the Templeton Foundation, religious propoganda, and the required separation of Church and State - December 2, 2010 message

Copy of December 2, 2010 email sent to Wisconsin Public Radio:

To: ttbook at wpr.org
Cc: Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org

Regarding the radio program "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and the Templeton Foundation: their subversion of State connected & supported public radio, science, and reason. And also regarding Krista Tippett & her program, as her program is also funded by Templeton.

To: Wisconsin Public Radio

Cc: To relevant stations playing Templeton Foundation funded programs including "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and Krista Tippett's faith program, whatever it's now called.

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

Greetings,

I have had the misfortune to listen to some of your recent programs on science and religion. Toward the end of one show I was horrified to hear that you are allowing your show to be funded by the Templeton Foundation. You fawningly and glowingly boasted about this funding source.

For the past several days I've been listening to the unabridged audio book version of "The Moral Landscape" by Dr. Sam Harris. Dr. Harris says of Templeton that they fund people & groups like yours so that you will "split the difference between intellectual integrity and the fantasies of a prior age." And yet we see that you are tied to a public university. Are you not aware of the required separation of church and state?

Is your program really the BEST of human knowledge? If your ready to take money from Templeton, the answer must always be no, because they will pressure you to find ONE answer, the "answer" of non-overlapping magesteria. They will also require that you water down any criticism of religion, and that you conflate the separation between debunked & absurd mysticism and actual science & intellectually honest reason. What has the highest probability of being true? The mystical claims of religion, or the facts that science yields? Your program repeatedly burs the line and pretends that everything is equal.

Here are relevant quotes from Sam Harris's most recent book about the problem at hand:

"...Here is our situation: if the basic claims of religion are true, the scientific worldview is so blinkered and susceptible to supernatural modification as to be rendered nearly ridiculous; if the basic claims of religion are false, most people are profoundly confused about the nature of reality, confounded by irrational hopes and fears, and tending to waste precious time and attention -- often with tragic results. ... It makes no sense at all to have the most important features of our lives anchored to divisive claims about the unique sanctity of ancient books or to rumors of ancient miracles. There is simply no question that how we speak about human values -- and how we study or fail to study the relevant phenomena at the level of the brain -- will profoundly influence our collective future."

In "The Moral Landscape" Dr. Harris does rightly criticize the Templeton Foundation. Here's a related quote from a letter exchange he had with another science writer, as from http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/

From Dr. Harris:
"...Of course, intellectual apathy on the part of individual scientists and their leading journals would be a bad thing all on its own, but add to this the advocacy of organizations like the Templeton Foundation, which uses its 1.5 billion dollar endowment to carefully blur the line between reason and faith, and the effect is an almost a total ceding of the argument in favor of religion...
...The Templeton Foundation’s work is quite a bit more insidious (and clever) than funding marginal research, or even obscenely silly projects like Collins’ BioLogos Foundation. Two examples of their work should suffice:

   1. http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
   2. http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html

Templeton’s recent advertisement about evolution (1. above), which appeared in almost every major newspaper and magazine in the United States, represents a very clever manipulation of scientific opinion. When faced with the question 'Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?' even I would have said something like 'Not entirely.' Of course, Templeton knows that most people will only read the titles of these essays. The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science—and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."

---end of quote from Harris

Further key notes about the problems with the Templeton Foundation come from letters by Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, as from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973

From Anthony Grayling:

"...Dear Mr Cartlidge
Thank you for your message. I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don't engage in Templeton-associated matters.
I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of
Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project.
Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks..."

From Daniel Dennett:
"...I have had my say about materialism and the persistent attempt by religious spokespeople to muddy the waters by claiming, without a shred of support, that materialism (in the sense I have defended for my entire career) is any obstacle to meaning, or to an ethical life—see, e.g., BREAKING THE SPELL, pp302-307."

"I see no reason to go over that ground again, and I particularly don't want to convey the impression, by participating in an interview with you, that this is, for me, a live issue. It is not. If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation's attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic..."

------ end of quote

Here's a related video by Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto where he criticizes Templeton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiUsINryY0

Also relevant interaction about Templeton between scientists starts at time index 1:24:00 on the video at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-8-1
...and at time index 1:31:40 Richard Dawkins states that John Templeton is a billionaire who's used his billions to subvert science.

Is that what the University of Wisconsin is about? Subverting science?

And here's comments from P.Z. Myers about Templeton:

"...How about an institution that hands out large grants with the expectation that the work will help reconcile science and religion, or that it will actually find evidence of a deity? I'd class that with my third group, the funding source that wants a particular conclusion and can't be trusted to be scrupulous about following the evidence where ever it may lead. They have an agenda, and it is one of the most corrupting and untrustworthy causes of all, religion."
... as from
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_templeton_conundrum.php

So, we see that we do have, as per Dawkins, Harris, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and Myers: Religious propaganda from the Templeton Foundation, a subversion of science, and a promotion of religion via propaganda.

And yet you fawningly express your great appreciation for receiving money from very clever religious propagandists.

Did you forget though that your organization is directly associated with a State funded & run university? Did you forget the required separation of church and state?

Your program appears to be falling in line with a similarly corrosive program (which happens to also be Templeton funded), Krista Tippett's program Speak of Faith (or whatever she's calling it this week). But since Templeton does clearly engage in religious propaganda, as a U.S. citizen and tax payer, I request and require that you, an entity that is part of the American government via the State of Wisconsin, to stop taking money from religious propagandists.

Clearly those who fear the ground and progress science has made relative to it's description of reality, they now feel that it is necessary to subvert public discourse and reason via funding programs such as yours and that of Ms. Tippett, and attached to their funding is a key request & defacto requirement: That you tow their propagandistic line in favor of religion and which serves to muddy and subvert science. Or that your voice be joined to a chorus that Templeton will in the end CRAFT to show the message they WANT to show - a message they DEMAND to show: a view that subverts science & reason & which promotes religious whitewashing & dishonesty.

Not everything is equal.

Are the claims of religions factual or not? If you claim they are, then you are not stating what it is that is our "best" knowledge. To the "best" of our knowledge requires that science be allowed to delve and ask questions about and at least try to give answers to all aspects of the human endeavor. The Templeton Foundation wants to very strongly restrict what the scientific endeavor and scientific world view can comment on. It wants to subvert science & blur the line between science & religion. But by doing so they advocate for religion & for mysticism, and they subvert science.

A feeling of awe is not a "religious feeling," it's just a feeling. Religion has no special warrant to comment on moral truths. Witness what they do relative to protecting pedophile priests, bagging women from head to toe, genital mutilation, and patently false claims about the nature of reality. Here's some key claims of religion:

The Catholic claim that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus.

The advanced Mormon doctrinal claim that Mary had literal
sex with Elohim (God the Father).

The claim that Mohammad had a literal vision from his god, where his god told him to kill the unbeliever in his rather bloodthirsty Quran.

The claim that Joseph Smith had several literal visions, and that his Book of Mormon came from his god..

And on and on ad infinitum, with regard to countless religions and their charismatic and apparently often schizotypal leaders.

I don't listen to public radio to hear from religious wackjobs. The right wing already has their Bible-beater stations. But you are supposed to be a sanctuary from their lies and crap - and Templeton clearly wants to destroy the sanctuary.

Also and importantly, public radio which is directly connected to the government must not advocate for and on behalf of religion, nor act as a subverter of science & reason via the methods mentioned above, and as commented on at length by noted scientists and philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, and P.Z. Myers.

Sincerely,

Jonathan