Maybe you're an atheist. Maybe you're a theist. Maybe you're both. But did you know that now only one rich conservative sugar daddy's god gets play and credit on state connected, state university run, & state funded public radio in America?
----------------------
Here's my latest reply in a related forum at
http://www.atheistforums.com/templeton-s-god-coming-to-a-public-university-near-you-t25096.html
-----------------------------------------------quote beings
parrotpirate wrote: "To The Best of Our Knowledge is a magazine style show. While they may sometimes cover religious issues (and sometimes have guests that have very one-sided views) I don't think I've ever heard them actually promoting or advocating religion."
[my reply:]
Howdy. The way they present their show serves Templeton's interests, which is why they fund the show.
Templeton's apparent interests in this matter, as per the several noted scientists & philosophers who've expressed concerns about Templeton, is to conflate science & religion. To confuse the issue. Yes it's true that the show has on people who aren't woo woo wacky mysticalists. But in my hearing they tend to jump from one to the other.
There's a journalistic choice about the questions one asks, and the questions they ask tend to show their own bias toward metaphysics & mysticism. Also they take a tit for tat approach to the guests they have on, and they appear to have a bias toward theistic scientists who have varying degrees of compartmentalization about what science has shown and what the history & science & religion shows. Thus they can claim "we'll just let the listeners decide," when they are doing the deciding by giving equal weight to the witch doctors and witch doctor apologists, as compared to the few reasonable people they occasionally have on.
Anyway, the show is not as bad as Tippett's banal & preachy program. But still it matches up with Templeton's interests, and that should be one key red flag. The other red flags come from the show itself.
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/P100/
A quote from the above page - from a letter by Sam Harris:
"...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. And the Templeton foundation has spent millions of dollars on them (Full disclosure: I was asked to participate in an earlier series of ads, where I was told that the entire campaign would consist of one page of my heresy set against one page written by Francis Collins, to be placed in every major newspaper and magazine in the land. I declined.)
The d’Espagnat citation (2. above) produces a similar effect, at nauseating length. I’m not in a position to quibble with d’Espagnat’s science, nor do I intend to impugn him as a recipient of the Templeton Prize. But this citation represents another instance of religious propaganda. Reading it, one is given to understand that d’Espagnat would throw the full weight of his scientific reputation behind the following assertions: there is a hidden reality; science can’t quite glimpse it; religion offers a glimpse of its own; thus, religion and science are complimentary—but religion is likely the deeper of the two. Of course, the juxtaposition of a brilliant scientist and the “world’s largest annual award given to an individual” makes the Templeton Foundation appear both very important and intellectually credible. Whereas, in reality, all they are is a great pot of money surrounded by some very “woolly” ideas.
How is it possible that Campbell doesn’t see the problem with all this? Why wouldn’t Nature feel that it was editorially bound to draw the CLEAREST POSSIBLE distinction between real science and ancient delusions? After all, Nature fancies that it can distinguish groundbreaking science from merely pedestrian science—publishing only the former. Why can’t it see that there is a distinction of much greater consequence to society, and to the future of science, that it should also make: there is a difference, after all, between having good reasons for what one believes and having bad ones. Incidentally, this is the only distinction one needs to become a “strict” atheist.
All of this runs to the larger issue of intellectual honesty. Perhaps we can define “intellectual honesty” as the ratio between what a person has good reason to believe and what he will assert to be true. In the ideal case, this number would equal 1, and in science it approaches as near to 1 as it does anywhere in human discourse. It seems to me that most religions subsist, and even thrive, on values that can be brought arbitrarily close to zero for centuries on end—and, indeed, grow smaller the longer any religious authority speaks about content of the faith. This disparity between what counts for honesty in serious discourse, depending on the topic, is as strange as it is consequential. Is it really so “idealistic” to think that a journal like Nature might object to it?
Best,
Sam"
-------end of quote from Sam Harris on Templeton - see the page I referenced & my earlier post for several other links to Dennett, Dawkins, Kroto, and Myers.
Scientists & journalists whose work matches up with the agenda of Templeton are lauded fawningly on their website. Their fawning tribute, and the cash, are all badges of disrepute - and are indicative of where science is being subverted, and where religion & science are being conflated.
The impudent intransigent station manager at KUER, John Greene, a government employee at a public university, should know better than to tell a citizen to shut up. He needs to realize that he not only is a so-called public servant & thus must be prepared to receive comments on a continuous basis while he remains a public employee & a director of a government run university department, as per the First Amendment which deals with citizens being able to send their comments to their government. And he needs to realize that the FCC requires that his station be willing to receive comments from the public.
Thus I ask for your help in emailing government manager John Greene because of his intransigence and impudence, for the following specific reasons:
1. The government run station he directs having two programs on there that serve to subvert science, and to conflate science & religion (as per the references I've noted).
2. The government run station he directs, at a public university, being willing to receive comments as per FCC regs that require it. Right now if he doesn't like your views he'll tell you to shut up and go away.
3. Helping to uphold the right of the citizenry to send grievances to their government, and for the government to NOT act to chill that ability.
So on all these three points, I ask that if you agree you help me email KUER radio director John Greene & also the president of the University of Utah as noted in my original post. Thanks a bunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment