for a Cabinet official to recommend prayer as a solution, or call attention to his own devotions, may violate the Constitution’s prohibition against establishment of religion. Third and most important, prayer doesn’t work. Secular humanists think prayer doesn’t work because there’s nobody up there to answer those prayers. But if you want to do test the power of prayer yourself, consider this. Apparently Secretary Vilsack’s been praying for rain every day; how’s that working out?”

For Miller, however, Flynn has gone too far, and her fury at the questioning of religious privilege is apparent:

“A decade ago, atheists were brave, fierce warriors bent on battling conventional wisdom and easy piety. These days, it seems, atheists are petty and small-minded ideologues who regard every expression of public religiosity as a personal affront – not to mention a possible violation of the First Amendment and a sign of rampant idiocy among their fellow citizens.”

Miller, in her post entitled: “Praying for rain: Atheist critics show how petty and small-minded they’ve become”, complains that Flynn “rather meanly” suggests that prayer doesn’t work.

Despite Miller’s insistence that “the jury may be out on the efficacy of prayer” it is Flynn, however, who has the facts on his side. The best scientific study of the prayer to date has shown it to be useless in aiding recovery (and may even be detrimental to patients who are made aware they are the subjects of intercessory prayer.) [JAC: note also that there’s apparently a new study on the inefficacy of intercessory prayer studies for breast cancer. I am trying to dig this up, but if any reader knows, please let me know.]

Having said that, it’s worth noting that Flynn’s piece itself is not without error. The first commenter points out that the remarks of Vilsack, in response to a question from a Christian reporter about Rick Perry’s prayers for rain, made it clear that he was not advocating prayer over other actions.

QUESTION: I’m Dr. Harper, the Intermountain Christian News. And Governor Perry last year had this national day of prayer and fasting, and he was encouraging people to pray and fast in these national disasters. Do you have any figures on that?

VILSACK: Well, I can only speak for myself. I get on my knees every day and I’m saying an extra prayer now. If I had a rain prayer or rain dance I could do, I would do it. But honestly, right now the focus needs to be on working with Congress — they have the capacity to help these producers by creating greater flexibility to programs, providing us some direction in terms of whatever disaster assistance can be provided. Those are the kinds of things we’re focused on.

That Miller ignores the context (she published her piece on the 26th of July, a week after Flynn’s blog post and comments had addressed the full quote), and focuses on the ‘mean’ attacks on religious belief is highlighted by another charge:

“In addition to the small tempest they made over the Vilsack comment, atheists have also, in recent days, reflexively whined about a tweet from Pastor Rick Warren’s office (which they mistakenly thought was anti-evolution when it was really anti-premarital sex).”

Miller somehow forgets to mention that Warren’s Saddleback church IS anti-evolution.

So the constitutionality question is merely a red herring. Miller’s real issue is with outspoken atheism itself and its annoying habit of using fact-based reason to trump religious assumptions, something that is clear from reading her previous contributions to the discussion.

Just last October, for instance, Miller used her On Faith column to rail against a rather innocuous paper published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology showing that using reason provides more accurate results than using intuition. The study, Miller fumed, “got me thinking for the zillionth time about how much I have come to detest the “faith vs. reason” debate.”

Disputing the devaluation of ‘faith’ suggested by her reading of the paper, Miller opined;

“The religious impulse may well be rooted in intuition. But what’s wrong with that? “

One might suggest that what’s ‘wrong’ is that the application of intuition always provides worse results in the real world when you can apply scientific rationality. Miller’s ultimate objection to the science/faith debate, though, is summarized in one sentence from her 2009 Daily Beast article about Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

“We have allowed three people to frame it; its terms—submitting God to rational proofs and watching God fail—are theirs.”

And if this is the real fear of the religious, that the ‘new’ atheists have the temerity to demand evidence for religious claims, then Miller provides an important lesson to the atheist movement at large. The major efforts in combating religious entitlement may have little or nothing to do with the activities—by and large invisible to the general public—of the ‘rockstars’ of the celebrity atheist/skeptic conference circuit. Instead, the real work of sowing the seeds of reason is being done by the multitude of unknown atheists who take a moment to write a letter to newspaper or leave a comment on an online religious article (to the unmitigated fury of religious types like Miller), simply pointing out the lack evidence for the claims of the faithful.

KittenCam from The Scientist

August 1, 2012 • 11:45 am

From Christina Purcell via Matthew Cobb, we have a livestreamed KittenCam from The Scientist. The four kittens are only nine days old, and, of course, all have science-y names.  If you want to take a break from BearCam, this is the place.

A screenshot:


And information from the site:

Mamacat Marie (1yr) was found as a very pregnant stray (also very hungry & underweight) and taken to a local shelter where she gave birth on July 21st to her four kittens, all boys. The family was transferred to Purrfect Pals and then into their foster care program.Mom is Marie. The tabby is Tesla. The orange kittens have ponytail holders as collars: Einstein is purple, Darwin is white, & Newton is red.

Can you imagine anyone—save one misguided soul—watching a SquidCam?

What’s with the Olympics?

August 1, 2012 • 9:27 am

It just struck me that throughout my life I’ve been an avid viewer of the Olympics.  There were always human dramas to be seen, athletes going for a record number of gold medals, superstars like Michael Phelps, Mark Spitz, and the great female gymnasts like Nadia Comaneci.  I watched the highlights almost every night, especially gymnastics and track and field.

This year, I can’t get energized at all.  I watch the highlights on the evening news, but the revelation that Phelps has become the most decorated Olympian of all time leaves me cold. And I never watch the evening’s recaps.

I’m wondering if it’s just me, and I’ve simply lost interest, or whether the games themselves have become tepid and, as they get more “professional”—with fancy training, paid athletes, and the like—they’ve just gotten more boring.  Reader opinion is welcome.

Sam Harris offers “Lying” for free

August 1, 2012 • 8:23 am

In his new post on the tribulations of Jonah Lehrer, Sam Harris has an interesting last sentence:

I consistently meet smart, well-intentioned, and otherwise ethical people who do not seem to realize how quickly and needlessly lying can destroy their relationships and reputations. This is why I wrote a short ebook on the subject. Since it contains more or less everything I want to say in response to the Lehrer debacle, I’m offering the full text of LYING as a free download for the rest of the week.

Note: I’ve disabled the link as the book will soon be available in hardcover.

So here’s your chance (and mine; I haven’t yet read it); you have until Friday, so just click on the link above.

Thanks, Sam, and also alert reader Heintje, who brought this to my attention.

Creationist news

August 1, 2012 • 5:52 am
  • In Kansas, there’s a school board election on Nov. 10; half the seats are up for grabs.  The issue is whether Kansas will adopt the new Next Generation Science Standards based onthe recommendations of the National Academies pamphlet, “A framework for K-12 science education“, available online for free.  As a product of a group of distinguished scientists, this pamphlet, of course, puts a big emphasis on evolution.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, the once-creationist Kansas school board has mellowed, and there’s little chance that creationists will get control this time around. In fact, major creationist organizations have given up trying, which is a great sign:

Yet the debate has lost some of its vigor since the 1999-2007 years, when a revolving-door board of creationists and evolutionists overturned the state’s education standards five times, including one 1999 vote that scrubbed most curricular references to evolution and another 2005 vote that challenged evolution by trying to redefine the discipline of science itself.

The board now safely sits in the hands of members in favor of teaching evolution as a core science standard. Opponents have internalized the “what’s-the-matter-with-Kansas?” mockery once captured by the Onion headline “Kansas Outlaws Practice of Evolution.”

“Anybody who deigns to take a questioning position regarding anything to do with evolution is pretty well named to be a crackpot or a kook of some sort,” Willard said at a recent board meeting, according to the Associated Press, as he walked back his own criticism of evolution education.

Creationist advocates outside of Kansas, such as Answers in Genesis in Kentucky, have distanced themselves from the most strident calls to ban teaching evolution.

“Answers in Genesis opposes efforts to remove evolution teaching from schools,” Mark Looy, co-founder and chief communications officer for Answers in Genesis and the Kentucky-based Creation Museum, told The Christian Post. “It is a major worldview that affects so much of society, and thus it needs to be studied.”

But the creationists are still coming out.  Here’s a screenshot from the page of Jack Wu, candidate for a school board slot.  Of course he attends the Westboro Baptist Church:

Taxpayer dollars in Louisiana’s new voucher program will be paying to send children to schools that teach creationism and reject evolution, promoting a religious doctrine that challenges the lessons central to public school science classrooms.

Several religious schools that will be educating taxpayer-subsidized students tout their creationist views. Some schools question whether the universe is more than a few thousand years old, openly defying reams of scientific evidence to the contrary.

. . . What they’re going to be getting financed with public money is phony science. They’re going to be getting religion instead of science,” said Barbara Forrest, a founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science and a philosophy professor who has written about the clashes between religion and science.Superintendent of Education John White says annual science tests required of all voucher students in the third through 11th grades will determine if children are getting the appropriate science education in the private school classrooms.”If students are failing the test, we’re going to intervene, and the test measures evolution,” White said.Refusal to teach evolution or challenging it as refutable won’t get a school booted from the voucher program, which was pushed by Gov. Bobby Jindal as a way to improve educational opportunities for students in schools ranked with a C, D or F in the public school grading system.For example, a handbook for Ascension Christian High School, posted online, declares among the goals of “Household of Faith Schools” that “the learner will be expected to defend creationism through evidence presented by the Bible versus traditional scientific theory.”

Here’s a screenshot from the Ascension Christian webpage, stating quite clearly how it differs from public schools:

This seems quite manifestly a violation of the First Amendment, not only in providing public funds for religious education, but in promoting religiously-based views of science to students funded by taxpayer dollars:

A biology teacher at Northlake Christian High School, a St. Tammany Parish school slated to teach 18 voucher students this school year, outlines his curriculum on a website that talks of giving students the opportunity to challenge evolution against “a creation worldview of life origins.”

The website contradicts fossil evidence of millions of years of life on the planet, calling it incompatible with the Bible. Meanwhile, the school’s doctrinal statement says Northlake Christian — which will get $375,000 in state-funded tuition payments for its high school and elementary school — promotes “the creation of man by the direct act of God.”

College student Zack Kopplin, an outspoken critic of teaching creationism in science classrooms, found at least 19 of the 119 mostly religious schools in the voucher program either promote creationism or teach with curricula from Christian textbook publishers that are known to challenge Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I’m glad to hear that Zack, who featured on this site a while back, and who was in high school when he started opposing Louisiana’s idiotic drive to teach creationism in public schools, is still on the case. A brave lad.

  • Finally, in the Netherlands a crazed Dutchman has finished building a full-sized replica of Noah’s ark (see video at the 2011 MSNBC link, and lots of photos here). The first report is from a year ago:

Dutch builder Johan Huibers is expected to complete work on the massive vessel sometime next month in what has been a staggeringly ambitious project to bring one of the best-known stories of the Bible to life. It’s taken three years of his life and $1.6 million out of his pocket, but Huibers, owner of a successful construction company in Holland, says the project is a dream come true — literally.

“I dreamed a part of Holland was flooded,” Huibers, 60, told Janet Shamlian in a report that aired on TODAY Wednesday. “Then, the next day I get the idea to build an ark of Noah.”

. . . “Johan’s Ark” clocks in at 450 feet long, true to the Bible’s account of a 300 cubit-long ship (in ancient times, a cubit was the length of a man’s arm from elbow to fingertips, or roughly 18 inches). The ark weighs in at a whopping 2,970 tons, and is constructed of Swedish pine, which Huibers told The New York Times is in keeping with God’s command to Noah that the ark be built of resin wood.

Well, the Bible’s word was “pitch,” I recall, and that’s a fossil material that wouldn’t have existed in Noah’s world. Too, Huibers has built the ship around an iron frame, and that isn’t kosher. The Ark’s only competitor’s for size were the masted schooners of the 19th century, which were far shorter than the ark (about 300-350 feet, I recall) and were strapped with iron: an all-wooden boat simply couldn’t survive in normal seas, as it would deform and break.  Noah didn’t have iron, and of course the Biblical seas were far choppier than those of the modern ocean. That alone invalidates the Biblical account.

And what about the animals?

As far as God’s command to Noah that the ark be stocked with two of everything in the animal kingdom, Huibers steered a wide berth around animal rights activists and opted for inanimate models instead — and indeed, the ship now boasts faux giraffes, zebras, cows and donkeys by the pair.

But what about the plants, fish, and whales, which wouldn’t have survived an inundation of boiling brackish water?

According to Sunday’s HuffPo, the Ark has now opened its doors:

He hoped to take it to London, but had to dry dock those plans when Olympic officials asked him to use safety rules that weren’t around in Noah’s time.

And it may prove a popular tourist attraction for the Dutch. I hope they’re going to gawk rather than to worship, since many Dutch are nonbelievers. And I’d like to think that this ark nonsense (in two years an Ark Park will open in Kentucky) is limited to the U.S.

Here’s the Dutch ark. Notice that although the Bible says there was only one window, as specified in Genesis, the builder has made a big window wrapping around the top. How did he and his sons fabricate plate glass in 4000 B.C.?  Note too the absence of windows in the rest of the boat, which would surely have limited air circulation and light, killing off most of the animals:

h/t: Tom & Stan

RIP Gore Vidal (1925-2012)

August 1, 2012 • 4:44 am

According to this morning’s New York Times, Gore Vidal died Tuesday in Los Angeles at the age of 86.  An omnipresent and ascerbic figure on the literary scene, he was always engaged in squabbles with other literary figures like Norman Mailer, William Buckley (if you’re of a certain age you’ll remember that long feud) and Truman Capote.  But he wrote 25 novels, two memoirs, and much nonfiction, including several collections of essays. He was also a prolific screenwriter, and you may not know that he had a hand in these movies (from Wikipedia):

  • Climax!: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1954) (TV adaptation)
  • The Catered Affair (1956)
  • I Accuse! (1958)
  • The Scapegoat (1959)
  • Ben Hur (1959) (uncredited)
  • Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
  • The Best Man (1964)
  • Is Paris Burning? (1966)
  • Last of the Mobile Hot Shots (1970)
  • Caligula (1979)
  • Dress Gray (1986)
  • The Sicilian (1987) (uncredited)
  • Billy the Kid (1989)
  • Dimenticare Palermo (1989)

I have to confess that I was not a fan of Vidal (I found his work too solipsistic and mannered) and mark his passing more out of interest than from sadness at the death of a literary giant.  His fiction, I think, won’t last.  My own preference was for the work of his contemporaries—Truman Capote and Norman Mailer. But they are gone, and now he is too.  Who will replace them? The only ones I can think of who are still living and write in English are Cormac McCarthy, Toni Morrison, and Harper Lee, for her one great book.  (Question for readers: which authors do you think will still be read a century from now?)

Oh, and given the fracas over Sally Ride, I note that Vidal was gay, and did not keep it a secret.

Vidal, as I remember him in his fighting years