Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 11 July 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.951
News
Templeton leaves controversial legacy
Philanthropist's influential foundation will continue his mission to explore the space between science and faith
John Haught is a true believer. As a theologian at Georgetown University in Washington DC specializing in the study of science and faith, he laboured in obscurity for years until wealthy philanthropist and devout Christian John Templeton arrived on the scene.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
John Templeton's legacy is not at all controversial, it's rather wonderful: 1.5 billion dollars for intellectual activity! If all the world's rich (from all their "top lists", you know) consider it as an example to follow, then the world could have a much better chance to get rid of some of its truly unpleasant contradictions! And if you are talking rather about the legacy of John Templeton Foundation, i.e. the results of its activity until now - which is not the same thing! - then there is no ambiguity either: it's close to zero, unfortunately, without any contradiction, in science, spirit, and in between. One always gets what one really wants, by one's actions. If you invest in "science" and ask scientists themselves to choose and estimate the results of their SO generously remunerated activity, using the “hidden� peer-review method, then the result can only be as it is: these scientists say it's great, but if you're looking for any real progress as measured by existing, well-known problem solutions, you'll see nothing (in ANY aspect/field of their activity). And if you use such "self-estimate-and-grab" methods in any other activity, you'll obtain the same result (see the official, public-funded science state today or communist economic "miracles" for the relevant examples). Therefore, dear billionaires, millionaires, industries, companies, institutes and all interested individuals, if you want to avoid that major contradiction between your very good general intentions and resulting zero efficiency of fundamental research (for practically ALL private and public investment in science today!), you should understand that one should apply to research activity, however "fundamental" it pretends to be, the same demands of high efficiency as those you use in your practical activities when you're making those crazy money you're losing so helplessly in your good-intentioned investments in science! There are few people whose very special professional knowledge is about how to make your investments in science efficient, much more efficient than those uncounted billions already wasted as public investment in the official science system accompanied now by private billions equally wasted on exactly the same, provably fruitless research, people and knowledge system. You are amateurs here (your results confirm it!) and they are professionals, so don't fight with professionals, cooperate with the suitable ones. See my comment on the John Horgan's blog post for more details (http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/csw/?p=168#comment-31897) and a summary of 70-million-yearly-worth research results at the "top-question-top-answer" pages of John Templeton Foundation (e.g. http://www.templeton.org/questions/purpose/ ) for a brief “evidence� (if you still need it). Such is the ultimate purpose of this part of the universe, this ambiguous philosophy by “our great scientists�, but it could be much better, for $70 million per year, what do you think? I think it should and know how it CAN, really. You're welcome with your best hopes.
Templeton was not one to tread the beaten path, and his fortune is ample scientific evidence of his ability to do so in a highly effective and successful manner. His foundation seems to be like him. Researchers need funds to support their work, and the Templeton Foundation has provided funds to support work that tests a high-risk, high-payoff field of research that is way off the last century's beaten path of science: the interface between science and faith (or religion). The nature of this sector is a little like the development of the light bulb. A thousand failures are to be expected, and they are not proof that the search is futile. It is very different from the "normal science" as defined by Kuhn, and much more like a very early "prescience" (also defined by Kuhn). Normal science makes incremental steps in directions that it already understands very, very well. The field of science and religion has a long, long way to go before it could ever be thought of as a normal science -- and an equally long way to go before it could be held to the standards of a normal science. Those scientists who scoff at the work supported by the Templeton Foundation may not know the history of science, nor do they seem to know how science can gradually emerge from a starting point of general confusion. It can be a long, messy process, and it takes guts, vision, and deep pockets to fund such work. But at the end there are the benefits, too. The benefit of work supported by the Templeton Foundation may extend well beyond the religious sector of society. It would not surprise me if Templeton-supported work ultimately helps us to better understand the nature of the mind (not the brain). Psychology can tell us much about what the mind does, but almost nothing about what the mind is. Even physics may benefit. If there was a big bang that created the universe, then where did that explosion come from? If it was something that was not created, then it is not part of creation. As scientists, we then have a problem: all of our scientific apparatus was developed to study creation -- the physical universe around us. In fact, our current version of the scientific method stipulates that the only valid observables are physical observables (this comes not from scientists but from a group of philosophers, the Vienna Circle, who promoted this belief starting about 100 years ago). The Vienna Circle's philosophy, that the only valid observables are physical observables, have served us extremely well -- as long as we are studying the physical universe. However, I think that philosophy is hindering us when we are faced with non-physical domains. If such an uncreated domain is real, then it might be valid for study scientifically. Obviously, we'd be looking for the stable aspects of that domain. However, it would likely require that the Vienna Circle's recent addition to the scientific method be very, very carefully reconsidered. It will take much time and effort to establish reliable scientific methodology beyond the limits of the Vienna Circle's philosophy. I'm glad John Templeton is funding it. I just wish it was quicker. (And no, I don't have any Templeton funds.)
This issue of Nature is filled with questions about decisions and whether they are or were appropriate. It is not possible to separate the pursuit of science and education from questions about how values, how they have emerged, and what fundamental values are appropriate for determining the future of humanity. The Templeton Foundation has focussed attention on this most significant area, and for that we can be extremely grateful. It is equally true that whenever attention is focussed on a significant topic, insignificant related topics get more than their appropriate share of attention. In this the Templeton legacy is neither better nor worse than any other funding process.
This issue of Nature is filled with questions about decisions and whether they are or were appropriate. It is not possible to separate the pursuit of science and education from questions about how values, how they have emerged, and what fundamental values are appropriate for determining the future of humanity. The Templeton Foundation has focussed attention on this most significant area, and for that we can be extremely grateful. It is equally true that whenever attention is focussed on a significant topic, insignificant related topics get more than their appropriate share of attention. In this the Templeton legacy is neither better nor worse than any other funding process.
The Templeton Foundation appears to be interested in science and christianity alone. I have sent my books to the foundation on a computer model of the universe based on the Quran and science. I have defined life based on that and I have presented sufficient evidences to show the current molecular gene concept involving a chemical structure (DNA, RNA, etc.) is wrong and misleading. But there was no response, not even a regret for courtsey sake.