Disturbances in the field
Well naturally – Chris Mooney has attained the apotheosis of a Templeton Fellowship – one of the ‘Templeton–Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science & Religion.’ Well of course he has. It’s not as if they were going to overlook him, is it!
In the fellowship program, a diverse group of eminent journalists examine key areas in the broad field of science and religion through independent research as well as seminars and discussion groups, led by some of the world’s foremost physicists, cosmologists, philosophers, biologists, and theologians, at the University of Cambridge.
The broad field of science and religion – there is no such ‘field.’ They mean subject, but if they call it a field, that gives unwary people the impression that there is a genuine, respectable, established academic discipline of ScienceandReligion. There isn’t. There are lots of ‘institutes’ and conferences funded by Templeton, but that’s a different thing. And then look at that bizarre pile-up – ‘the world’s foremost physicists, cosmologists, philosophers, biologists, and theologians’ – four genuine items and then a joker at the end, wham.
After decades during which leading voices from science and religion viewed each other with suspicion and little sense of how the two areas might relate, recent years have brought an active pursuit of understanding how science may deepen theological awareness, for example, or how religious traditions might illuminate the scientific realm.
Because Templeton has been energetically shoveling money into that ‘pursuit’! Not because it’s a serious subject or an interesting branch of inquiry, but because a financier made a lot of money and the money is being used to fund the pursuit of bullshit.
Fellowship organizers note that rigorous journalistic examination of the region where science and theology overlap – as well as understanding the reasoning of many who assert the two disciplines are without common ground – can effectively promote a deeper understanding of the emerging dialogue.
How does one go about rigorous journalistic examination of something that doesn’t exist? How does one examine the region where science and theology overlap when there is no such region? Well, one doesn’t, of course, one just pockets the large sum of money and enjoys one’s visit to Cambridge.
At any rate – this is Mooney, and Mooney is this, and that’s that story.
It’s no surprise at all that Templeton is now shoveling money in Mooney’s direction. I’m just surprised it took them so long.
The only interesting question, to my mind, is whether Mooney would have kept on saying what he says even if Templeton hadn’t been willing to pay him for saying it, or whether he was angling for their cash all along.
Well, at least Mooney should be happy. Here he’s been talking about framing, and here is Templeton framing away like mad! It’s the fundamental disingenuousness of the whole thing that really gets to me. The overlap of religion and science? Where? There is no comfortable sense in which science and religion are compatible let alone overlapping! What a mad world that has such people in it!
This is the conference, by the way, which Dawkins mentions in one of his shorter papers, a conference where you get paid to attend, not to speak! And isn’t it so touching: they get to be called “fellows”, and at Cambridge, where being a Fellow of a college really means something. It’s done with smoke and mirrors, and Templeton hopes that no one will notice.
Of course science and theology can overlap: Theology is entirely made up, and as a work of pure imagination it can touch on any and every topic. Saying science and theology don’t overlap is like saying science and fiction don’t overlap, despite the many volumes of science fiction on my bookshelves.
Of course, the Templeton types – both those who support the work of the Templeton Foundation, and the work of those the Templeton Foundation supports – don’t admit that theology is strictly in the realm of imagination, so every criticism you make and imply is still valid. What I really don’t get – what I just can’t wrap my head around – is how someone who knows perfectly well that the subject matter of theology is a creation of human imagination can take the money of a foundation whose entire purpose is to pretend otherwise. If I’d had any shadow of a doubt remaining that Chris Mooney is self-serving, duplicitous and hypocritical to the core, that doubt is now well and truly dispelled.
They certainly do overlap. Where they overlap, they contradict each other. Where they contradict each other, science is right.
Okay, can I have my grant now? I’ve solved the whole problem in one paragraph.
Oh, hang on – I don’t even have to say anything. Even better.
No. You do not show sufficient disdain for atheists.
I don’t suppose whilst he is at Cambridge he might come across some decent Philosophy Fellows, who could point out where he is going wrong. Sadly he more likely to come across Simon Conway Morris and get indoctrinated in some silly ideas about the inevitability of human’s evolving.
This is, of course, no surprise at all. I’m tittering to myself over the gasps of outrage some of his defenders have uttered when we skeptics have speculated whether he was angling for Templeton money. Whether he was or not, I can’t think of a more suitable recipient.
John Horgan’s essay on his ex post facto ambivalence about taking Templeton fellowship money is worth revisiting:
Oh, man, I was away from the internet for one day, and it had to be the day during which Mooney and Templeton FINALLY decided to admit their true love for each other. Damnit!
Seriously, though, how does Point of Inquiry feel about this? I wonder if he told them before they asked him to be one of the new hosts? Maybe Ron Lindsay will stop by and offer a few more evasive non-answers like he did at Russell’s blog?
Let’s not be too hard on Cross Money.
Yes, I too wonder what Ron Lindsay thinks of this development…but I don’t suppose he’ll be telling us.
So is Chris Mooney giving up science for money, or giving up on science for money?
He’s not giving up on it, he’s making it better.
The Templeton foundation is an organization that tries to inject more religion into a secular society, not an organization that tries to inject more science into a religious society. They do not throw away money to people who, in their opinion, do not contribute for this agenda.
It is possible that even Mooney is somewhat uneasy with the prospect that he is considered an useful idiot in the accommodationist camp.
I’m just disappointed that Mooney hasn’t said anything about it yet at his blog! I wonder how he’s going to “frame” this one!
“How does one go about rigorous journalistic examination of something that doesn’t exist?”
I’m a conceptual art critic…
;-)
FOr Ophelia:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/how_to_apply/
Maybe you will apply in 2011?
There is actually a branch of science vaguely like theology: set theory.
Rudy Rucker says in his book “Infinity and the Mind” (recommended BTW but quite hard going in places) that “set theory can be viewed as a form of
exact theology”. Since Georg Cantor discovered how to compare infinite quantities in the nineteenth century, a whole zoo of larger and larger infinite quantities has been discovered.
[Some would say that Cantor’s discovery is one of the great intellectual achievements of the last few centuries, though it doesn’t seem to be that well-known.]
Loosely speaking these infinite quantities are possible set sizes (cardinals) or possible numbers of orderings (ordinals).
Formulations of set theory often (usually?) postulate that there is an “absolute infinity” denoted Omega, larger than any other we can conceive of. Further, there is a so-called reflection principle, which says that any property of Omega is also shared by some smaller quantity.
This leads to the following thought too: you can say anything you like about the elements of an empty set, and such a statement is guaranteed to be true. (Of course it has to be a _meaningful_ statement.)
(“God” in the following is not necessarily intended to be the Christian god.)
So if religion A says that God has blue eyes and religion B says that God has brown eyes, these are both true so long as God doesn’t exist. (If religion A also says “God exists” then it follows that they believe B to be false, whatever the ecumenical wing of A may say.)
The set here, implicitly, is the set containing God. The statements about eye color are about its elements, whereas the statement “God exists” is a statement about the set itself and might or might not be true.
So there you have it: you can reconcile all the religions by postulating the non-existence of God.
Thanks Matti.
Now my claim becomes ‘I think one doesn’t have to apply’ – I think the ‘fellowships’ can be offered as well as applied for. That’s because, as mentioned, I know (and know of) people who have refused them, or (like Horgan) considered refusing them – which wouldn’t make a lot of sense if they’d applied for them.
That does raise the question of whether Mooney actively sought Templeton money or simply took it when offered, but I’m not sure the question is very important. There’s absolutely nothing in what Mooney’s written for the past few years that leads one to think he would wrestle with the temptation at all (as John Horgan did) before taking what Jerry Coyne accurately describes as a bribe, so whether he sought or merely accepted the money wouldn’t change my judgment of him (articulated above) one bit.
It strikes me that one could characterize the Templeton Foundation’s various prizes as a perversion of the (already perverse) practice of indulgences. Instead of a wealthy believer bribing the Church for God’s forgiveness and the Church pretending that the bribe would actually matter to God, a wealthy religious institution is bribing non-believers to pretend that there could be a God, and to pretend that the bribe doesn’t matter.
And there’s Mooney’s revoltingly smug post on the subject today.
What does he mean ‘rumors’?! It wasn’t a rumor, it was a press release, for fuck’s sake!
I believe the crazy cartoon version of Cantor would like to rebut Stephen’s observation:
Oh, Cantor!
Quite the kerfuffle over at Mooney’s blog today.
Big push on for Mooney to post his application.
Best comment so far:
“This award in no way reduces my opinion of Chris.”
Haha, yes, that was Michael Gray’s; that was funny.
There was also Jeremy’s startling comment – which was not ironic.
And as a corollary, I propose that forthwith I shall refer to him as “Christ. Money”.
Not funny at all. Simply apt.
Benjamin: nice cartoon. Of course Russell’s paradox was discovered by
Russell, the well-known atheist, eater of babies and devil-worshipper.
(There would obviously be a faith-based objection to my argument, that God is too big and unknowable to be subject to human logic. Or something.)