Richard Dawkins Special on ABC Tonight

[devance]

Think I cmmenting wrong with other physcist guy in the wheel chair.

Well not first time.

[apothecary]

Maybe i was subconsciously reacting to your somewhat condescending remark that MORG "just likes to stick to that meme cos it's a comfortable one"

Hopefully MORG doesn't read into it the same way you did, I at least hope he knows me well enough I'm too condescending and far too frivolous to be taken seriously. HI MORG.

Sina is pulling out 'mate' in the way we know 'mate' isn't meant to be used. That brings me back to my first point: Is it impossible to try and argue for something, both sides having the courage of their convictions, without the thing degenerating?

Shit, what is it with people on this forum and the word mate? Seem to get really paranoid whenever I say it. I apologise for calling you mate (what a horrendous degeneration I have incurred against you), something I seem to be able to do with the bus driver, woolies cashier and even stern ass librarians without such repercussions.

See, and with that comment you miss Dawkins' point entirely. I do believe the entirety of the psychedelic/transcendentory experience is pure neurochemistry, it's the most parsimonious explanation (given our current level of knowledge about the working of the world), it's Occam's Razor, it's the most probable explanation a reasonable person can come to. Hey, bring me back the head of a machine elf and I might change my mind.

So how did I miss the point at all? What I said was, if you have a staunch view that there is no 'other' except for pure neurochemistry, then further discussion is essentially moot/useless/futile/fruitless/pointless/frustrating/like arguing with a Christian about God and I'd rather shut my mouth?

For those who are not so staunch, let us consider that various shaman iniatory rites include some sort of empirical test (thought experiment applied to the real world), for example San Pedro initiates might be asked to draw a map of the Naztec lines (something that can only be done from an aerial perspective) even though there is no method of flight (other than in your mind) for these initiates. Of course, because such rites are conducted on a full moon in a mud hut in a dusty basin in Peru they probably don't quite survive the shave of Occam's Razor for some or the criteria of a machine elf skull, why would you bother discussing such an interesting topic and its implications and possible causes or any such hippy jive? Seems kind of limiting to me...almost ....dare I say...narrow minded...to fear that anything less than outright dismissal of such ceremony as nothing but rediculous (due to its inability to fit into our current level of knowledge about the working of the world) will somehow make lower them to the level of the stinking new age unquestioning unthinking masses. Having worked extensively in academia, I generally think scientists smell worse than most.

This should probably all be split and dumped into Philosophy section

EDIT: I just thought of something "clever" and condescending, which I simply must post if I'm going to piss off my daily quota of people.

It seems to me, there are more than a few Machine Elf skulls lying around...unfortunately, to meet scientific requirements, a genocide of the Machine Elf race will be required.

EDIT2:

I say all of this as a staunch disbeliever in Machine Elves. I'm far more inclined to believe in Pixies.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Sina

[MORG]

Hopefully MORG doesn't read into it the same way you did, I at least hope he knows me well enough I'm too condescending and far too frivolous to be taken seriously. HI MORG.

Hey Sina! But it's Morq remember

So how did I miss the point at all? What I said was, if you have a staunch view that there is no 'other' except for pure neurochemistry, then further discussion is essentially moot/useless/futile/fruitless/pointless/frustrating/like arguing with a Christian about God and I'd rather shut my mouth?

I understand that and I too feel that when trying to argue rationality/reason against points that are built on smoke and pixies. I suppose if you want to argue smoke and pixies against reason/rationality then that probably proves equally frustrating.

For those who are not so staunch, let us consider that various shaman iniatory rites include some sort of empirical test (thought experiment applied to the real world), for example San Pedro initiates might be asked to draw a map of the Naztec lines (something that can only be done from an aerial perspective) even though there is no method of flight (other than in your mind) for these initiates. Of course, because such rites are conducted on a full moon in a mud hut in a dusty basin in Peru they probably don't quite survive the shave of Occam's Razor for some or the criteria of a machine elf skull, why would you bother discussing such an interesting topic and its implications and possible causes or any such hippy jive? Seems kind of limiting to me...almost ....dare I say...narrow minded...to fear that anything less than outright dismissal of such ceremony as nothing but rediculous (due to its inability to fit into our current level of knowledge about the working of the world) will somehow make lower them to the level of the stinking new age unquestioning unthinking masses. Having worked extensively in academia, I generally think scientists smell worse than most.

See, now this is where in the discussion I get put into the arrogant, pompous category because I've apparently labelled the nice shamans' ceremony as ridiculous and got on my high-horse above the stinking masses. I'm not sure what you mean by scientists smelling worse than most, but it could be that you equate skepticism and reason (those faculties that should be well developed in a scientist) with unthinking and unquestioning.

Perhaps I am to some extent narrow-minded, however that's a word loaded with emotions and connotations today that aren't necessarily evident in it's most basic definition. I would agree my mind is closed, to some extent, to things of an unnecessary, illogical and supernatural nature. I believe it was Dawkins himself who quoted something along the lines of open-mindedness as opposed to being so open-minded your brain drops out.

EDIT: I just thought of something "clever" and condescending, which I simply must post if I'm going to piss off my daily quota of people.

It seems to me, there are more than a few Machine Elf skulls lying around...unfortunately, to meet scientific requirements, a genocide of the Machine Elf race will be required.

I'm not sure I take your meaning. Perhaps it's that the romantic and mysterious unexplained is destroyed by solid empirical explanation? Like the explaining away a magician's staggering trick?

Whether or not that was your intended point I do find deep-down, that's some people's primary resistance to a naturalistic worldview. They like magic and they don't see it in the detail. People like mystery, not chemistry. Personally, I'm constantly amazed and inspired by nature the more I learn, and I know you are too Sina.

Ha. My initial comment was made as a glib way to express my view in the hope that noone would bite, therefore avoiding this argument which we've all had before

[Undergrounder]

*Self-implodes in hate*

I'm reeeallly reaaally sorry i didn't see any argument in your first post, but i thought as you said i shouldn't have assumed you were particularly arguing anything? That's a good point I thought we already cleared that up? Why did you bring that up if you really were trying to make an argument? But now that you've gone back and edited the original post you want me to accept that there was some argument in there originally? or do you want me to acknowledge that the new version has an argument? How could i have acknowledged something 3 posts ago that you were only going to add in after i posted? .. or more importantly why does it bother you so much?

Anyway since i won't be hearing from you again in this thread i hope i didn't -really- piss you off too much, this is just one more internet Dawkins forum argument, not some horrendous 19th Century slight on your honour that can only be resolved by pistols at dawn.

.. P.S so the thread degenerative comment about me being the only one to make thread degenerative comments wasn't a joke?

[ThunderIdeal]

machine elves don't have skulls.

sunglasses smilie means 'i am cool as fuck, see?'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm not so sure that mystery is what people like! mystery is fear. i think mystery is the reason we sometimes like to believe in what we believe. for instance, some believe when you're dead you're dead and that seems frightening to some, but it would actually be quite relieving to believe in that when it is blocking out far more frightening possibilities. when i was about 7 i remember imagining this fairly fucked up demonic afterlife but it was probably nicer to believe than what my parents were telling me.

gang, i have to confess... i LOVE SCIENCE. explaining away the mystery, UNDERSTANDING, experiment after experiment. it's a kind of philosophy suited to the time. i think it's limited, but it's interesting to imagine science exploding into the mystical realms. it deals with physical reality, which by my reckoning is not reality, but surely as a shadow reveals an outline, this shadow reality proves so curious.

[chilli]

I'm reeeallly reaaally sorry i didn't see any argument in your first post, but i thought as you said i shouldn't have assumed you were particularly arguing anything? That's a good point I thought we already cleared that up? Why did you bring that up if you really were trying to make an argument? But now that you've gone back and edited the original post you want me to accept that there was some argument in there originally? or do you want me to acknowledge that the new version has an argument? How could i have acknowledged something 3 posts ago that you were only going to add in after i posted? .. or more importantly why does it bother you so much?

Anyway since i won't be hearing from you again in this thread i hope i didn't -really- piss you off too much, this is just one more internet Dawkins forum argument, not some horrendous 19th Century slight on your honour that can only be resolved by pistols at dawn.

.. P.S so the thread degenerative comment about me being the only one to make thread degenerative comments wasn't a joke?

Stop trying to sound clever, you cheeky monkey, I can see you're not.

By the way, in defense of my honor as a gentleman, I really should point out that I edited that post just an hour after making it... you didn't pipe up until I'd made yet another post nearly 18 hours later.

Nice try though.

I agree with you TI, the whole "people need religion because it makes them feel good" routine is obviously often true, but I think it's just as often true of any worldview, including atheism. Also, I share your feeling that it would be personally a lot more comforting to believe in a blind uncaring physicalist universe.

MORG, I and many others find profound and terrible mystery and magic in the details of scientific knowledge and discovery.

*edit* BTW I found this ironically funny: "I believe it was Dawkins himself who quoted something along the lines of open-mindedness as opposed to being so open-minded your brain drops out" because the only time I've heard anyone use that statement is preachers in fundamentalist churches!

Edited May 6, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[MORG]

MORG, I and many others find profound and terrible mystery and magic in the details of scientific knowledge and discovery.

Well I'm sorry you're intimidated. Maybe we need to get that sorted out before kids finish high school science.

[husk]

Fuck Dawkins, he's just trying, and succeeding in selling books and now, GOD forbid, television, he got the market.

i find THIS, THIS and THIS far more appealing and much less demeaning, EVERYONE can enjoy it!

peace x

[2b]

Interesting point, book sales. It seems that most of the criticism here is directed at ' The god delusion' by far his biggest selling book. Do people hold the same opinion of his work when they look at 'The selfish gene’? IMO an equally thought provoking book, but sticking much closer to his ' area of expertise'.

[chilli]

Well I'm sorry you're intimidated. Maybe we need to get that sorted out before kids finish high school science.

Intimidated? I was responding to your assertion that "whether or not that was your intended point I do find deep-down, that's some people's primary resistance to a naturalistic worldview. They like magic and they don't see it in the detail. People like mystery, not chemistry. Personally, I'm constantly amazed and inspired by nature the more I learn, and I know you are too Sina"

I can't see the connection between what I wrote and your comments about intimidation and high school... perhaps it is too scientific for me to understand?

Well whatever it was supposed to mean, I hope you don't imagine I'm in any way intimidated by the physicalist worldview, or even by atheism... I find them very seductive, but unfortunately I find that they simply don't do justice to all the data. Too many unanswered and unanswerable questions.

But if it makes you feel better, keep on believing that anyone who doesn't ascribe to your worldview is somehow intimidated or scared by it... and you are one of the few brave enough to believe as you do! Even more fundy memes! I wonder how many more I can find floating around in here?

2b, yes Dawkins is undoubtedly a brilliant evolutionary biologist, I don't find his selfish gene ideas completely convincing (but it was 1976, and a fairly new idea), but his meme theory was I think the most interesting and possibly influential part of the book.

It's just that his ideas about religion and spirituality are I think very dated and irrelevant, as I said a throwback to 19th century modernism. His attitude towards people who don't share his beliefs is also very intolerant, but I suppose that its the logical conclusion for someone who believes religion is not just worthless but also dangerous.

I am wary of anyone whose worldview precludes them from recognizing or leads them to consider as irrelevant the a priori assumptions that lead them to believe their worldview is reasonable, especially when that worldview is exclusivist. Seems like the most reasonable approach to me!

If there are a million intelligent people who believe A and a million intelligent people who believe B, seems most likely there is value in both beliefs, I don't see why everything has to be about taking sides.

Even if the physicalist worldview is entirely correct, the human impulse towards religion and spirituality can be traced back to the earliest humans, and even if its for no other reason than that, it seems worth considering the role and function of religion or whatever very carefully before outright dismissal, especially for someone like Dawkins who surely must at the very least concede it has been a fucking successful meme!

[MORG]

I can't see the connection between what I wrote and your comments about intimidation and high school... perhaps it is too scientific for me to understand?

It was this:

"MORG, I and many others find profound and terrible mystery and magic in the details of scientific knowledge and discovery."

Terrible mystery and magic sounds intimidatory to me. Maybe its the "terrible" that I got hooked on, think "Ivan the-"

[chilli]

Ah, I'm so glad you weren't being a fruitloop or a bastard! Not only that, you were being funny!

I meant terrible in the sense of awe-inspiring, wonderful... the beauty and terror of the raw world of nature. Like lying under a big tree on acid.

Pretty confusing choice of words in this particular instance I guess, although I'm sure I could find a precedent in some dusty old pre-Enlightenment tome.

[Undergrounder]

Stop trying to sound clever, you cheeky monkey, I can see you're not.

By the way, in defense of my honor as a gentleman, I really should point out that I edited that post just an hour after making it... you didn't pipe up until I'd made yet another post nearly 18 hours later.

I know you won't believe me but at least try and let this idea float around a bit before you ignore it and think of a new insult to send this way. In this entire thread i've been nothing but sincere. I haven't insulted you once. I haven't been condescending or sarcastic. I was dismissive of what you originally said, once, and with good reason (see below). I'm not being smart, i apologised (a genuine apology in case that isn't clear) for making a stupid assumption, one that you told me i had made. S_c: "... let's go along with your assumption that I was actually trying to argue something, and not just expressing my opinion as MORG was". <- Clearly you're saying that you weren't arguing anything, you were just expressing your opinion. And yet you get all defensive and start hurling insults because after i acknowledge this - and apologise - you demand that i should have figured out that you really were arguing something after all.

Now apparently i should have realised this because you said you had made "a couple of clarifications", which amounts to you saying "as i argued earlier..." once. A statement pretty easy to gloss over after the previous clear and obvious statement to the contrary. This apaprently makes me "too stupid to understand" or "too arrogant and rude", but maybe you can see the confusion.

But anyway i don't need to be insulted for not understanding your own confusing ramble so unlike you i really will withdraw from the "great argument about the non-argument of the Dawkins argument" and leave it there. You're right i just saw the edit and assumed you had done it afterwards, but this time i couldn't be fucked apologising.. Anyway since this great misunderstanding, - this great injustice - has touched you to the core, and you won't shut up about it, i will do my best to acknowledge your original "argument" once and for all:

OK so... you were replying to this quote by me:

So is it possible to try and argue reasonably with someone without coming across as a pompous arrogant shit? I thought he attacked the new-age movement with all the ferocity of a wet sponge. He was actually trying to be pretty accommodating to the people in the episode, he was polite and seemed to be reacting fairly honestly. Does speaking with an English accent = pompous? Does insisting in the relative objectivity of science = fundamentalist? Does having a rational argument and the courage of your convictions = arrogant?

... and you did so by saying: (irrelevant stuff taken out)

He is hardly reasonable... just another typical disgruntled holdover from the modernist era. Good entertainment though, plus he is an excellent example of militant atheist extremism, the perfect complement to someone like Pat Robertson for instance.

(removed irrelevant)

(removed irrelevant)

... fundamentalism ... (in relation to religion, not the "objectivity of science", irrelevent)

(removed irrelevant)

OK so you started by refuting my statement that he is 'reasonable'. But you didn't say why or how, and then you didn't say anything else relevent to what you had quoted from my post. You expressly quoted me, quoted the questions i asked, started off great by disagreeing with one of my assertions, and then never actually argued anything that was relevant to what you had quoted me as saying. If you were just arguing into the winds, or arguing someone else, then you shouldn't have quoted me as the first part of your post.

[Undergrounder]

... In other news, this landed in my lap today:

It's an argument to account for the existence of religion in a different way to Dawkins. Dawkins apparently puts religion/mysticism down to evolutionary psychological quirks (think in regards to seeing patterns where there aren't any there; being able to see the 'meaning' that a cooling of the temperature means the concept of a change in seasons etc.) Seeing meaning in things is an evolutionary important skill, and one that results in our fascination with hidden meanings and religion/mysticism. BUT this can't account for why other primates don't practice religion, despite having the same basic psychological functions and quirks. Why don't apes, who have complex social/family structures, develop and practice religion? ... so goes the argument.

This paper offers another explanation. Bloch, M., "Why Religion is nothing special but is central" Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics, London (Feb. 2008)

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

[chilli]

THIS IS BORING

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset your apple cart. I'm not offended or full of hate or anything, I'm not sure where you get all the melodramatic extras from, but they do add a nice tone of hysteria to your posts. If I had realized my comments had to be intimately related to what you said in order to be considered worthwhile, I would have tried to make them more obviously relevant... can you help me to do better next time?

[strangebrew]

Yawn.

I'd rather watch Penn & Teller.

but anyways,

that PDF you posted doesn't seem to work Undergrounder which is a shame as it looks to be an interesting one. This link discusses it and surmises it somewhat -

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literat...asis_for_religi

I think it is spot-on. Dawkins and other fundalmentalist athesists and modern man in general really, have no concept/experience of transcendence which is surely the basis of religion in the first place.

This is also a great link for intelligent minded views on the topic -

http://templeton.org/belief

[2b]

http://templeton.org/belief

Please tell me you are joking.

[MORG]

I think it is spot-on. Dawkins and other fundalmentalist athesists and modern man in general really, have no concept/experience of transcendence which is surely the basis of religion in the first place.

Like a schizophrenic arguing that I've got no concept of what it's like to be watched 24 hours by FBI-aliens so I'm not qualified to comment on the likelihood of it happening.

Edited May 8, 2008 by MORG

[strangebrew]

Please tell me you are joking.

What's up? I just found it looking for that article. More there than in this thread that's for sure.

Like a schizophrenic arguing that I've got no concept of what it's like to be watched 24 hours by FBI-aliens so I'm not qualified to comment on the likelihood of it happening.

Did you even read the link MORG?

Edited May 8, 2008 by strangebrew

[2b]

Templeton foundation is a christain think tank that rewards those who blur the line between science and religion , but if you had read ' The god delusion' you would already know this. Faith and religion belong in the humanities dept. not science , this is a slippery slope that the fundamentalist christians want to exploit so thet can teach creation in a science class.

un poco loco ? Por favor , muy muy loco.

[strangebrew]

OK cheers, doesn't negate the value of that particular page though for a concise summary of various viewpoints.

Edited May 8, 2008 by strangebrew

[Undergrounder]

Hey strangebrew it was an upload, not sure why it wouldn't work, i'll try again though..

That link had an interesting interpretation of the paper, its not exactly what i got out of it though, that website was trying to say that religion is central to being human. From what i read in the paper, imagination is central to being human, and religion is just a spinoff.

Edit: John Wilkins recently gave a talk on this paper, and if you're interested, his blog is here:

http://www.wilkins.id.au/

and a quick summary is here: (Note how different the interpretation is to that other site.)

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/

and even better, that link above has links to the full article!:

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/cr33728h3m98m5k1/

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

boyer_religion_1_.pdf

[MORG]

Did you even read the link MORG?

No. I'm more interested in having a discussion than tossing references at one another.

[chilli]

Templeton foundation is a christain think tank that rewards those who blur the line between science and religion , but if you had read ' The god delusion' you would already know this. Faith and religion belong in the humanities dept. not science , this is a slippery slope that the fundamentalist christians want to exploit so thet can teach creation in a science class.

un poco loco ? Por favor , muy muy loco.

It is not a christian think tank:

One critic of the Templeton Foundation is Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, who occasionally writes about his misgivings on his blog (which is hosted by Columbia University). Woit feels it is unfortunate that Templeton's money is used to influence scientific research towards a convergence between science and religion.

In June 2005, Woit wrote:

"Look not at what the Templeton people say (which is relatively innocuous), but at what they do. They explicitly refuse to support serious science, and instead fund an incredible array of attempts to inject religion into scientific practice. ... Instead they are heavily funding the one part of the field that most people consider dangerous pseudo-science and a serious threat to the whole concept of what it means to do science."[69]

In October 2007, he gave this more qualified, but still largely critical, assessment of the Foundation following attendance at a Templeton sponsored seminar:

The symposium I attended had not a trace of involvement of religion in it, and it seems that Templeton is careful to keep this out of some of the things that it funds as pure science…They appear to have a serious commitment to the idea of funding things in physics that can be considered “foundational”. People working in some such areas often are considered out of the physics mainstream and so find it hard to get their research funded. For them, Templeton is in many ways a uniquely promising funding source”.[70]

"However, they unambiguously are devoted to trying to bring science and religion together, and that’s my main problem with them. ... I remain concerned though about the significance for physics of this large new source of funding, out of scale with other such private sources, and with an agenda that seems to me to have a dangerous component to it."[70]

Nonetheless, Woit's impression is that the Foundation is careful to keep right wing politics out of its activities and he does state that “their encouragement of religion seems to be of a very ecumenical nature".[70]

Professor Paul Davies, British-born physicist and member of the Foundation's Board of Trustees, gave a defense of the Foundation's role in the scientific community in the Times Higher Education Supplement in March 2005. Responding to concerns about the funding of such research by religious organisations that might have a hidden agenda and in particular the Templeton Foundation, Davies said:

If the foundation were indeed a religious organisation with its own specific doctrine, [the] objections would have substance. In fact, it is nothing of the sort. The benefactor, Sir John Templeton, bemoans the way that religious leaders often claim to have all the answers. Imagine, he says, consulting a doctor about an ailment, only to find him reaching for a volume of Hippocrates. Yet priests rely on ancient scriptures to deliver spiritual guidance. Sir John wants to address the big questions of existence with humility and open-mindedness, adopting the model of scientific research in place of religious dogma. "How little we know!" is his favourite aphorism. It is a radical message, as far from religious fundamentalism as it is possible to get.

...recurring research themes supported by the foundation are the search for extra-solar planets, the properties of liquid water, the evolution of primate behaviour, emergent properties of complex systems, the foundations of quantum mechanics and the biological and social bases for forgiveness in areas of human conflict. In none of these projects is anything like a preferred religious position encouraged or an obligation imposed to support any religious group.

Britain is a post-religious society. Yet ordinary men and women still yearn for some sort of deeper meaning to their lives. Can science point the way? Science has traditionally been regarded as dehumanising and alienating, trivialising the significance of humans and celebrating the pointlessness of existence. But many scientists, atheists included, see it differently. They experience what Einstein called "a cosmic religious feeling" when reflecting on the majesty of the cosmos and the extraordinary elegance and ingenuity of its mathematical laws.

Science cannot and should not be a substitute for religion. But I see nothing sinister or unprofessional about scientists working with open-minded theologians to explore how science might be a source of inspiration rather than demoralisation.

Hardly anything to do with Christian fundamentalists or teaching creation in schools, and please don't say yeah but creationists can try and use it, because a. that means nothing and b. they will try anything.

Sounds pretty neat and cutting edge to me... but then, I am not someone who believes that science and spirituality are mortal enemies.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[2b]

The Templeton Effect

The Templeton Effect

June 11th, 2006 by John Horgan, The Scientific Curmudgeon

Right now, a dozen journalists—representing such influential media as The Washington Post, Reuters, Slate, The Guardian, BBC, NPR—are meeting in Cambridge, England, to ponder what is arguably the most consequential issue of our age, the relationship between science and religion. These opinion-makers are recipients of the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship, which is funded by the Templeton Foundation. I participated in the first fellowship, in the summer of 2005, and I wrote an essay about the experience for the April 7 Chronicle of Higher Education, “The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic’s Take.”

I hope that the 2006 fellows will consider what I believe to be an important part of the science-religion story, which I call the Templeton effect. Through cash and other more subtle incentives, the Templeton Foundation amplifies the science-religion dialogue and nudges it in a particular direction, which favors religion in general and Christianity in particular. This is the Templeton effect. If people are more aware of the Templeton effect, it will diminish, and the dialogue fostered by Templeton funds will become more intellectually honest. That was why I described my first-hand observations of the Templeton effect (although I coined the phrase later) in my Chronicle essay.

“Skeptic’s Take” can be found on edge.org, along with mostly favorable responses from infidels like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and a piece in the London Times by the science writer Anjana Ahuja. The essay also provoked negative responses, notaby from Julia Vitullo-Martin, co-director of the fellowship and a journalist herself, and from several 2005 Templeton fellows. Vitullo-Martin’s letter was just published in the May 19 Chronicle; except for George Johnson, who spoke out on edge.org, the 2005 fellows have chosen not to publish their remarks.

A few of the 2005 fellows privately suggested if you take the foundation’s money, it is rude and unethical to criticize it afterwards. Obviously, and, yes, self-servingly, I disagree. I think accepting the foundation’s money gives journalists an even greater responsibility to examine its role in the current debate about science and religion.

The larger question is this: Should journalists, scientists and other scholars ever accept money from organizations whose goals they don’t share? If they do take the money, what are their ethical responsibilities thereafter? I raised these questions in an April 21 forum of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (the AAAS is, by the way, another ambivalent recipient of Templeton funds). I’ve decided to take the money, then bite the hand that feeds me. I realize this may not be the ideal route to moral purity or financial security.

I'm still convinced they have an agenda to push.