Check out the following article about how Templeton's work & their agenda:
The Templeton Bribe
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/the-templeton-bribe/
If you believe there are problems with religion, abuses, and so on, Templeton does not like you. They won't give you cash. And if you get their money, you're showing that you're supporting the whitewashing of lies about the problems with religion.
Here's a quote from the page:
"...One Templeton official made what I felt were inappropriate remarks about the foundation’s expectations of us fellows. She told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion. But when I told her one evening at dinner that — given all the problems caused by religion throughout human history — I didn’t want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion, she replied that she didn’t think someone with those opinions should have accepted a fellowship. So much for an open exchange of views..."
Glossing over the actions of child rapists like Mohammad (married a six year old and slept with her at age nine)
Glossing over the actions of prophets like Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, who married 14/15 year olds and who slept with the wives of other men.
And on and on. The list is endless. But the bottom line is that telling a half truth is a lie. Omitting the full truth is a lie. Templeton's agenda is to present a lie. "the Foundation doesn’t really want the hard light of science cast upon faith." Indeed they do not. And journals & scientists who receive Templeton recognition show they are matching up with the Templeton agenda of conflating science & religion, confusion about science, and whitewashing the problems with religion.
More details are in my blog.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
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.
----------------------
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.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Reintroduction - for exmormons & related people
Reintroduction to the exmormon community:
--------------------------
It's been a while since I've introduced myself.
Jonathan - name removed in 1994 [from the Mormon Church - the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cult]
Temple worker. Missionary to Alaska. Sunday School President. Ricks & BYU attendee. Graduated from Weber. Basic naive sensitive chump who believed everything - way too much & more than others.
Exit journal: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm#history
Upon leaving found science to be more valuable than the bullcrap of Mormonism.
Also appreciated the works of Betty Dodson & Shere Hite.
Carl Sagan was a influence even when I was a Mormon God believer. But he was even more so after I left. His book "The Demon Haunted Word" was one key book, especially with regard to other issues at play nowadays and the corrosion & errosion of secularism, science, public universities, and science education. Also his book "Contact" was good, and his TV series "Cosmos" was life changing for me & many others.
After Carl Sagan died I then found other key authors, as follows:
Steven Pinker
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
I also developed a strong interest in animal cognition, and enjoyed the work of Dr. Irene Pepperberg about her African Grey parrot named Alex.
In recent years I've also discovered Harry Kroto, Anthony Grayling, Victor Stenger, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a key woman who came from Somalia, and ex-Muslim who has to live with round the clock security). And also the ex-Muslims on the Center for Inquiry website in the digital media section have been excellent.
Also I enjoy Pat Condell's videos. Oh and Christopher Hitchens is excellent in most cases.
Books of interest:
Cosmos, Dragons of Eden, Demon Haunted World, & Contact by Carl Sagan
books by Hite & Dodson
The God Delusion, The Ancestor's Tale, A Devil's Chaplain, and Climbing Mount Improbable, all by Dawkins
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Pinker, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris also have a lot of online videos and audio podcasts and quotes readily findable.
The videos at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programgroup/beyond-belief
Films listed at http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5785905&s=reverse_uservote
...many of which are rentable at the Tower Theater in Salt Lake.
--------
My current S list (crap list):
Mormon bishops who micromanage the sex lives of children & adults in Mormonism, even though Joseph & Brigham slept with adolescents and the wives of other men, and even though the Mormon God slept with Mary the mother of the mythical Jesus.
Catholic Priests who rape children en masse, and who cover up such rape.
Muslims / Islamists who advocate gender apartheid & the veil, and the killing of cartoonists, authors, and heathens.
Cultural & moral relativists who maintain the hugely dangerous lie that everything is equal.
Micromanagers of all types and in all venues.
Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm style lazy shallow pouncers, who as far as I'm concerned are no better than dead wood or bumps in the road worthy of very fast driving over. Hitchens & Pat Condell are excellent examples of how to deal with people too lazy to care about what a person says or to do proper research. Since I've been on the net since 1991 I've engaged in plenty of debates. But more recently I've grown weary of people who really don't deserve my time to respond to. Figure it out yourself or get out of the way - this is the path Condell & Hitchens have shown and as far as I'm concerned it's a good one. You can be the cordial one 100% of the time. But I guess my patience wears more thin these days. It takes a village.
My current heros list:
Sagan, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Dodson, Hite, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Adams, and the Monty Python group & creators. Geert Wilders & Pat Condell are also worthy of honorable mention. In the general greater exmo world Simon Southerton is good. The people who helped found the Salt Lake based exmo conferences are good also. Relative to those conferences I'm one of the few people who still goes on a regular basis who also was around for the founding of the Salt Lake based conferences. Also I'm a long time attendee of the atheist coffee chat things that happen every Thursday in Salt Lake.
My web site & blog:
http://corvus.freeshell.org
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Current endeavor: Dating. Six years ago I lost 110 pounds using a weight loss program of my own design. The weight loss was to facilitate dating.
Outside of Utah I've lived in Texas (Austin & south of San Antonio) and Oregon (Portland). I recently moved back to Salt Lake from Portland to find more sun.
Favorite beer: The darker the better.
Favorite wine: red pinos are good but I'm also experimenting with others.
Music: Raindrop Prelude by Chopin and other excellent classical. Rammstein. Prince. John Denver. Simon & Garfunkel. Neil Young. Selected Cat Stevens, Madonna, and Lady Gaga, selected New Age genre instrumental.
Favorite websites:
BBC
google
plentyoffish
and sites dealing with what the Internet is for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc
The freedom to see and to be free from the coercive abusive S of Mormonism has led to the quiet realization that the most important things happen in real life with other people in the "first life." Also that what you "get" from exposure to the totality of positive human interaction is not what they say. Not pollution. Not filth. But rather the simple quiet realization of the great majesty & beauty of life, and the value of preserving the garden we've been given by evolution, natural selection, and a Universe we were lucky enough to have as it is.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080710215703/http://www.getafirstlife.com/
There's a reason preachers want you to avoid a positive approach to human sexuality: Because if you embrace such an approach you'll quickly find no reason whatsoever to suck up to a-hole preachers who tell you such crap in the first place. Move on from their dross & drivel & be a lot happier.
The pale blue dot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
There may not be gods now, but science may allow us to become as such.
We may transcend our little home & survive after our home is destroyed. Or we may develop the science & technology to prevent the destruction, but only if we can transcend wasteful delusion.
--------------------------
It's been a while since I've introduced myself.
Jonathan - name removed in 1994 [from the Mormon Church - the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cult]
Temple worker. Missionary to Alaska. Sunday School President. Ricks & BYU attendee. Graduated from Weber. Basic naive sensitive chump who believed everything - way too much & more than others.
Exit journal: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm#history
Upon leaving found science to be more valuable than the bullcrap of Mormonism.
Also appreciated the works of Betty Dodson & Shere Hite.
Carl Sagan was a influence even when I was a Mormon God believer. But he was even more so after I left. His book "The Demon Haunted Word" was one key book, especially with regard to other issues at play nowadays and the corrosion & errosion of secularism, science, public universities, and science education. Also his book "Contact" was good, and his TV series "Cosmos" was life changing for me & many others.
After Carl Sagan died I then found other key authors, as follows:
Steven Pinker
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
I also developed a strong interest in animal cognition, and enjoyed the work of Dr. Irene Pepperberg about her African Grey parrot named Alex.
In recent years I've also discovered Harry Kroto, Anthony Grayling, Victor Stenger, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a key woman who came from Somalia, and ex-Muslim who has to live with round the clock security). And also the ex-Muslims on the Center for Inquiry website in the digital media section have been excellent.
Also I enjoy Pat Condell's videos. Oh and Christopher Hitchens is excellent in most cases.
Books of interest:
Cosmos, Dragons of Eden, Demon Haunted World, & Contact by Carl Sagan
books by Hite & Dodson
The God Delusion, The Ancestor's Tale, A Devil's Chaplain, and Climbing Mount Improbable, all by Dawkins
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Pinker, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris also have a lot of online videos and audio podcasts and quotes readily findable.
The videos at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programgroup/beyond-belief
Films listed at http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5785905&s=reverse_uservote
...many of which are rentable at the Tower Theater in Salt Lake.
--------
My current S list (crap list):
Mormon bishops who micromanage the sex lives of children & adults in Mormonism, even though Joseph & Brigham slept with adolescents and the wives of other men, and even though the Mormon God slept with Mary the mother of the mythical Jesus.
Catholic Priests who rape children en masse, and who cover up such rape.
Muslims / Islamists who advocate gender apartheid & the veil, and the killing of cartoonists, authors, and heathens.
Cultural & moral relativists who maintain the hugely dangerous lie that everything is equal.
Micromanagers of all types and in all venues.
Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm style lazy shallow pouncers, who as far as I'm concerned are no better than dead wood or bumps in the road worthy of very fast driving over. Hitchens & Pat Condell are excellent examples of how to deal with people too lazy to care about what a person says or to do proper research. Since I've been on the net since 1991 I've engaged in plenty of debates. But more recently I've grown weary of people who really don't deserve my time to respond to. Figure it out yourself or get out of the way - this is the path Condell & Hitchens have shown and as far as I'm concerned it's a good one. You can be the cordial one 100% of the time. But I guess my patience wears more thin these days. It takes a village.
My current heros list:
Sagan, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Dodson, Hite, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Adams, and the Monty Python group & creators. Geert Wilders & Pat Condell are also worthy of honorable mention. In the general greater exmo world Simon Southerton is good. The people who helped found the Salt Lake based exmo conferences are good also. Relative to those conferences I'm one of the few people who still goes on a regular basis who also was around for the founding of the Salt Lake based conferences. Also I'm a long time attendee of the atheist coffee chat things that happen every Thursday in Salt Lake.
My web site & blog:
http://corvus.freeshell.org
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Current endeavor: Dating. Six years ago I lost 110 pounds using a weight loss program of my own design. The weight loss was to facilitate dating.
Outside of Utah I've lived in Texas (Austin & south of San Antonio) and Oregon (Portland). I recently moved back to Salt Lake from Portland to find more sun.
Favorite beer: The darker the better.
Favorite wine: red pinos are good but I'm also experimenting with others.
Music: Raindrop Prelude by Chopin and other excellent classical. Rammstein. Prince. John Denver. Simon & Garfunkel. Neil Young. Selected Cat Stevens, Madonna, and Lady Gaga, selected New Age genre instrumental.
Favorite websites:
BBC
plentyoffish
and sites dealing with what the Internet is for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc
The freedom to see and to be free from the coercive abusive S of Mormonism has led to the quiet realization that the most important things happen in real life with other people in the "first life." Also that what you "get" from exposure to the totality of positive human interaction is not what they say. Not pollution. Not filth. But rather the simple quiet realization of the great majesty & beauty of life, and the value of preserving the garden we've been given by evolution, natural selection, and a Universe we were lucky enough to have as it is.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080710215703/http://www.getafirstlife.com/
There's a reason preachers want you to avoid a positive approach to human sexuality: Because if you embrace such an approach you'll quickly find no reason whatsoever to suck up to a-hole preachers who tell you such crap in the first place. Move on from their dross & drivel & be a lot happier.
The pale blue dot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
There may not be gods now, but science may allow us to become as such.
We may transcend our little home & survive after our home is destroyed. Or we may develop the science & technology to prevent the destruction, but only if we can transcend wasteful delusion.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The talk I gave at my mother's funeral - February 2010
Here's a copy of the talk I gave at my mother's funeral on February 27, 2010. The talk was given at a Mormon meeting house.
-----------------------------------------------------
The daughter of a sheepherder and dairy farmer. From a small parched town in central Utah. Growing up in a nice house with a good view of the temple. Climbing on the hills and mountains above Manti. Moving to Salt Lake during World War II. Learning to be a nurse. Meeting her husband at a dance. Marrying and living in Orem, California, Jamaica, and Cottonwood.
If you could stand up here on this podium I am sure that there are many things you could choose to say.
All of us have special memories of Helen.
Whether as a wife, a mother, a grand mother, a great grand mother, a sister, an aunt, or a friend.
How would she like to be remembered?
How do we remember her?
And what did she leave behind?
She would want to be remembered as a mother who created a very nice family. As someone who had many children and grandchildren whom she loved very much.
As someone who had many good times, visiting with many friends, persevering through trails, and having a fruitful life.
Here are some excerpts from some documents she wrote:
========================
I was born June 13, l926 in a small home about 4th south and main street in Manti, Utah. It was a home delivery. The evening prior to my birth, my Dad worked on a crib for me. It was a crib for all 5 of my parent's children.
------
While very young, my mother entered me in the most beautiful baby contest at the Sanpete County Fair. I was a winner until they saw me sucking my thumb and that eliminated me from the contest. I'm sure my mother was very irritated.
I must have been quite a thumb sucker. My little friend next door, Pauline Cox, had a splint on her elbow so she could not get her thumb up to her mouth. Apparently I felt sorry for her because one of our parents took a photo of Pauline sucking my thumb and she was sucking mine. Our parents never let us forget this incident.
---
I was 3 years old when my mother gave birth to my brother, Ray. It was a home delivery with Dr. Sears attending. It was at this time when the Dr. said that if I didn't stop sucking my thumb he was going to cut It off. This stopped my thumb sucking habit. I remember his big black bag to this day.
----
Grandma Keller had dark hair and most of her children had dark hair. Grandpa Keller teased her and said that Westenskow really meant Eskimo.
---
Aunt Bernice had profound influence on me.
She was always kind and taught me to enjoy classical music, fine literature, and the arts.
She was an excellent teacher and always lifted people to higher levels of thinking. I remember her discussing Elbert Hubbard's philosophies with both my mother and aunt Maggie in grandma Barton's kitchen.
========================
The above stories come from documents typed up by Helen. If you would like copies you're welcome to email me or you can find me on Facebook.
Here is how I remember my mother Helen:
That she enjoyed sewing & knitting. When I was younger she worked in the Mormon Church Office Building in the health unit. She very much enjoyed giving vaccination shots to the occasionally visiting big wigs. She also liked to go on vacations with Jack. Later she became a teacher at a couple of local high schools teaching students about careers in health.
In retirement she had the opportunity to care for and love many grand children, and to continue to go on vacations with Jack, many of which in her later years were done in association with the Flying Tigers Army Air Force reunion group.
In the last ten or so years of her life she had congestive heart failure. But modern medical science was able to keep her alive.
She was a liberal democrat. She was more religious than Jack. She believed in the value of science, the fact of evolution, and much of what came to us from key events like the Renaissance and The Age of Enlightenment. She was not a hard line literalist nor an angry fundamentalist.
In the last years of her life she went to the hospital many times. But she remained relatively spry and alert for someone her age. And she continued to venture out with Jack on vacations as she was able.
I would say that overall, even during the years when her health was failing, she remained relatively upbeat. And when I saw her newly allowed-to-go-gray hair, I realized that maybe she should have let it go gray a bit earlier.
---------
What is the baton we have been passed by Helen, and what will we do with it?
Hair which has yet to go gray; a dickey ticker; a propensity for epiphanies; sometimes unpleasant moodiness; stubbornness but also determination. Helen also directly passed on ideas to us, and she gave us the opportunity to learn from the world we were born into.
Since it is a common tradition in buildings such as this to make a statement of belief as part of a funeral talk, I will make one of my own - with the caveat that I think the best way to honor a person is to be honest about what they really thought about life, the Universe, and everything.
We're here to honor Helen. Part of her legacy is what you believe and feel in your heart. Part of her legacy are the children you've borne. And part of her legacy are people like me in this family who believe the following:
------------------
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state.
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the
film The Matrix.
Those of us in this extended family who share these views are part of the legacy of Helen. And she shared many of these views.
May she rest in peace. We have the baton now.
Thank you for coming to honor the memory of Helen and your place in this story.
-----------------------------------------------------
The daughter of a sheepherder and dairy farmer. From a small parched town in central Utah. Growing up in a nice house with a good view of the temple. Climbing on the hills and mountains above Manti. Moving to Salt Lake during World War II. Learning to be a nurse. Meeting her husband at a dance. Marrying and living in Orem, California, Jamaica, and Cottonwood.
If you could stand up here on this podium I am sure that there are many things you could choose to say.
All of us have special memories of Helen.
Whether as a wife, a mother, a grand mother, a great grand mother, a sister, an aunt, or a friend.
How would she like to be remembered?
How do we remember her?
And what did she leave behind?
She would want to be remembered as a mother who created a very nice family. As someone who had many children and grandchildren whom she loved very much.
As someone who had many good times, visiting with many friends, persevering through trails, and having a fruitful life.
Here are some excerpts from some documents she wrote:
========================
I was born June 13, l926 in a small home about 4th south and main street in Manti, Utah. It was a home delivery. The evening prior to my birth, my Dad worked on a crib for me. It was a crib for all 5 of my parent's children.
------
While very young, my mother entered me in the most beautiful baby contest at the Sanpete County Fair. I was a winner until they saw me sucking my thumb and that eliminated me from the contest. I'm sure my mother was very irritated.
I must have been quite a thumb sucker. My little friend next door, Pauline Cox, had a splint on her elbow so she could not get her thumb up to her mouth. Apparently I felt sorry for her because one of our parents took a photo of Pauline sucking my thumb and she was sucking mine. Our parents never let us forget this incident.
---
I was 3 years old when my mother gave birth to my brother, Ray. It was a home delivery with Dr. Sears attending. It was at this time when the Dr. said that if I didn't stop sucking my thumb he was going to cut It off. This stopped my thumb sucking habit. I remember his big black bag to this day.
----
Grandma Keller had dark hair and most of her children had dark hair. Grandpa Keller teased her and said that Westenskow really meant Eskimo.
---
Aunt Bernice had profound influence on me.
She was always kind and taught me to enjoy classical music, fine literature, and the arts.
She was an excellent teacher and always lifted people to higher levels of thinking. I remember her discussing Elbert Hubbard's philosophies with both my mother and aunt Maggie in grandma Barton's kitchen.
========================
The above stories come from documents typed up by Helen. If you would like copies you're welcome to email me or you can find me on Facebook.
Here is how I remember my mother Helen:
That she enjoyed sewing & knitting. When I was younger she worked in the Mormon Church Office Building in the health unit. She very much enjoyed giving vaccination shots to the occasionally visiting big wigs. She also liked to go on vacations with Jack. Later she became a teacher at a couple of local high schools teaching students about careers in health.
In retirement she had the opportunity to care for and love many grand children, and to continue to go on vacations with Jack, many of which in her later years were done in association with the Flying Tigers Army Air Force reunion group.
In the last ten or so years of her life she had congestive heart failure. But modern medical science was able to keep her alive.
She was a liberal democrat. She was more religious than Jack. She believed in the value of science, the fact of evolution, and much of what came to us from key events like the Renaissance and The Age of Enlightenment. She was not a hard line literalist nor an angry fundamentalist.
In the last years of her life she went to the hospital many times. But she remained relatively spry and alert for someone her age. And she continued to venture out with Jack on vacations as she was able.
I would say that overall, even during the years when her health was failing, she remained relatively upbeat. And when I saw her newly allowed-to-go-gray hair, I realized that maybe she should have let it go gray a bit earlier.
---------
What is the baton we have been passed by Helen, and what will we do with it?
Hair which has yet to go gray; a dickey ticker; a propensity for epiphanies; sometimes unpleasant moodiness; stubbornness but also determination. Helen also directly passed on ideas to us, and she gave us the opportunity to learn from the world we were born into.
Since it is a common tradition in buildings such as this to make a statement of belief as part of a funeral talk, I will make one of my own - with the caveat that I think the best way to honor a person is to be honest about what they really thought about life, the Universe, and everything.
We're here to honor Helen. Part of her legacy is what you believe and feel in your heart. Part of her legacy are the children you've borne. And part of her legacy are people like me in this family who believe the following:
------------------
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state.
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the
film The Matrix.
Those of us in this extended family who share these views are part of the legacy of Helen. And she shared many of these views.
May she rest in peace. We have the baton now.
Thank you for coming to honor the memory of Helen and your place in this story.
The conflation of science & religion at the University of Utah
Here is a letter I am sharing with some local newspapers:
------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Come to find out KUER is an actual department of the University of Utah. The call letters KUER are licensed to the University by the FCC.
Recently I wrote to the station manager of KUER with some concerns I have about two of their programs. The programs are funded by the Templeton Foundation, a religious advocacy organization that is controversial with some leading scientists, including Nobel prize winner Dr. Harry Kroto. The programs of concern are "To the Best of Our Knowledge" by Wisconsin Public Radio, and "Krista Tippett on Being" by American Public Media - both funded by Templeton.
In any case, regardless of whether you agree with my comments about the programs, perhaps you can at least agree that an arm of the government should not be telling citizens to shut up.
John Greene emailed me on December 9th and said to me "...Jonathan, You have made your views abundantly clear. Please refrain from e-mailing me any further. John Greene GM."
Isn't that nice? He had no cogent response. No detail. All he essentially said was "shut up and go away, and don't bother me in the future..."
Maybe you don't care about whether the god of the Templeton Foundation happens to be your god, or whether the conflation of science and religion is an issue for you. Maybe you don't care about whether an arm of the government is broadcasting two programs that advocate on behalf of a certain definition of god & religion. Probably not your specific definitions. The words may be the same, but the definition probably doesn't match up with what you believe or do not believe. I suppose the separation of church & state may not matter much to you. Or, if it does then that's great.
But, you may also want to make note that the First Amendment states that the government should be willing to listen to citizens. Also FCC rules state that broadcast stations must be willing to receive comments from listeners.
KUER is not just another radio station. The programs they have aren't just on there to be listened to or not. Since KUER is a University of Utah telecommunications department, what they choose put on the air means something more. Also KUER receives federal tax dollars via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
When your and my government decides to put programs funded by Templeton on the air, maybe you love it. Maybe you hate it. But if you comment about it to KUER (which is a part of the U of U & therefore a part of the State), hopefully you'll appreciate the need for your government to not then tell you to shut up and go away if they don't like your comments.
Harry Kroto, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling, and P.Z. Myers all are not big fans of Templeton's apparent subversion of science. Google them all to find the details. And as an ex-Mormon myself I don't much appreciate the conflation of science with Krista Tippett's or Templeton's definition of god, nor Templeton money going to subvert science & to conflate science & religion (especially as per the readily findable concerns of the noted scientists & philosophers I've noted, and as per what I have personally heard from the programs in question).
But when my government picks & chooses arguably religious advocacy programs to broadcast, that raises the bar of concern. And when a department of a public university engages in the distortion of science, and the conflation of science with religion, that is also a concern. And when they tell me to shut up and go away, that's another disconcerting point.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-------------------------
If you'd like to help with the issue you can write to the following parties:
John Greene, Station Manager, KUER: jgreene@kuer.org
Michael K. Young, University of Utah president: president@utah.edu
Please feel free to forward a copy of this letter to these men who are managers & public employees at the University of Utah (a part of the State of Utah), along with your own comments.
Further details and posts:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
http://corvus.freeshell.org
Maybe you love Krista Tippett & the Templeton Foundation. But at the very least you might make note of the fact that a part of the government is both advocating for and on behalf of a specific definition of the word god (Templeton's), and when we complain, they tell us to shut up and go away.
Jonathan
p.s. Did you know that Templeton gave Mel Gibson an award for his film "Passion of the Christ" and they deemed it the most inspirational film of 2004? Isn't that special? Oh my goodness, Passion of the Christ? Go figure. Here's Hitchens' responses to Gibson:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
http://www.slate.com/id/2146880/
And isn't it great that the same foundation that loved Gibson's ghoulish film also supports two religious programs on a public radio station near you, and via a publicly funded university near you also. One of several references to the film award: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20240
...and when you complain to your local public university? What do they tell you? Shut up, and go away. So if you could help in this case that would be great.
------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Come to find out KUER is an actual department of the University of Utah. The call letters KUER are licensed to the University by the FCC.
Recently I wrote to the station manager of KUER with some concerns I have about two of their programs. The programs are funded by the Templeton Foundation, a religious advocacy organization that is controversial with some leading scientists, including Nobel prize winner Dr. Harry Kroto. The programs of concern are "To the Best of Our Knowledge" by Wisconsin Public Radio, and "Krista Tippett on Being" by American Public Media - both funded by Templeton.
In any case, regardless of whether you agree with my comments about the programs, perhaps you can at least agree that an arm of the government should not be telling citizens to shut up.
John Greene emailed me on December 9th and said to me "...Jonathan, You have made your views abundantly clear. Please refrain from e-mailing me any further. John Greene GM."
Isn't that nice? He had no cogent response. No detail. All he essentially said was "shut up and go away, and don't bother me in the future..."
Maybe you don't care about whether the god of the Templeton Foundation happens to be your god, or whether the conflation of science and religion is an issue for you. Maybe you don't care about whether an arm of the government is broadcasting two programs that advocate on behalf of a certain definition of god & religion. Probably not your specific definitions. The words may be the same, but the definition probably doesn't match up with what you believe or do not believe. I suppose the separation of church & state may not matter much to you. Or, if it does then that's great.
But, you may also want to make note that the First Amendment states that the government should be willing to listen to citizens. Also FCC rules state that broadcast stations must be willing to receive comments from listeners.
KUER is not just another radio station. The programs they have aren't just on there to be listened to or not. Since KUER is a University of Utah telecommunications department, what they choose put on the air means something more. Also KUER receives federal tax dollars via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
When your and my government decides to put programs funded by Templeton on the air, maybe you love it. Maybe you hate it. But if you comment about it to KUER (which is a part of the U of U & therefore a part of the State), hopefully you'll appreciate the need for your government to not then tell you to shut up and go away if they don't like your comments.
Harry Kroto, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling, and P.Z. Myers all are not big fans of Templeton's apparent subversion of science. Google them all to find the details. And as an ex-Mormon myself I don't much appreciate the conflation of science with Krista Tippett's or Templeton's definition of god, nor Templeton money going to subvert science & to conflate science & religion (especially as per the readily findable concerns of the noted scientists & philosophers I've noted, and as per what I have personally heard from the programs in question).
But when my government picks & chooses arguably religious advocacy programs to broadcast, that raises the bar of concern. And when a department of a public university engages in the distortion of science, and the conflation of science with religion, that is also a concern. And when they tell me to shut up and go away, that's another disconcerting point.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-------------------------
If you'd like to help with the issue you can write to the following parties:
John Greene, Station Manager, KUER: jgreene@kuer.org
Michael K. Young, University of Utah president: president@utah.edu
Please feel free to forward a copy of this letter to these men who are managers & public employees at the University of Utah (a part of the State of Utah), along with your own comments.
Further details and posts:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
http://corvus.freeshell.org
Maybe you love Krista Tippett & the Templeton Foundation. But at the very least you might make note of the fact that a part of the government is both advocating for and on behalf of a specific definition of the word god (Templeton's), and when we complain, they tell us to shut up and go away.
Jonathan
p.s. Did you know that Templeton gave Mel Gibson an award for his film "Passion of the Christ" and they deemed it the most inspirational film of 2004? Isn't that special? Oh my goodness, Passion of the Christ? Go figure. Here's Hitchens' responses to Gibson:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
http://www.slate.com/id/2146880/
And isn't it great that the same foundation that loved Gibson's ghoulish film also supports two religious programs on a public radio station near you, and via a publicly funded university near you also. One of several references to the film award: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20240
...and when you complain to your local public university? What do they tell you? Shut up, and go away. So if you could help in this case that would be great.
letter to the editor: University of Utah department to citizens: shut up, if we don't like your comments
Click here to view the updated page here on my blog for the letter, and how you can help.
University of Utah department to citizens: Shut up. Don't complaint to us.
Come to find out KUER is actually a department of the University of Utah.
In a previous post here I made note of their general manager, John Greene, who sent an email asking that I stop contacting his station. Well, come to find out, his station is merely a department of the University of Utah.
---------------
Here's a copy of the email I sent to John Greene, station manager of KUER, also the department head of KUER, a department of the University:
To: John Greene <jgreene@kuer.org>
Cc: cdunn@media.utah.edu, becky.riley@utah.edu, LDOWNEY@MEDIA.UTAH.EDU, president@utah.edu, liz.mccoy@utah.edu, remi@ucomm.utah.edu
[December 9, 2010]
To the University of Utah, the licensee of radio station call letters KUER.
-------------------
To Mr. Greene, station manager.
Cc: Related parties & officers at the University.
Regarding: U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, and also U.S. Title 47, Section 73.1202 Retention of letters received from the public, and Section 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational.
Dear Mr. Greene,
KUER is a part of the University of Utah. The University of Utah is a part of the State of Utah. The State of Utah is a part of the United States.
I refer you to the following wikipedia article relating to the Federal Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States
I ask that you not send to me emails asking that I stop exercising my rights as a citizen and tax payer of the US & of Utah.
As KUER is a de facto and in fact government entity and an arm of the government, you must be prepared to receive comments from the citizenry regarding serious concerns citizens may have regarding your programming decisions.
Also the FCC states that you must be prepared to receive comments about your programming. Your station, in addition to being a part of the State of Utah, is a Federal Communications Commission licensee. Here is a link to the relevant FCC rules Mr. Greene:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587598
Here is a quote from the FCC on this matter:
"...Comments to Stations and Networks. If you feel the need to do so, we encourage you to write directly to station management or to network officials to comment on their broadcast service..."
Also as an FYI, all emails you send to me will be publicly published, especially to interest groups which relate to the mixing of church and state, which in my view is what KUER is doing now, and which I am trying to get you to stop doing.
My tax dollars which go to support the U of U and indirectly & directly to KUER are going to support religious programs on KUER.
If you have a cogent response other than "please do not exercise your rights under the Constitution," then I'm ready to hear. But in the mean time, with all due respect, I'll continue to follow the constitution in this matter, and to exercise my rights to address MY government with grievances I happen to have with what you all are doing with my tax money, and with my franchise as a citizen.
I feel that my rights are being violated by your station and your university - my right to have a separation of church and state. And as long as KUER remains a part of the State of Utah, the University of Utah, and the government indirectly & directly, then I'll continue acting as a citizen in this matter and I'll continue acting within my rights.
I encourage you to personally contact the FCC to see if station listeners have a right to comment about station operation & programming. And I encourage you to personally contact the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for the Separation of Church State, as these advocacy groups can provide more details to you about your duties as a defacto and in fact government employee & public radio station manager.
The legal name of the KUER broadcast station licensee is the University of Utah, as per
http://www.kuer.org/docs/mkform.hts.htm
and
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=69171
The call letters KUER are licensed by the FCC to the University of Utah.
Thus, as a government employee & representative, I expect you to offer proper respect when citizens attempt to exercise their rights under the federal constitution.
I feel my rights are being severely violated by the presence of two programs on KUER which I feel are religious advocacy programs, as per my own listening, and as per the related concerns by one nobel prize winning scientist, several other scientists, noted philosophers who have high concerns about the key funding source involved, and other citizens who I've found who also have concerns about the programs & funding sources involved. Details & extensive links about these other people who have serious concerns about the specifics in this case have already been shared.
I will continue to exercise my rights under the constitution. KUER is not just a mere radio station. The programs you put on are not merely just for a person to listen to or not to listen to. What you put on the air has a direct connection to the University of Utah, and to the State of Utah, and thus to my government. And as a citizen I'll continue exercising my rights. It may be inconvenient for you to receive comments from the citizenry, even when those comments are backed up with key comments from nobel prize winners and highly noted scientists with a lifetime of experience in science & Enlightenment-era advocacy. But as a government employee, and as an FCC licensee, it's your job to receive such comments and to respond with respect, dignity, and honor.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Higbee
In a previous post here I made note of their general manager, John Greene, who sent an email asking that I stop contacting his station. Well, come to find out, his station is merely a department of the University of Utah.
---------------
Here's a copy of the email I sent to John Greene, station manager of KUER, also the department head of KUER, a department of the University:
To: John Greene <jgreene@kuer.org>
Cc: cdunn@media.utah.edu, becky.riley@utah.edu, LDOWNEY@MEDIA.UTAH.EDU, president@utah.edu, liz.mccoy@utah.edu, remi@ucomm.utah.edu
[December 9, 2010]
To the University of Utah, the licensee of radio station call letters KUER.
-------------------
To Mr. Greene, station manager.
Cc: Related parties & officers at the University.
Regarding: U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, and also U.S. Title 47, Section 73.1202 Retention of letters received from the public, and Section 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational.
Dear Mr. Greene,
KUER is a part of the University of Utah. The University of Utah is a part of the State of Utah. The State of Utah is a part of the United States.
I refer you to the following wikipedia article relating to the Federal Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States
I ask that you not send to me emails asking that I stop exercising my rights as a citizen and tax payer of the US & of Utah.
As KUER is a de facto and in fact government entity and an arm of the government, you must be prepared to receive comments from the citizenry regarding serious concerns citizens may have regarding your programming decisions.
Also the FCC states that you must be prepared to receive comments about your programming. Your station, in addition to being a part of the State of Utah, is a Federal Communications Commission licensee. Here is a link to the relevant FCC rules Mr. Greene:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587598
Here is a quote from the FCC on this matter:
"...Comments to Stations and Networks. If you feel the need to do so, we encourage you to write directly to station management or to network officials to comment on their broadcast service..."
Also as an FYI, all emails you send to me will be publicly published, especially to interest groups which relate to the mixing of church and state, which in my view is what KUER is doing now, and which I am trying to get you to stop doing.
My tax dollars which go to support the U of U and indirectly & directly to KUER are going to support religious programs on KUER.
If you have a cogent response other than "please do not exercise your rights under the Constitution," then I'm ready to hear. But in the mean time, with all due respect, I'll continue to follow the constitution in this matter, and to exercise my rights to address MY government with grievances I happen to have with what you all are doing with my tax money, and with my franchise as a citizen.
I feel that my rights are being violated by your station and your university - my right to have a separation of church and state. And as long as KUER remains a part of the State of Utah, the University of Utah, and the government indirectly & directly, then I'll continue acting as a citizen in this matter and I'll continue acting within my rights.
I encourage you to personally contact the FCC to see if station listeners have a right to comment about station operation & programming. And I encourage you to personally contact the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for the Separation of Church State, as these advocacy groups can provide more details to you about your duties as a defacto and in fact government employee & public radio station manager.
The legal name of the KUER broadcast station licensee is the University of Utah, as per
http://www.kuer.org/docs/mkform.hts.htm
and
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=69171
The call letters KUER are licensed by the FCC to the University of Utah.
Thus, as a government employee & representative, I expect you to offer proper respect when citizens attempt to exercise their rights under the federal constitution.
I feel my rights are being severely violated by the presence of two programs on KUER which I feel are religious advocacy programs, as per my own listening, and as per the related concerns by one nobel prize winning scientist, several other scientists, noted philosophers who have high concerns about the key funding source involved, and other citizens who I've found who also have concerns about the programs & funding sources involved. Details & extensive links about these other people who have serious concerns about the specifics in this case have already been shared.
I will continue to exercise my rights under the constitution. KUER is not just a mere radio station. The programs you put on are not merely just for a person to listen to or not to listen to. What you put on the air has a direct connection to the University of Utah, and to the State of Utah, and thus to my government. And as a citizen I'll continue exercising my rights. It may be inconvenient for you to receive comments from the citizenry, even when those comments are backed up with key comments from nobel prize winners and highly noted scientists with a lifetime of experience in science & Enlightenment-era advocacy. But as a government employee, and as an FCC licensee, it's your job to receive such comments and to respond with respect, dignity, and honor.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Higbee
Thursday, December 9, 2010
KUER asks me to shut up - separation of church & state: station KUER not willing to receive public comments as is required by law
Whether or not you agree with my comments about two public radio programs engaging in religious advocacy on the government's dime & time, perhaps at the very least you can agree that we should be able to comment about their existence to public radio stations. The programs: "To the Best of our Knowledge" by Wisconsin Public Radio, and "Krista Tippett on Being" (formerly known as "Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett."
The call letters KUER are licensed to the University of Utah, and the University of Utah is a part of the State of Utah.
My contention is that the programs are religious advocacy programs, as per other posts I've made.
I sent detailed complaints to KUER about the matter.
Maybe you disagree with my conclusions, or maybe you agree. But in any case, at the very least make note of the fact that KUER is a part of the State of Utah.
FCC rules in Title 47, Section 73.1202 and Section 73.3527 state that stations should be prepared to receive comments from the public. Also the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587598
states the following: "...Comments to Stations and Networks. If you feel the need to do so, we encourage you to write directly to station management or to network officials to comment on their broadcast service..."
Also note the First Amendment states that citizens have a right to address their government regarding grievances. And since the call letters KUER are licensed to a part of the government, it seems to me that part of the amendment would apply in this case.
If any of this sounds interesting or of concern, here's how you may be able to help...
Write and call the KUER station manager, and call to the University of Utah to help make sure that they will be willing to receive comments from the public regarding the separation of church and state:
John Greene, KUER station manager, jgreene@kuer.org - phone 801-581-6625, option 6, then option 1
Michael K. Young, University of Utah president - phone 801-581-5701, email president@utah.edu
Please email both men if you could, if you want to help.
--------quote beings of email from the KUER station manager
To: Jonathan
From: John Greene <jgreene@kuer.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:48:05 -0700
Jonathan,
You have made your views abundantly clear. Please refrain from e-mailing me any further.
John Greene GM
--------end of quote of the email from the KUER station manager
The man has no interest in a conversation. He just wants me to shut up. But he is a government employee & representative. And his station is licensed to a part of the government. And so on.
The call letters KUER are licensed to the University of Utah, and the University of Utah is a part of the State of Utah.
My contention is that the programs are religious advocacy programs, as per other posts I've made.
I sent detailed complaints to KUER about the matter.
Maybe you disagree with my conclusions, or maybe you agree. But in any case, at the very least make note of the fact that KUER is a part of the State of Utah.
FCC rules in Title 47, Section 73.1202 and Section 73.3527 state that stations should be prepared to receive comments from the public. Also the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587598
states the following: "...Comments to Stations and Networks. If you feel the need to do so, we encourage you to write directly to station management or to network officials to comment on their broadcast service..."
Also note the First Amendment states that citizens have a right to address their government regarding grievances. And since the call letters KUER are licensed to a part of the government, it seems to me that part of the amendment would apply in this case.
If any of this sounds interesting or of concern, here's how you may be able to help...
Write and call the KUER station manager, and call to the University of Utah to help make sure that they will be willing to receive comments from the public regarding the separation of church and state:
John Greene, KUER station manager, jgreene@kuer.org - phone 801-581-6625, option 6, then option 1
Michael K. Young, University of Utah president - phone 801-581-5701, email president@utah.edu
Please email both men if you could, if you want to help.
--------quote beings of email from the KUER station manager
To: Jonathan
From: John Greene <jgreene@kuer.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:48:05 -0700
Jonathan,
You have made your views abundantly clear. Please refrain from e-mailing me any further.
John Greene GM
--------end of quote of the email from the KUER station manager
The man has no interest in a conversation. He just wants me to shut up. But he is a government employee & representative. And his station is licensed to a part of the government. And so on.
to Reza Aslan: The Giant Termite in the Sky, and aliens from Kolob
copy of December 8, 2010 email to Reza Aslan:
To Mr. Aslan,
I just want to preface this email by stating that I do not wish to be your gay lover. I know you've written to other people with this type of reply, so let's get that out of the way up front.
I am writing to respond to your article at
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html
where you state several things, but near the end you say the following: "...What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect..."
In college you learned very big words you could use. Harvard was useful for that, and so was the University of California.
Big words can be used to supplicate and provide pabulum to the audiences who enjoy your works & speeches very much, but they can also be used to hide your own lack of contextual knowledge about the subjects you claim to be a scholar of, and about subjects you're not an expert in but upon which you nevertheless speak.
If you are claiming that there is a multidimensional alien god who created the Universe, a giant alien termite who produces universes out of it's rear end, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that a bearded alien god creature visited Earth about 2000 years ago, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that there is a realm outside of the physical world we know of, you are making a claim about the physical nature of the universe, and thus a scientific claim.
The key aspect of science which your article failed to address is that science can address the issue of probabilities. What is the probability that an alien god creature came to Earth 2000 years ago (ie: Jesus)? What is the probability that that same alien also came to America (as is claimed by Mormons - that Jesus visited the Indians in America)? What is the probability that a different alien spoke to Mohammad (different than the one who came to America & so on)? And what is the probability that both the claims of Mormonism & Islam are simultaneously true? These are real concrete questions which can be addressed in a reasonable and thoughtful way. And they have pretty easy answers.
Is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God? No. The Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus (as per advanced Mormon doctrine). Whereas the such a concept in Catholicism would be considered sacrilege. Did the Mormon God dictate the Quran to Mohammad? No, not according to the Mormons. Did Allah, the god of Mohammad, dictate the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? No, not according to Muslims worldwide. And so on.
You are correct in part, in your implication that religion is a natural phenomenon, and Daniel Dennett has spoken about this.
Your claims that religionists don't understand what religion is, yes, that may be true. They may be unable to take a step back.
But, religionists make real physical concrete claims about the nature of existence, about alien creatures who may or may not have created the Universe, visited Earth, had influence upon human affairs, and so on. Each religion has it's own specific real physical claims about the nature of existence, and many of their claims are mutually exclusive.
Your own "fundamentalism" is your claim that science cannot address these various claims of the various religions. You appear to claim that there is a non-overlapping magesteria.
There is a universality in that their claims (all religious claims about the nature of creation & their god creatures) are all mostly bogus, with the small exception of the few Unitarian Unviersalist types and defacto atheist types who are culturally religious (like reportedly the astronomer royal for Anglicanism) -- people who solely define god as either love, sex, or the Universe.
Most religionists do not make a direct equivalence between the word "god" and the universe, or the word "god" and love or the word "god" and sex. Krista Tippett in her banal public radio program previously known as Speaking of Faith talks about this type of god, where god = solely the universe, love, sex. But these types of definitions do not do justice nor do they accurately describe the gods that most religionists claim to believe in.
In the rather highly animated verbally aggressive tonalities that you use in discussions and debates with those with whom you disagree, you never really talk much about what your own views are, and you never really talk much about what exactly the views are of those you act as an apologist for.
It seems disingenuous and strange to simultaneously be an apologist for Islam while at the same time accusing your own Muslim religionists of not understanding what religion is.
Here are some key questions I have for you:
Are the mosques you support and calibrate gender equal? Do they engage in gender apartheid or not? Do the mosques you calibrate and support encourage or discourage the veil? These it seems to me are key questions.
And as to the nature of what you call god, you should provide a better definition of what you're talking about. Just solely have your god be a "sense of transcendence" is absolutely not the god that is described in the Quran, nor in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon. People who actually believe what these books say are engaged in the religious experience. And since not all religions are equal, some religious beliefs can be more damaging & abusive than others.
Just because people react in a naturally tribal & violent manner in response to cartoons of their prophet, just because their actions are explainable, does not mean their actions are justifiable. Reference the work of Steven Pinker regarding how the moral zeitgeist of humanity has progressed and improved over time. You should not be an apologist for those groups of humans who haven't quite caught up with the rest of us morally.
Islam is at a different point in it's history. Christianity had a Reformation & Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one if we are willing to be honest.
You have jumped into and have been accepted by a liberal consensus that seeks to engage in rather highfalutin doublespeek and doublethink regarding Islam, by trying to separate out the violence done in the name of Islam and because of Islam and calling that violence by other names instead - so as to apologize for Islam and to shield Islam.
The newly repetitious & disturbing nature of native born Islamic terrorists in the U.S. is one key trait you should examine, if you're willing to be truly scholarly. But to be an honest scholar, you need to learn to take a step back yourself, from the self-loathing self-hating liberal consensus, and from Ivory Tower infected with cultural & moral relativism.
High minded academics at ivy league divinity schools may view religion as a cultural and natural phenomenon, which it is (as per Dennett's book on the issue). But people IN the religions are living them on a real basis, day to day. You and your buddies at Harvard are not.
And since not all religions have an equal ability to help humanity thrive, it's worth making exact note of which aspects of all religions either help humans be happy or not, thrive or not, and so on.
You came to America from Iran. You encountered and dove into our Ivory Tower with glee. And now you jet set around the world and the county as a result. Good for you. But as you ask the religious to take a step back so should you from the institutions here that gave your career birth.
To conclude this email, allow me to state that I'm going to post this email on my own blog, so that it's content will be of value to others, and in the event that your own reply is lacking. Should you choose to reply in a flippant tone which belies your supposed scholarly credentials I will not be surprised.
Are you curious about what your critics say, or do you just dismiss all of what they say out of hand with crass over the top responses?
On a more serious note, the native born jihadies in America seeking to destroy do take some solace and succor from the self hating nature of the liberal consensus - and I say this as a left leaning person myself.
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck or Fox News. But it is worth making note that Ayan Hirsi Ali has to find protection at a conservative think tank. She's a libertarian. I'm a socialist. But the subculture you have been embraced by (the American liberal Ivory Tower such as at Harvard and the University of California), it's main dogmatic mantras are self hatred and simultaneous cultural relativism.
Since you're not a native born American, it's disconcerting to see you act as an apologist for terrorists here & abroad. And the relativist atmosphere you learned in has not help. Just because you can name a reason or two for anger does not mean terrorist acts are justified. And it's worth noting that there are far more Islamic terrorists than Jainist ones. And within Islam, there are far more Sunni suicide bombers than Shia ones - because Sunni Islam is more sexually repressive as per ex-Islamic-Brotherhood men I have listened to on the issue. Have you listened to some of the key ex-extremists, such as those who're in videos on the Center For Inquiry website, or does your scholarly work not extend to actually hearing what other people are saying?
If we left Afghanistan what would happen to the rights of women there to have a secular education? For women there to be free from the veil? And so on?
What of having women Imams teaching men in Islam?
What of having boys & girls socialize in healthy ways in Islam so that boys learn how to please girls and are civilized as a result?
What of allowing men & women to sit together in mosques holding hands?
What of having mosques discouraging the veil, because in many Islamic countries women are taught to hate those who are not forced to wear the veil?
Where do you stand on these issues? Your answer or lack of an answer would be telling.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
To Mr. Aslan,
I just want to preface this email by stating that I do not wish to be your gay lover. I know you've written to other people with this type of reply, so let's get that out of the way up front.
I am writing to respond to your article at
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html
where you state several things, but near the end you say the following: "...What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect..."
In college you learned very big words you could use. Harvard was useful for that, and so was the University of California.
Big words can be used to supplicate and provide pabulum to the audiences who enjoy your works & speeches very much, but they can also be used to hide your own lack of contextual knowledge about the subjects you claim to be a scholar of, and about subjects you're not an expert in but upon which you nevertheless speak.
If you are claiming that there is a multidimensional alien god who created the Universe, a giant alien termite who produces universes out of it's rear end, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that a bearded alien god creature visited Earth about 2000 years ago, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that there is a realm outside of the physical world we know of, you are making a claim about the physical nature of the universe, and thus a scientific claim.
The key aspect of science which your article failed to address is that science can address the issue of probabilities. What is the probability that an alien god creature came to Earth 2000 years ago (ie: Jesus)? What is the probability that that same alien also came to America (as is claimed by Mormons - that Jesus visited the Indians in America)? What is the probability that a different alien spoke to Mohammad (different than the one who came to America & so on)? And what is the probability that both the claims of Mormonism & Islam are simultaneously true? These are real concrete questions which can be addressed in a reasonable and thoughtful way. And they have pretty easy answers.
Is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God? No. The Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus (as per advanced Mormon doctrine). Whereas the such a concept in Catholicism would be considered sacrilege. Did the Mormon God dictate the Quran to Mohammad? No, not according to the Mormons. Did Allah, the god of Mohammad, dictate the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? No, not according to Muslims worldwide. And so on.
You are correct in part, in your implication that religion is a natural phenomenon, and Daniel Dennett has spoken about this.
Your claims that religionists don't understand what religion is, yes, that may be true. They may be unable to take a step back.
But, religionists make real physical concrete claims about the nature of existence, about alien creatures who may or may not have created the Universe, visited Earth, had influence upon human affairs, and so on. Each religion has it's own specific real physical claims about the nature of existence, and many of their claims are mutually exclusive.
Your own "fundamentalism" is your claim that science cannot address these various claims of the various religions. You appear to claim that there is a non-overlapping magesteria.
There is a universality in that their claims (all religious claims about the nature of creation & their god creatures) are all mostly bogus, with the small exception of the few Unitarian Unviersalist types and defacto atheist types who are culturally religious (like reportedly the astronomer royal for Anglicanism) -- people who solely define god as either love, sex, or the Universe.
Most religionists do not make a direct equivalence between the word "god" and the universe, or the word "god" and love or the word "god" and sex. Krista Tippett in her banal public radio program previously known as Speaking of Faith talks about this type of god, where god = solely the universe, love, sex. But these types of definitions do not do justice nor do they accurately describe the gods that most religionists claim to believe in.
In the rather highly animated verbally aggressive tonalities that you use in discussions and debates with those with whom you disagree, you never really talk much about what your own views are, and you never really talk much about what exactly the views are of those you act as an apologist for.
It seems disingenuous and strange to simultaneously be an apologist for Islam while at the same time accusing your own Muslim religionists of not understanding what religion is.
Here are some key questions I have for you:
Are the mosques you support and calibrate gender equal? Do they engage in gender apartheid or not? Do the mosques you calibrate and support encourage or discourage the veil? These it seems to me are key questions.
And as to the nature of what you call god, you should provide a better definition of what you're talking about. Just solely have your god be a "sense of transcendence" is absolutely not the god that is described in the Quran, nor in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon. People who actually believe what these books say are engaged in the religious experience. And since not all religions are equal, some religious beliefs can be more damaging & abusive than others.
Just because people react in a naturally tribal & violent manner in response to cartoons of their prophet, just because their actions are explainable, does not mean their actions are justifiable. Reference the work of Steven Pinker regarding how the moral zeitgeist of humanity has progressed and improved over time. You should not be an apologist for those groups of humans who haven't quite caught up with the rest of us morally.
Islam is at a different point in it's history. Christianity had a Reformation & Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one if we are willing to be honest.
You have jumped into and have been accepted by a liberal consensus that seeks to engage in rather highfalutin doublespeek and doublethink regarding Islam, by trying to separate out the violence done in the name of Islam and because of Islam and calling that violence by other names instead - so as to apologize for Islam and to shield Islam.
The newly repetitious & disturbing nature of native born Islamic terrorists in the U.S. is one key trait you should examine, if you're willing to be truly scholarly. But to be an honest scholar, you need to learn to take a step back yourself, from the self-loathing self-hating liberal consensus, and from Ivory Tower infected with cultural & moral relativism.
High minded academics at ivy league divinity schools may view religion as a cultural and natural phenomenon, which it is (as per Dennett's book on the issue). But people IN the religions are living them on a real basis, day to day. You and your buddies at Harvard are not.
And since not all religions have an equal ability to help humanity thrive, it's worth making exact note of which aspects of all religions either help humans be happy or not, thrive or not, and so on.
You came to America from Iran. You encountered and dove into our Ivory Tower with glee. And now you jet set around the world and the county as a result. Good for you. But as you ask the religious to take a step back so should you from the institutions here that gave your career birth.
To conclude this email, allow me to state that I'm going to post this email on my own blog, so that it's content will be of value to others, and in the event that your own reply is lacking. Should you choose to reply in a flippant tone which belies your supposed scholarly credentials I will not be surprised.
Are you curious about what your critics say, or do you just dismiss all of what they say out of hand with crass over the top responses?
On a more serious note, the native born jihadies in America seeking to destroy do take some solace and succor from the self hating nature of the liberal consensus - and I say this as a left leaning person myself.
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck or Fox News. But it is worth making note that Ayan Hirsi Ali has to find protection at a conservative think tank. She's a libertarian. I'm a socialist. But the subculture you have been embraced by (the American liberal Ivory Tower such as at Harvard and the University of California), it's main dogmatic mantras are self hatred and simultaneous cultural relativism.
Since you're not a native born American, it's disconcerting to see you act as an apologist for terrorists here & abroad. And the relativist atmosphere you learned in has not help. Just because you can name a reason or two for anger does not mean terrorist acts are justified. And it's worth noting that there are far more Islamic terrorists than Jainist ones. And within Islam, there are far more Sunni suicide bombers than Shia ones - because Sunni Islam is more sexually repressive as per ex-Islamic-Brotherhood men I have listened to on the issue. Have you listened to some of the key ex-extremists, such as those who're in videos on the Center For Inquiry website, or does your scholarly work not extend to actually hearing what other people are saying?
If we left Afghanistan what would happen to the rights of women there to have a secular education? For women there to be free from the veil? And so on?
What of having women Imams teaching men in Islam?
What of having boys & girls socialize in healthy ways in Islam so that boys learn how to please girls and are civilized as a result?
What of allowing men & women to sit together in mosques holding hands?
What of having mosques discouraging the veil, because in many Islamic countries women are taught to hate those who are not forced to wear the veil?
Where do you stand on these issues? Your answer or lack of an answer would be telling.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Monday, December 6, 2010
Hiking with the birds in the Uintahs
Ok, here's some lighter fare for you all - hiking with my birds in the Uintah mountains of Utah:
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Copy of email sent on December 6, 2010:
To: "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org>, "Fleming, Jim" <jim.fleming at wpr.org>, Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
This past weekend brought yet another unhappy experience of listening to nearly unbearable sections of what is not really the "best" of our knowledge, and also Krista Tippett's banal program. To the operators and broadcasters of these programs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Utah, please make note of the following:
You all, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Utah (via KUER), and American Public Media are acting as Templeton's chumps, and I ask that you stop. Furthermore I am writing to let you know that I won't be a Templeton chump myself, and neither should the other secular and Enlightenment advocates who happen to also be public radio listeners and federal and state tax payers.
Lawrence Krauss on Templeton, as from
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/14a08801.htm
"...Sir John Templeton, a multimillionaire financier, has decided that science and religion should be connected more closely, and he has the wherewithal to insure that that happens. First among the carrots he offers academics is the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. At over $1.2-million dollars, it is the largest scholarly prize in the world -- the Nobel is worth $960,000 -- and it is awarded at Buckingham Palace, by Prince Philip."
"Templeton's program goes beyond the prize. As the World-Wide Web site of the John Templeton Foundation puts it, 'Sir John Templeton is deeply committed to fostering an expanded vision of God that is informed by recent discoveries of science about the nature of the universe.' He created the foundation to be a 'critical catalyst for progress, especially by supporting studies which demonstrate the benefits of an open, humble and progressive approach to learning.' In the belief that 'a path of cooperation between the sciences and all religions will lead humanity to a deeper understanding of the universe,' the foundation engages in a range of activities -- such as awarding grants and prizes to people and groups, encouraging them to explore the links between religion and science. For example, it gives prizes of $10,000 to academics and institutions that develop interdisciplinary courses in those areas..."
"...Templeton's overall program is ill conceived, and so is the field of study that he wants to promote in our colleges and universities. When faced with ready cash to support research and attend conferences, academics -- including this academic, to be fair -- often rush with too little thought to the trough. But it is significant that higher education did not broadly connect science and religion before Sir John's largesse -- and for a good reason: Combining the two fields is an intellectually uninteresting exercise."
"Science and religion are on opposite sides of the human experience. Science may enter into theological discussions, but I can attest -- after more than 20 years as a physicist -- that religion never enters into scientific discussions. That fact is reflected in the makeup of many of the Templeton-sponsored programs, which involve prominent theologians and historians, but very few scientists..."
"...Although there is nothing wrong with paying some scholarly attention to whatever marginal common ground science and religion may share, overemphasizing their commonality is dangerous -- especially when the driving force behind the effort is not the strength of ideas, but one man's money, compounded by the misplaced enthusiasm of some religious zealots..."
Dr. Krauss is the recipient of the following awards, which I would like you to contrast with your own degrees in public administration and/or journalism:
* Gravity Research Foundation First prize award (1984)
* Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
* American Association for the Advancement of Science's Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
* Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
* Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
* American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
* Oersted Medal (2003)
* American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
* Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
* Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Also Dr. Krauss is the only physicist ever to have received the highest awards from all three major physics societies in the USA: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.
------
A link to info on the Templeton funded "Bible literacy project," and the camel's nose which I KNEW was there when I first heard Krista Tippett, the apparently preferred preacher on MY publicly funded radio station and from MY state's publicly funded university:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article782.html
----
And I again refer you to a very detailed expose on Templeton in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy
And my own latest forum posting about the issue:
http://www.atheistforums.com/the-templeton-foundation-the-distortion-of-science-t25020.html?highlight=templeton
...which is available as the top result from the following google search: templeton distortion science
It's just great that your programs and stations take money directly or indirectly from an organization that viewed Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," as the most inspirational film of 2004. Isn't that special?
And while you all are engaged with Templeton in creating a new interdisciplinary science of Godly love, there are some key questions you have not answered:
Which God?
Whose God?
What God?
The god of which religion?
Let us make note of the new favored religious preacher of public radio, Krista Tippett, as fostered and paid for by public universities, and also the new public radio religious program "To the Best of our Knowledge." Both programs seek to dove tail up exactly with the goals of Templeton as per Templeton's recognition of the related programs and their hosts, to mix & conflate science & religion, and to misrepresent & distort science in the process (& to confuse listeners and to provide pabulum to the religious subset of listeners, to the alienation of those of us who had tougher times with religion) - this is what we have when you gleefully accept the largess of a conservative sugar daddy who wants to do what he wants to do. But since you all are helping to foist Templeton's God upon me and upon all your listeners, I'd like to know exactly who Templeton's god was. Since you all are His new representatives, I'd really like to know.
Maybe you should ask, since your Tippett and your Steve Paulson & the producers of all the related programs want us to believe in Templeton's god.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
To: "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org>, "Fleming, Jim" <jim.fleming at wpr.org>, Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
This past weekend brought yet another unhappy experience of listening to nearly unbearable sections of what is not really the "best" of our knowledge, and also Krista Tippett's banal program. To the operators and broadcasters of these programs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Utah, please make note of the following:
You all, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Utah (via KUER), and American Public Media are acting as Templeton's chumps, and I ask that you stop. Furthermore I am writing to let you know that I won't be a Templeton chump myself, and neither should the other secular and Enlightenment advocates who happen to also be public radio listeners and federal and state tax payers.
Lawrence Krauss on Templeton, as from
http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/14a08801.htm
"...Sir John Templeton, a multimillionaire financier, has decided that science and religion should be connected more closely, and he has the wherewithal to insure that that happens. First among the carrots he offers academics is the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. At over $1.2-million dollars, it is the largest scholarly prize in the world -- the Nobel is worth $960,000 -- and it is awarded at Buckingham Palace, by Prince Philip."
"Templeton's program goes beyond the prize. As the World-Wide Web site of the John Templeton Foundation puts it, 'Sir John Templeton is deeply committed to fostering an expanded vision of God that is informed by recent discoveries of science about the nature of the universe.' He created the foundation to be a 'critical catalyst for progress, especially by supporting studies which demonstrate the benefits of an open, humble and progressive approach to learning.' In the belief that 'a path of cooperation between the sciences and all religions will lead humanity to a deeper understanding of the universe,' the foundation engages in a range of activities -- such as awarding grants and prizes to people and groups, encouraging them to explore the links between religion and science. For example, it gives prizes of $10,000 to academics and institutions that develop interdisciplinary courses in those areas..."
"...Templeton's overall program is ill conceived, and so is the field of study that he wants to promote in our colleges and universities. When faced with ready cash to support research and attend conferences, academics -- including this academic, to be fair -- often rush with too little thought to the trough. But it is significant that higher education did not broadly connect science and religion before Sir John's largesse -- and for a good reason: Combining the two fields is an intellectually uninteresting exercise."
"Science and religion are on opposite sides of the human experience. Science may enter into theological discussions, but I can attest -- after more than 20 years as a physicist -- that religion never enters into scientific discussions. That fact is reflected in the makeup of many of the Templeton-sponsored programs, which involve prominent theologians and historians, but very few scientists..."
"...Although there is nothing wrong with paying some scholarly attention to whatever marginal common ground science and religion may share, overemphasizing their commonality is dangerous -- especially when the driving force behind the effort is not the strength of ideas, but one man's money, compounded by the misplaced enthusiasm of some religious zealots..."
Dr. Krauss is the recipient of the following awards, which I would like you to contrast with your own degrees in public administration and/or journalism:
* Gravity Research Foundation First prize award (1984)
* Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
* American Association for the Advancement of Science's Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
* Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
* Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
* American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
* Oersted Medal (2003)
* American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
* Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
* Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Also Dr. Krauss is the only physicist ever to have received the highest awards from all three major physics societies in the USA: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics.
------
A link to info on the Templeton funded "Bible literacy project," and the camel's nose which I KNEW was there when I first heard Krista Tippett, the apparently preferred preacher on MY publicly funded radio station and from MY state's publicly funded university:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article782.html
----
And I again refer you to a very detailed expose on Templeton in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy
And my own latest forum posting about the issue:
http://www.atheistforums.com/the-templeton-foundation-the-distortion-of-science-t25020.html?highlight=templeton
...which is available as the top result from the following google search: templeton distortion science
It's just great that your programs and stations take money directly or indirectly from an organization that viewed Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," as the most inspirational film of 2004. Isn't that special?
And while you all are engaged with Templeton in creating a new interdisciplinary science of Godly love, there are some key questions you have not answered:
Which God?
Whose God?
What God?
The god of which religion?
Let us make note of the new favored religious preacher of public radio, Krista Tippett, as fostered and paid for by public universities, and also the new public radio religious program "To the Best of our Knowledge." Both programs seek to dove tail up exactly with the goals of Templeton as per Templeton's recognition of the related programs and their hosts, to mix & conflate science & religion, and to misrepresent & distort science in the process (& to confuse listeners and to provide pabulum to the religious subset of listeners, to the alienation of those of us who had tougher times with religion) - this is what we have when you gleefully accept the largess of a conservative sugar daddy who wants to do what he wants to do. But since you all are helping to foist Templeton's God upon me and upon all your listeners, I'd like to know exactly who Templeton's god was. Since you all are His new representatives, I'd really like to know.
Maybe you should ask, since your Tippett and your Steve Paulson & the producers of all the related programs want us to believe in Templeton's god.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Templeton & the NCSE - December 3, 2010 letter
Copy of email to the NCSE (National Center for Science Education):
Hi,
I thought the NCSE was about promoting science, not religion.
If you're not promoting religion then why do you give a crap about who
gets the Templeton prize?
http://ncse.com/news/2010/03/ayala-wins-templeton-prize-005389
Here's an appropriate response from Richard Dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5304-shame-on-the-national-academy
And from Harry Kroto:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/national-academy-sciences-spiritual-award
And from Sam Harris:
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
And from Daniel Dennett and Anthony Grayling:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
And from P.Z. Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php
Anyway apparently I was under the misapprehension that the NCSE
promoted science. Does a spoonful of Jesus help the evolution go down?
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/truckling_to_the_faithful_a_spoonful_of_jesus_helps_darwin_go_down/
If so then you've gone off the rails, and can go to hell as far as I'm
concerned (since you'll also be advocating the teaching of hell to
students I'm sure).
Oh hey I just found another article about your traitorous useless group:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/
So you love Templeton? How about Krista Tippett? Oh, and Templeton's
subversion of science and conflating science and religion? How's that
for a worthy goal NCSE? Tippett is a fluffy brained lame idiot. Is she
the future of science education in America? If so then the battle is
lost.
The main problem with having preachers heading up the NCSE is that
you're still a bunch of theists. You don't understand
science, and if you did you wouldn't be theists.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Hi,
I thought the NCSE was about promoting science, not religion.
If you're not promoting religion then why do you give a crap about who
gets the Templeton prize?
http://ncse.com/news/2010/03/ayala-wins-templeton-prize-005389
Here's an appropriate response from Richard Dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5304-shame-on-the-national-academy
And from Harry Kroto:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/national-academy-sciences-spiritual-award
And from Sam Harris:
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
And from Daniel Dennett and Anthony Grayling:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
And from P.Z. Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_name_templeton_foundation.php
Anyway apparently I was under the misapprehension that the NCSE
promoted science. Does a spoonful of Jesus help the evolution go down?
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/truckling_to_the_faithful_a_spoonful_of_jesus_helps_darwin_go_down/
If so then you've gone off the rails, and can go to hell as far as I'm
concerned (since you'll also be advocating the teaching of hell to
students I'm sure).
Oh hey I just found another article about your traitorous useless group:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/
So you love Templeton? How about Krista Tippett? Oh, and Templeton's
subversion of science and conflating science and religion? How's that
for a worthy goal NCSE? Tippett is a fluffy brained lame idiot. Is she
the future of science education in America? If so then the battle is
lost.
The main problem with having preachers heading up the NCSE is that
you're still a bunch of theists. You don't understand
science, and if you did you wouldn't be theists.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
the Templeton Foundation, religious propoganda, and the required separation of Church and State - December 3, 2010 message
Copy of December 3, 2010 message sent in reply to Steve Paulson...
---------------------------
Regarding "To the Best of our Knowledge" on Wisconsin Public Radio (and via the University of Wisconsin), and Krista Tippett as well.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:34:41 -0600, "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org> wrote:
>Dr. Mr. Higbee,
>
>I'm sorry to hear that our funding from the Templeton Foundation bothers you so much. Of course, I disagree that this has tainted our coverage of science and religion.
<clip>
As a media darling of the Foundation I don't see how you can have coverage that is anything but tainted. Here's documentation of your darling status:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
As with Krista Tippett, you have joined with her in a new public radio chorus that apparently seeks to conflate science with religion, to apologize for and protect religion, to hide the truth about people's real lives with religion, and to promote the agenda of a now deceased conservative sugar daddy whose foundation lives on.
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20100317/
Regarding the conflation, purposeful confusion, and smoke blowing, read over the tit for tat style the Foundation has on the following web page:
http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
And about their latest prize winner: http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Notice how their prize happens to go to a man who says "…science is a way of knowing, but it is not the only way."
So there you go Mr. Paulson. You have your way out, as a "journalist." You can pretend that everything is equal when it's not. Templeton has given you permission. But here's a relevant response to worshiping at the alter of supposed objectivity from Keith Olbermann:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40202512/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
And also here's three related videos on the issue from Dr. Brian Cox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo&feature=&p=C7F8740EA90180B2&index=0&playnext=1
In any case, with regard to religion, science, and spirituality, the devil is in the details.
Which god would you and Templeton have us believe in? Any of them? Whose religion? The traditional spirituality that is tied to mysticism? Tied to which religion? Which god?
If you cannot answer these questions you're not being honest.
But science is not JUST a way of knowing. It just so happens to be the MOST accurate method of separating fact from fiction humanity has developed thus far. Perhaps Templeton didn't realize this. And his big pockets are helping people like you and Tippett to confuse and conflate the issue. As a child of the Enlightenment, you really ought to know that your cell phone and your computer work because of science, not because the Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus. Not because the Catholic God told the pope it was ok to hide pedophile priests. Not because Islamic African tribes believe they should mutilate the genitals of their little girls, and not because the outrageous mohels in Israel do the same to little boys - all in the name of obedience to their gods. And so on. So Templeton's ignorance of the history of science and religion is playing itself out on your little program and on Tippett's one sided obfuscational white washing program.
You don't have a Ph.D. or a Nobel prize.
What do you know about what these "scientists" know?
But when you get a scientist on who says he believes in god, ask him which one? The Mormon God? The Catholic God? The Islamic God? They are all very different. And using the word god to describe solely love or sex or whatever, without giving that caveat up front in the conversation, it's dishonest. We need to know which god and which type of spirituality you and Templeton would have us believe in.
Your fellow in the foundation Tippett is highly responsible for conflation and purposeful confusion, such as via her recent book about Einstein's supposed God, and her constant references to awe as being a religious feeling.
But you know, as someone who spent 25 years in a cult, I resent her and your use of the G-word without your stating just exactly which god you're referring to. The one that I believed in, who had sex with Mary, and who told me that masturbation was evil and needed to be confessed to many strange men at church, and who wants to micromanage the sex lives of all adults and children while allowing their founding prophets to sleep with 14 year olds and the wives of other men? Or the god of evangelical Christians, the ones who hate Mormons, a god I never really believed in when I was a Mormon? Or the gods of the other religions, and so on. It just so happens that Einstein believed in NONE of these gods. And so, Tippett's use of the G-word in this case is essentially a confusing conflating lie. Einstein's God was N-O-T the God of Mormonism, nor of 99 to 100% of the other religions present when Einstein was alive.
Now, maybe in the hippie influenced Unitarian Universalist religious education classrooms of today, you can get people to say their god is sex or love or the Universe. But those uses really aren't helpful relative to a "dialogue" between science and religion, because each religion has it's own unique definition of the G-word. And so the very use of the word in the first place, by people like Tippett on her program and in her book, and by your fund providing foundation & it's fellows and friends, it just confuses the issue and whitewashes over what is really inside of people's heads on all these issues. And it also whitewashes the problems that come when people believe in angry and abusive concepts of a god, as in Mormonism and as in Islam (especially Sunni Islam where young men are driven to suicide due to the gender apartheid).
And now to the issue of taint. Here are some key points showing how your program is tainted:
You are listed on one of the Templeton web sites. So that's a taint.
They did support Gibson's outrageously ghoulish and anti-Jewish film Passion of the Christ. So that's a taint.
Hitchens on the Gibson issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
and
http://www.slate.com/id/2260937/
And the connection between Templeton and Gibson's film Passion of the Christ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1352328/posts
The Foundation called Passion of the Christ "...the Most Inspirational Movie of 2004?" Mr. Paulson, what does this mean? It means your Foundation just loves a film by a Jew hating ultra right wing Catholic fascist.
Templeton was known as a "conservative sugar daddy," so that's a taint. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Accusations_of_conservative_orientation
The wikipedia article on Templeton has several other key criticisms of inappropriate bias, and a bias which runs counter to the traditional public radio listenership (liberals, whereas the foundation is known for being conservative), so that's a taint.
Nobel prize winner Kroto has been highly critical of the Foundation, so that's a taint - since you've ignored his criticism. But I guess your journalism degree (if you have one) trumps his Nobel prize. And even the Foundation considers their own prize to be superior to the Nobel.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0ae046b8-576a-478f-8c39-e8d56d9036c7
Templeton established his prize to go toward "Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities," but that's a taint because, if you are a science journalist, you need to find out what is meant by the word spiritual in this case. Which heaven? Whose God? Which religion?
Pretty much none of the religions have an interest in science finding their heaven. Religion rejects science's ability to reach their god & their heaven, and they also reject science's ability to state that given religious views are bogus, unfounded, and probabilistically very very unlikely. And also science's ability to state that some religions are worse & more abusive than others - more damaging to human thriving & human happiness. So, since it's your paid job to "discover spiritual realities," how's that going with your job as a science reporter and a program which claims to be reporting on science? Which religion have you verified is true? Which god? How's the Foundation's efforts going as filtered through your own work at a part of the University of Wisconsin?
Also, as a darling of the Foundation you stand, as with other fellows and recipients of Templeton's largess, as someone who can help to further the key goal of the foundation, to establish "a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love," as per
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/1323/god,_science_and_philanthropy/
But you know, the Mormon God wasn't all that loving. He really wasn't. And Mohammad's God, he pretty much said that all unbelievers should be killed. And the Catholic God, well I never believed in a god who hides pedophiles.
So, which god will your program be helping to research? What's your definition of godly love? You don't have one? Well I guess you better get one because Templeton wants you to have one. That's why they exist. Again, they want to establish a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love. And you're god's instrument in this holy purpose Mr. Paulson. And so is Tippett.
So anyway, it's true that I don't have a Nobel prize like Harry Kroto. I've not spent my life teaching children and adults about science like Richard Dawkins. I don't have a Ph.D. like P.Z. Myers. But since you don't have this background either, I suppose anything is up for grabs, right? What do you know of this complex sciencey-stuff? It's too complex to sift through, so you may as well present "all viewpoints" and let the listeners decide. Yep, that's the right course for you and the University of Wisconsin through you.
>Our approach is to feature many competing ideas
>- and to let listeners decide on their own views.
Templeton has a very specific agenda. Your claims of not having the same agenda don't ring true, since you're one of their media darlings (as per your presence on one of their websites), and since their clear aim is to confuse and obfuscate, as per Harris, Myers, Dawkins, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and others. But I'm sure your journalistic credentials trump the life work of all these men. What do they know? They're just possessors of that confusing knowledge known as "science," and like the Foundation wants you to say, science doesn't know everything.
Based on what I've heard on your show you are verging on having competing theories about what causes disease. Is it viruses & bacteria & DNA replication defects, or is it demons. Really from a few years of hearing your programs this is my honest general impression of how you present things.
So, I guess you could rightly ask, as a journalist "we'll let our listeners decide. We just present what's out there."
Why are children born with birth defects? Is it because their parents are evil, or because of what science shows?
Does muscle tension testing show why people have the problems they do? Since science doesn't know everything, and is only one way of knowing, I guess we can just present "both sides" and let our listeners decide.
And even within today's culture there are a bunch of people who still believe most if not all diseases results from states of the mind, and that the only way to cure whatever ails us is via positive thinking. There's very detailed books on the issue, and there's people much younger than I who're keyed into this whole bunch of balderdash.
Your indirect partner, NPR, regularly assumes that there are always two equally valid sides to all issues. But that's basically and fundamentally a lie.
You need to realize that with the advent of the Reformation & the Enlightenment, science showed that it was a much better method of truth finding than religion. In the past religion claimed to describe all aspects of physical reality. But as science has shown how it accurately describes point after point, the gods religion held on to reasonably described less and less.
So, your interviewing of the witch doctor on one hand, and the neuroscientist on the other (for journalistic balance of course), really doesn't do justice to how the history of science & religion has played out. And you cannot expect lay people, your listeners, in all cases, to separate which method of truth finding happens to be more accurate, if you yourself, in your coverage, ignore what the history of science & religion shows. You are lying by omission, and lying by purposefully choosing mis-weighted opinions so as to pretend that it's either too confusing to say, or that science can't find the answer - which is what Templeton WANTS you to say.
Templeton's involvement in this muddies the waters. They will draw you into a conflation and a muddying of the value of science.
They have a history of funding science which fits their religious purpose. And, when they present advertisements in major publications, their ads are rather like a cleaver game of deceit. Yes, they'll fund a given research program and "not interfere." But then they'll lump the results in with other studies that "show something different" - all as a means of confusing the issue, which is their main goal. All Templeton doors lead to one conclusion in their game: that science is either confusing, or that science supports the concept of there being a god.
Here's Harris's quote again about Templeton:
"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..."
Among several leading scientists, Templeton already has a bad reputation. And they are either directly or indirectly influencing your program in negative ways. This is not the first time I've noticed problems with your relativist approach to science & the physical world.
Just because science is "confusing and hard," doesn't mean it's still not a better method of truth finding than the mystical world view.
There are not "many ways of knowing," regarding chemistry & physics, and regarding other areas of inquiry about the nature of reality. Templeton WANTS you to conflate and muddy the issue. But when they use the word "god" and "spirituality" as they bring you under their umbrella as their media darling, you need to be honest with your listeners and state exactly which god, which religion, which spirituality you and they are talking about. If you don't know, then you pretty much have no right to even mention these issues in the first place.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
---------------------------
Regarding "To the Best of our Knowledge" on Wisconsin Public Radio (and via the University of Wisconsin), and Krista Tippett as well.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:34:41 -0600, "Paulson, Steve" <steve.paulson at wpr.org> wrote:
>Dr. Mr. Higbee,
>
>I'm sorry to hear that our funding from the Templeton Foundation bothers you so much. Of course, I disagree that this has tainted our coverage of science and religion.
<clip>
As a media darling of the Foundation I don't see how you can have coverage that is anything but tainted. Here's documentation of your darling status:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=6
As with Krista Tippett, you have joined with her in a new public radio chorus that apparently seeks to conflate science with religion, to apologize for and protect religion, to hide the truth about people's real lives with religion, and to promote the agenda of a now deceased conservative sugar daddy whose foundation lives on.
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20100317/
Regarding the conflation, purposeful confusion, and smoke blowing, read over the tit for tat style the Foundation has on the following web page:
http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
And about their latest prize winner: http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Notice how their prize happens to go to a man who says "…science is a way of knowing, but it is not the only way."
So there you go Mr. Paulson. You have your way out, as a "journalist." You can pretend that everything is equal when it's not. Templeton has given you permission. But here's a relevant response to worshiping at the alter of supposed objectivity from Keith Olbermann:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40202512/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
And also here's three related videos on the issue from Dr. Brian Cox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo&feature=&p=C7F8740EA90180B2&index=0&playnext=1
In any case, with regard to religion, science, and spirituality, the devil is in the details.
Which god would you and Templeton have us believe in? Any of them? Whose religion? The traditional spirituality that is tied to mysticism? Tied to which religion? Which god?
If you cannot answer these questions you're not being honest.
But science is not JUST a way of knowing. It just so happens to be the MOST accurate method of separating fact from fiction humanity has developed thus far. Perhaps Templeton didn't realize this. And his big pockets are helping people like you and Tippett to confuse and conflate the issue. As a child of the Enlightenment, you really ought to know that your cell phone and your computer work because of science, not because the Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus. Not because the Catholic God told the pope it was ok to hide pedophile priests. Not because Islamic African tribes believe they should mutilate the genitals of their little girls, and not because the outrageous mohels in Israel do the same to little boys - all in the name of obedience to their gods. And so on. So Templeton's ignorance of the history of science and religion is playing itself out on your little program and on Tippett's one sided obfuscational white washing program.
You don't have a Ph.D. or a Nobel prize.
What do you know about what these "scientists" know?
But when you get a scientist on who says he believes in god, ask him which one? The Mormon God? The Catholic God? The Islamic God? They are all very different. And using the word god to describe solely love or sex or whatever, without giving that caveat up front in the conversation, it's dishonest. We need to know which god and which type of spirituality you and Templeton would have us believe in.
Your fellow in the foundation Tippett is highly responsible for conflation and purposeful confusion, such as via her recent book about Einstein's supposed God, and her constant references to awe as being a religious feeling.
But you know, as someone who spent 25 years in a cult, I resent her and your use of the G-word without your stating just exactly which god you're referring to. The one that I believed in, who had sex with Mary, and who told me that masturbation was evil and needed to be confessed to many strange men at church, and who wants to micromanage the sex lives of all adults and children while allowing their founding prophets to sleep with 14 year olds and the wives of other men? Or the god of evangelical Christians, the ones who hate Mormons, a god I never really believed in when I was a Mormon? Or the gods of the other religions, and so on. It just so happens that Einstein believed in NONE of these gods. And so, Tippett's use of the G-word in this case is essentially a confusing conflating lie. Einstein's God was N-O-T the God of Mormonism, nor of 99 to 100% of the other religions present when Einstein was alive.
Now, maybe in the hippie influenced Unitarian Universalist religious education classrooms of today, you can get people to say their god is sex or love or the Universe. But those uses really aren't helpful relative to a "dialogue" between science and religion, because each religion has it's own unique definition of the G-word. And so the very use of the word in the first place, by people like Tippett on her program and in her book, and by your fund providing foundation & it's fellows and friends, it just confuses the issue and whitewashes over what is really inside of people's heads on all these issues. And it also whitewashes the problems that come when people believe in angry and abusive concepts of a god, as in Mormonism and as in Islam (especially Sunni Islam where young men are driven to suicide due to the gender apartheid).
And now to the issue of taint. Here are some key points showing how your program is tainted:
You are listed on one of the Templeton web sites. So that's a taint.
They did support Gibson's outrageously ghoulish and anti-Jewish film Passion of the Christ. So that's a taint.
Hitchens on the Gibson issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
and
http://www.slate.com/id/2260937/
And the connection between Templeton and Gibson's film Passion of the Christ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1352328/posts
The Foundation called Passion of the Christ "...the Most Inspirational Movie of 2004?" Mr. Paulson, what does this mean? It means your Foundation just loves a film by a Jew hating ultra right wing Catholic fascist.
Templeton was known as a "conservative sugar daddy," so that's a taint. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Accusations_of_conservative_orientation
The wikipedia article on Templeton has several other key criticisms of inappropriate bias, and a bias which runs counter to the traditional public radio listenership (liberals, whereas the foundation is known for being conservative), so that's a taint.
Nobel prize winner Kroto has been highly critical of the Foundation, so that's a taint - since you've ignored his criticism. But I guess your journalism degree (if you have one) trumps his Nobel prize. And even the Foundation considers their own prize to be superior to the Nobel.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0ae046b8-576a-478f-8c39-e8d56d9036c7
Templeton established his prize to go toward "Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities," but that's a taint because, if you are a science journalist, you need to find out what is meant by the word spiritual in this case. Which heaven? Whose God? Which religion?
Pretty much none of the religions have an interest in science finding their heaven. Religion rejects science's ability to reach their god & their heaven, and they also reject science's ability to state that given religious views are bogus, unfounded, and probabilistically very very unlikely. And also science's ability to state that some religions are worse & more abusive than others - more damaging to human thriving & human happiness. So, since it's your paid job to "discover spiritual realities," how's that going with your job as a science reporter and a program which claims to be reporting on science? Which religion have you verified is true? Which god? How's the Foundation's efforts going as filtered through your own work at a part of the University of Wisconsin?
Also, as a darling of the Foundation you stand, as with other fellows and recipients of Templeton's largess, as someone who can help to further the key goal of the foundation, to establish "a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love," as per
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/1323/god,_science_and_philanthropy/
But you know, the Mormon God wasn't all that loving. He really wasn't. And Mohammad's God, he pretty much said that all unbelievers should be killed. And the Catholic God, well I never believed in a god who hides pedophiles.
So, which god will your program be helping to research? What's your definition of godly love? You don't have one? Well I guess you better get one because Templeton wants you to have one. That's why they exist. Again, they want to establish a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love. And you're god's instrument in this holy purpose Mr. Paulson. And so is Tippett.
So anyway, it's true that I don't have a Nobel prize like Harry Kroto. I've not spent my life teaching children and adults about science like Richard Dawkins. I don't have a Ph.D. like P.Z. Myers. But since you don't have this background either, I suppose anything is up for grabs, right? What do you know of this complex sciencey-stuff? It's too complex to sift through, so you may as well present "all viewpoints" and let the listeners decide. Yep, that's the right course for you and the University of Wisconsin through you.
>Our approach is to feature many competing ideas
>- and to let listeners decide on their own views.
Templeton has a very specific agenda. Your claims of not having the same agenda don't ring true, since you're one of their media darlings (as per your presence on one of their websites), and since their clear aim is to confuse and obfuscate, as per Harris, Myers, Dawkins, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and others. But I'm sure your journalistic credentials trump the life work of all these men. What do they know? They're just possessors of that confusing knowledge known as "science," and like the Foundation wants you to say, science doesn't know everything.
Based on what I've heard on your show you are verging on having competing theories about what causes disease. Is it viruses & bacteria & DNA replication defects, or is it demons. Really from a few years of hearing your programs this is my honest general impression of how you present things.
So, I guess you could rightly ask, as a journalist "we'll let our listeners decide. We just present what's out there."
Why are children born with birth defects? Is it because their parents are evil, or because of what science shows?
Does muscle tension testing show why people have the problems they do? Since science doesn't know everything, and is only one way of knowing, I guess we can just present "both sides" and let our listeners decide.
And even within today's culture there are a bunch of people who still believe most if not all diseases results from states of the mind, and that the only way to cure whatever ails us is via positive thinking. There's very detailed books on the issue, and there's people much younger than I who're keyed into this whole bunch of balderdash.
Your indirect partner, NPR, regularly assumes that there are always two equally valid sides to all issues. But that's basically and fundamentally a lie.
You need to realize that with the advent of the Reformation & the Enlightenment, science showed that it was a much better method of truth finding than religion. In the past religion claimed to describe all aspects of physical reality. But as science has shown how it accurately describes point after point, the gods religion held on to reasonably described less and less.
So, your interviewing of the witch doctor on one hand, and the neuroscientist on the other (for journalistic balance of course), really doesn't do justice to how the history of science & religion has played out. And you cannot expect lay people, your listeners, in all cases, to separate which method of truth finding happens to be more accurate, if you yourself, in your coverage, ignore what the history of science & religion shows. You are lying by omission, and lying by purposefully choosing mis-weighted opinions so as to pretend that it's either too confusing to say, or that science can't find the answer - which is what Templeton WANTS you to say.
Templeton's involvement in this muddies the waters. They will draw you into a conflation and a muddying of the value of science.
They have a history of funding science which fits their religious purpose. And, when they present advertisements in major publications, their ads are rather like a cleaver game of deceit. Yes, they'll fund a given research program and "not interfere." But then they'll lump the results in with other studies that "show something different" - all as a means of confusing the issue, which is their main goal. All Templeton doors lead to one conclusion in their game: that science is either confusing, or that science supports the concept of there being a god.
Here's Harris's quote again about Templeton:
"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..."
Among several leading scientists, Templeton already has a bad reputation. And they are either directly or indirectly influencing your program in negative ways. This is not the first time I've noticed problems with your relativist approach to science & the physical world.
Just because science is "confusing and hard," doesn't mean it's still not a better method of truth finding than the mystical world view.
There are not "many ways of knowing," regarding chemistry & physics, and regarding other areas of inquiry about the nature of reality. Templeton WANTS you to conflate and muddy the issue. But when they use the word "god" and "spirituality" as they bring you under their umbrella as their media darling, you need to be honest with your listeners and state exactly which god, which religion, which spirituality you and they are talking about. If you don't know, then you pretty much have no right to even mention these issues in the first place.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)