Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Oct 3rd, 2010 | By Ophelia Benson
Category: Notes and Comment Blog

To re-cap: we have The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, edited by Peter Harrison, director of The Ian Ramsey Centre for science and religion in the University of Oxford, a Templeton-funded outfit whose previous director won the Templeton Prize. Harrison says in his introduction that this Companion gives short shrift to the view that science and religion are in fact incompatible.

We also have a BBC article by Thomas Dixon saying, in a roundabout sort of way, that science and religion are compatible. Dixon wrote the Oxford University Press Science and Religion: a very short introduction. Under “About the author” on that page we learn that

Thomas Dixon is Lecturer in History at Queen Mary, University of London. A member of the International Society for Science and Religion and an expert on modern intellectual history…

So, all agog, we look into what the International Society for Science and Religion might be – and we find out.

the Society has now grown to over 140 members, including many of the leading scholars in the science and religion field. Indeed the last two presidents, George Ellis, a theoretical cosmologist and Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, and John Polkinghorne, are both recipients of the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities – the world’s best-known religion prize, awarded each year to a living person to encourage and honour those who advance spiritual matters.

We find that it’s really about Religion and science, not Science and Religion; that it’s by and for and about theism and theists trying to connect their theism to science; that it’s nothing to do with scientists as scientists trying to connect to religion. We find that it’s what looks very much like a stealth Templeton outfit giving an appearance of an extra splash of prestige to authors who write books about Religion and science.

If we dig around a little more we find one of Templeton’s grants to the International Society for Science and Religion:

Through this project, the International Society for Science and Religion will select an essential reference library for the field of science and religion. Upon selecting some 250 books, a companion volume will be prepared with short summaries and critical evaluations of each book. The project will distribute approximately 150 sets of these books through a competitive program to establish new science and religion libraries throughout the world, particularly in India, China, and Eastern Europe.

Why – that sounds like missionary work, or like cold war propaganda, or both. It certainly sounds like yet another brick in the edifice of this new discipline “Science and Religion” which, thanks largely to Templeton, is eeling its way into major universities in the UK and the US.

13 Responses to “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”

#1
Michael Fugate
October 3, 2010 at 11:26 am

Apologetics all the way down.
#2
Ophelia Benson
October 3, 2010 at 11:31 am

Quite – and disguised apologetics at that. It looks academic but it’s actually agenda-driven.
#3
Egbert
October 3, 2010 at 11:43 am

We also have Paul Kurtz’s bizarre and paranoid new organization: Institute for Science and Human Values:

There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other “the new atheism.” Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative. This Statement advocates non-religious secular Neo-Humanism.

Neo-Humanists, however, are aware of the dangers of an overly zealous atheism such as emerged in Stalinist Soviet Union and Eastern Europe under totalitarian communism or Maoist China, where totalitarian atheists responded to the conservative Orthodox Church in Russia by closing churches, synagogues, and mosques and persecuting ministers of the cloth. Neo-Humanists believe in freedom of conscience, the right to worship or not, and they abhor any kind of repression whether at the hands of atheists in the name of the state or theological inquisitors in the name of the Bible or Koran.

http://www.instituteforscienceandhumanvalues.net/Articles/neo%20humanist%20statement.htm#PREAMBLE

No surprise that there is also trouble-at’-mill with the Centre for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, in which Professor Dawkins will be speaking next week and accepting an award.
#4
Andy
October 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Instead of “religion and science,” I’m going to start phrasing it as “reality and unfounded speculation.” Science deals with reality on reality’s terms, and religion deals mostly in unfounded speculation.

You can say they’re compatible all you want. You can even publish books and have panel discussions on it, but I think it’s pretty obvious that reality and unfounded speculation are not exactly compatible. Remind me why this is controversial again?
#5
Tweets that mention Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes - Butterflies and Wheels -- Topsy.com
October 3, 2010 at 12:58 pm

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes http://dlvr.it/6PrR5 […]
#6
Ophelia Benson
October 3, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Hoo-boy – I didn’t know Paul had said that. Nice. He’s right up there with the pope in comparing us to bloodthirsty totalitarian dictatorships.

So much for putting an end to the stigma that surrounds atheism.
#7
Chris Lawson
October 3, 2010 at 5:03 pm

I thought Dona Ferentes was a famous opera singer.
#8
Ophelia Benson
October 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm

No you’re thinking of Ferrante and Teicher.
#9
Matthew Gatheringwater
October 3, 2010 at 7:14 pm

The Neo-Humanists lost me when they said I had to adopt a positive attitude toward life.
#10
Paul W.
October 3, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Ophelia,

From Appendix to Kurtz’s new manifesto—apparently the New Atheism is a threat to Humanism:

A new challenge has emerged today to confront secular humanism; for several secular authors have advocated “the new atheism.” These include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Victor Stenger. They insist that there is sufficient evidence for atheism and urge that secular humanists aggressively advocate the view that “God does not exist,” that the classical religions are false, that people who believe in them are deceived, and that their ethical values are also false. The new atheists have published several books that have become mini-bestsellers. They have received widespread public attention, and this has attracted some secular humanists who insist that secular does imply atheism (or agnosticism).

For a variety of reasons we submit that this position is mistaken, for it has distorted both secular humanism and humanism in general. We reaffirm that secular humanists are (a) skeptical of supernatural claims, (b) no not think that there is sufficient evidence for God’s existence, and (c) do not believe the historical claims of revelation in the Bible or the Koran are evidential. (d) Ethics should be independent of theological foundations; nor do we think (e) that we should lampoon or ridicule religious believers per se. (f) We should indeed critically examine the many claims of religious traditions with a skeptical eye, and (g) and we should be willing to engage in constructive dialogue and debate with those within the religious communities. (h) Although we may profoundly disagree with our religious colleagues and/or adversaries, we should be tolerant, respectful, and dignified. (i) Even though we may disagree about fundamental doctrinal, philosophical, or theological issues, our discourse should be civilized.

With this in mind, we have proposed a new form of humanism that is not antireligious per se, nor avowedly atheist. We submit that there is an urgent need for a new humanism in the world today; hence Neo-Humanism. This form of humanism has two vital components in its philosophical outlook. The first emphasizes the need to cultivate an appreciation for science and reason. In concrete terms this has meant developing “critical thinking” and using “the method of intelligence” or “the methods of science”; namely, all hypotheses, theories, or beliefs should be tested, validated, confirmed, or justified by reference to evidence and reasons that support the claims. The second vital component of Neo-Humanism is the conviction that ethical values are related to human experience; they are amenable to critical evaluation and may be modified in the light of such inquiry.

It is especially important that humanists appeal to a wider base of support. Some 16 percent of the American population is not affiliated with any church, temple, or mosque—approximately 50 million Americans—whereas only 2 to 3 percent are estimated to be out-and-out atheists. Hence, Neo-Humanism wishes to address its message to a broader public who we believe should be sympathetic.

The new atheists surely have played an important role in contemporary society, for they have been willing to question the foundations of theism, a topic often considered verboten until now. One should not overlook the fact that the old atheism had a strong impact in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, insofar as it was allied with Marxism, including its totalitarian versions. Indeed the communists at first attempted to eradicate religious institutions from the societies in which they ruled, and this led to extensive persecution of believers.

There are varieties of unbelief, and one can be skeptical of religious claims, or be virtually indifferent to religious creeds, yet seek a fulfilling moral life and contribute to the social good. It is too narrow to identify humanism with atheism or even agnosticism, for one can reject the lure of religious salvation on other grounds. The main point of Neo-Humanism is its recommendation that we adopt a positive humanist agenda. This is the position of the scientific naturalist who begins with nature and life, as viewed from the perspective of reason and science, without the baggage of ancient religions. Contemporary civilization has progressed beyond that.
#11
jan frank
October 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Calling it “Science and Religion” doesn’t make it Science and Religion, just as calling the tail of a sheep a leg doesn’t make a sheep have five legs.
#12
Egbert
October 5, 2010 at 4:19 am

If we accommodate religion, then we’re enablers. There’s no avoiding this fact.
#13
Packing the courts | Butterflies and Wheels
March 23, 2012 at 10:16 am

[…] also OUP, as we learned the next day. We also have a BBC article by Thomas Dixon saying, in a roundabout sort of way, that science and […]