Duty is peremptory and absolute
Well one good thing is, the Templeton prize is being treated as controversial. The Guardian, the Independent, Radio 4, Science – they all treat it as controversial. That makes a change!
The critics have gotten through at last. That makes a change, and a very good one.
Jerry Coyne is a little tired of being the go-to dissenter. Hmph – too bad. It’s his duty. He’s good at it, so that makes him the go-to guy, so it’s too late to be tired of that now.
I want to be happy but I keep hearing that Fox announcer guy saying ‘Next at 10, the controversial Templeton Foundation. Faith or science? The Foundation that’s shaking the foundations of science coming up in just a minute.’
Not so fast, says the Guardian. The editorial board wishes to put you (and the “blathering” Stephen Hawking) in your place. I was in a great mood when I read your Peter Atkins quotation – why oh why would I then risk reading a CiF piece containing the word ‘nuance’?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/martin-rees-templeton
Well, I’d nominate you to be the go-to guy…except you’re not a guy.
And everyone knows that chicks aren’t allowed to have an opinion on such weighty matters.
Now get back into the kitchen and make me a sandwich! And make sure it’s light on the mayo this time, dammit!!
(Do I really need to add the /snark tag? Really?)
/snark.
Wow Kevin . That was kind of out of nowhere and not even a little funny imo.
Glendon – please tell me you’re joking.
Its sammich spell it right.
I really like the way Lewis Wolpert takes it very soft, very mellow then when the interviewer tries to use him to challenge Peter Atkins, he goes “Oh I do agree with that [what Atkins just said] entirely”.
Kapow !
I like how the Independent article ends with a whimper:
But it does seem a little strange to call Freeman Dyson a cosmologist.
Josh – please tell me you’re joking.
Is this a coincidence?
LONDON, APRIL 6 – Martin J. Rees, a theoretical astrophysicist whose profound insights on the cosmos have provoked vital questions that speak to humanity’s highest hopes and worst fears, has won the 2011 Templeton Prize.!”
http://www.jesusandmo.net 6th April “Many thanks to the anonymous benefactor who donated a large amount to J&M’s bandwidth bill yesterday. You know who you are. I just wish I could thank you personally.”
I found an old article from 2008 written by former Templeton employee Mark Oppenheimer that is interesting to read in light of how Templeton fundees approach gnu atheism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-oppenheimer/prop-8-templeton-foundati_b_151267.html
Essentially Oppenheimer makes the point that the Templeton foundation has, as its unspoken basis, the promotion of the idea that religion must be taken seriously. He views it as an extention of the founders lack of humor on this issue that those it supports must agree with that basic point. No mocking of sky fairies or making comparisons to leprechauns if you want a grant from them. Even mocking historical opponents of religion is seen as uncouth as evidenced by Oppenheimer losing his job after he commissioned an article that made fun of Ayn Rand.
Hmm. . .I read Kevin’s post as a (admittedly kind of random) jokey but supportive reference to the ongoing discussion here about sexism, and the problem of the lack of recognition of prominent women in the atheist circuit. Perhaps I was wrong?
That’s how I read Kevin’s post. Glendon was probably being ironic. Anyway no worries – flying trilobites can do no wrong.
Yikes, the Guardian has three count them three items saying hey Templeton iz good religion iz good you shut up. Grovel much?
/something about ladies and “doth protest” and methinks
(Can I get away with this when there’s already confusion about who’s being misogynist on this thread? It’s Shakespeare’s fault, not mine!)
Seriously, that’s just more good news. Another way of framing it is that the Guardian has had no less than four opinion pieces and one straight piece covering the controversy over whether Templeton should be promoting concilience between science and religion. Dizzamn.
Yes probably. But I’m rather literal-minded, and the bad faith and stupidity in the articles themselves get up my nose.
I read the article Sigmund linked to on #11, and particularly enjoyed this bit:
Oh Gawd no, not the tone! No wonder Templeton threw him out of the Foundation. Can’t have concerns about that.
No , I’ll admit it – I did wrong. I thought Kevin was being a trolly jerk. My bad.
Can I claim new-dad sleep-deprived asylum?
Oh and apologies to Kevin and Ophelia.