Content deleted Content added
→Physics: Added the QISS grants, quite sizeable recent grants in physics given by the foundation |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.3 |
||
Line 240:
Critics have asserted that the foundation has supported Christian-oriented research in the field of the scientific [[religious studies|study of religions]],<ref name=Wiebe>{{cite journal|last=Wiebe|first=Donald|title=Religious Biases in Funding Religious Studies Research?|url=https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/125290/2_Religio_17-2009-2_6.pdf|journal=Religio: Revue Pro Religionistiku|volume=XVII|number=2|year=2009|pages=125–140|issn=1210-3640}} p. 126.</ref> although the foundation has awarded both the Templeton Prize and numerous grants to persons of widely varied religious backgrounds, having provided extensive funding of Islamic scholarship, Buddhist research, and Jewish public engagement. ''Wired'' magazine has noted that "the scientists who apply to the foundation for support, though, are not required to state their religious beliefs, or to have any".<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/1999/06/sir-john/|title=Sir John's Divine Gamble|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|first=Gary|last=Wolf|date=June 1, 1999}}</ref> In 2006, [[John Horgan (journalist)|John Horgan]], a 2005 Templeton-Cambridge fellow then working as a freelance science journalist, wrote in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' that he had enjoyed his fellowship, but felt guilty that by taking money from the foundation, he had contributed to the mingling of science with religion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.johnhorgan.org/the_templeton_foundation__a_skeptic_s_take_52371.htm|title=The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic's Take|publisher=John Horgan|date=7 April 2006}}</ref> Horgan stated "misgivings about the foundation's agenda of reconciling religion and science". He said that a conference he attended favored scientists who "offered a perspective clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity."<ref name="Edge Horgan">{{cite web|url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html|title=The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic's Take|last=Horgan|first=John|date=4 May 2006|website=Edge}}</ref> Horgan fears recipients of large grants from the foundation sometimes write what the foundation wants rather than what they believe.<ref name="Edge Horgan"/> [[Richard Dawkins]], in his 2006 book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', interprets Horgan as saying that "Templeton's money corrupts science", and characterizes the prize as going "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion".<ref name='GodDelusion'>{{cite book|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|title=The God Delusion|publisher=Black Swan|year=2006|location=UK|isbn=9780552773317|page=183}}</ref> Donald Wiebe, scholar of [[religious studies]] at the [[University of Toronto]], similarly criticized the foundation in a 2009 article entitled ''Religious Biases in Funding Religious Studies Research?''. According to him, the foundation supports Christian bias in the field of religious studies, by deliberately imposing constraints to steer the results of the research.<ref name=Wiebe/>
[[Paul Davies]], physicist and 1995 Templeton Prize laureate, gave a defense of the foundation's role in the scientific community in the ''Times Higher Education Supplement'' in March 2005.<ref>{{cite web|title=Seeking inspiration in science|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/seeking-inspiration-in-science/194642.article|date=11 March 2005|website=Times Higher Education}}</ref> In 2010, journalist [[Nathan Schneider]] published a lengthy investigative article about the foundation, entitled ''God, Science and Philanthropy'', in ''[[The Nation]]''. In the article, he aired complaints about the foundation, but observed that many of its critics and grantees alike failed to appreciate "the breadth of the foundation's activities, much less the quixotic vision of its founder, John Templeton". Schneider observed: "At worst, Templeton could be called heterodox and naïve; at best, his was a mind more open than most, reflective of the most inventive and combinatorial strains of American religious thought, eager to radically reinterpret ancient wisdom and bring it up to speed with some version from the present."<ref name=schneider>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy?page=full|title=God, Science and Philanthropy|newspaper=The Nation|date=3 June 2010|last1=Schneider|first1=Nathan|access-date=3 March 2011|archive-date=11 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190211190640/http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy?page=full|url-status=dead}}</ref> Though the foundation, in Schneider's view, "has associated itself with political and religious forces that cause it to be perceived as threatening the integrity of science and protecting the religious status quo," these alliances meant the foundation "is also better positioned than most to foster a conservatism—and a culture generally—that holds the old habits of religions and business responsible to good evidence, while helping scientists better speak to people's deepest concerns".<ref name=schneider/> In 2011, the science journal ''Nature'' took note of the ongoing controversy among scientists over working with Templeton.<ref name="Nature2011"/> [[Jerry Coyne]], [[University of Chicago]] evolutionary biologist, sees a fundamental impossibility in attempting to reconcile faith with science.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/nature-on-templeton/|title=''Nature'' on Templeton|website=Why Evolution Is True|date=6 February 2011}}</ref> Coyne told ''Nature'' writer Mitchell Waldrop that the foundation's purpose is to eliminate the wall between religion and science, and to use science's prestige to validate religion. Other scientists, including Foundation grantees like University of Chicago psychologist John Cacioppo and Anthony Aguirre, a University of California—Santa Cruz astrophysicist, told ''Nature'' that they have never felt pressured by Templeton to spin their research toward religion-friendly conclusions.<ref name="Nature2011"/>
Sunny Bains of [[University College London]] Faculty of Engineering Science claimed that there is "evidence of cronyism (especially in the awarding in those million-dollar-plus Templeton prizes), a misleading attempt to move away from using religious language (without changing the religious agenda), [and] the funding of right-wing anti-science groups".<ref>{{cite web|last=Bains|first=Sunny|title=Keeping an eye on the John Templeton Foundation|date=6 April 2011|url=https://www.absw.org.uk/news-and-events/news/keeping-an-eye-on-the-john-templeton-foundation}}</ref> Bains feels that grants from the foundation "blur the line between science and religion". Bains' claims have been disputed by Josh Rosenau of the [[National Center for Science Education]], who wrote that "the story [Bains] wrote is not convincing", stating that "[k]ey assertions are couched in equivocal language that relies on her judgment or her assumptions, not on any evidence offered to the reader", and that "[o]bvious opportunities for detailed investigation – financial records, grantmaking decisions, interviews with Templeton staff, interviews with grantees, examination of correspondence between grantees and Templeton – are entirely absent".<ref>{{cite web|last=Rosenau|first=Josh|url=http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/03/how_bad_is_the_templeton_found.php|title=How bad is the Templeton Foundation? – Thoughts from Kansas|publisher=Scienceblogs.com|date=5 March 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502174515/http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/03/how_bad_is_the_templeton_found.php|archive-date=2 May 2012}}</ref>
| |||