[Templeton Foundation] Initiative will join physics, theology

Boston Globe ^ | 31 July 2006 | Gareth Cook

[PatrickHenry]

The John Templeton Foundation, a $1.1 billion philanthropy devoted to bringing science and religion together, is launching an ambitious international effort to fund physics research with potential theological implications.

Based in Cambridge and led by an MIT physics professor, the new Foundational Questions Institute is scheduled to announce its first round of grants today -- a total of $2.2 million to 30 physicists at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and other top institutions.

The institute will not tackle explicitly religious questions like ``Does God exist?" but will instead focus on deep questions in physics that may be too speculative or philosophical for government funding. The first round of grants will support scientists interested in a wide range of questions, such as whether the fundamental laws of nature seem specially designed to allow life, and whether there are truths about the universe which physics is inherently incapable of proving.

[Snip]

The Templeton Foundation has been quite influential in encouraging academic research through a combination of massive resources and a fairly narrow focus on issues that lie at the boundaries of religion and science. The foundation has been critical of ``intelligent design," an idea that challenges modern biology and is supported by a few researchers, but Templeton has embraced controversial topics. For example, they recently funded experiments that showed prayer did not heal those who were prayed for. This work was criticized as misguided by some religious leaders, and as a waste of money by some scientists.

[Snip]

The institute's associate scientific director, physicist Anthony Aguirre [snip] said ... funding will allow physicists to be more creative and pursue the kinds of questions that brought them to the field.

``We are allowing a certain segment of scientists to work on what they really want to," Aguirre said.

[PatrickHenry]

The Boston Globe is an "excerpt only" source. Related info:

Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design? Excerpt from the Foundation's website:

The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. ... [T]he Foundation does not support the movement known as Intelligent Design as such, as an intellectual position or as a movement.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Ping

[freedumb2003]

I have no problem with this. A rigorous scientific study of things like "miracles" and "hauntings" would be interesting, to say the least.

The amerature use of sophisticated equipment on so-called "haunted places" has revealed some astonishing results (especially in infrared recordings).

But we would expect (actually demand) to see physical explanations for theological phenomena -- I hope the fundamentalists are ready for this.

[The_Victor]

For example, they recently funded experiments that showed prayer did not heal those who were prayed for.

This is interesting, because I saw a program on Discovery Channel, in which a double blind study demonstrated that prayer did have a positive effect on healing. I guess it wouldn't be the first time that such experiments gave contradictory results.

[RightWhale]

Good. It's about time the higher forms of learning and study were reunited.

[AustinBill]

Anyone who's followed the developments in theoretical physics over the past 20+ years cannot help but note how the outer reaches of "hard science" is deep into what would traditionally be called metaphysics these days.

I've long maintained that science will indeed find God, but also that none of the world's religions will be happy about this.

[VadeRetro]

The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge.

There's a key sentence which not only describes Templeton's position but the problem most people have with ID. Denying large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge can be more simply stated as "lying about what science has so far learned."

[PatrickHenry]

Denying large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge can be more simply stated as "lying about what science has so far learned."

The Templeton Foundation wants to learn things. They don't want to un-learn things. In particular, they aren't science rejectors, which is why they have nothing in common with ID promoters like the Discovery Institute.

[furball4paws]

Where will these guys publish their "findings"? Is there a mainstream journal that will accept papers from them - one with good editors and not wishful thinkers?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"We are allowing a certain segment of scientists to work on what they really want to," Aguirre said.

There aren't enough tenured professors wasting resources already?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Foundational Questions Institute

I hope they do some work in Dallas. Foundational questions abound, especially with the drought.

[Physicist]

Templeton has embraced controversial topics. For example, they recently funded experiments that showed prayer did not heal those who were prayed for. This work was criticized as misguided by some religious leaders, and as a waste of money by some scientists.

But those criticisms are based on the results of the study. If the study had shown that prayer was significantly effective in healing the sick, the reaction would have been different, I'd bet.

[PatrickHenry]

But those criticisms are based on the results of the study. If the study had shown that prayer was significantly effective in healing the sick, the reaction would have been different, I'd bet.

Like the Shroud of Turin. Radiometric dating methods are routinely rejected by creationists, but if the shroud had turned out to be 2,000 years old ...

Link to an article on the medical effect of prayer study funded by Templeton: Power of prayer flunks an unusual test.

[spunkets]

"The first round of grants will support scientists interested in a wide range of questions, such as whether the fundamental laws of nature seem specially designed to allow life."

It's obvious they do allow life, but "design" is another matter. Such a search would be out of reach by folks using the scientific method.

[spunkets]

" Power of prayer flunks an unusual test."

That's petitionary prayer. It's the kind where folks ask for special favors. For instance, praying for a contest win, miraculous healing, or some other miracle. This intervening physical force prayed for, has never been found.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Although physics has had a century of dramatic advances, there are widely acknowledged problems at the field's foundation. For example, the theory of quantum mechanics, which describes how particles behave, is inconsistent with the theory of how gravity works. Quantum mechanics raises questions that left Einstein uneasy, and have never been resolved.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

It's obvious they [the fundamental laws of nature] do allow life, but "design" is another matter. Such a search would be out of reach by folks using the scientific method.

I don't know how one would actually do research involving the anthropic principle. Once you get past the observation that we're here, and our existence is consistent with the laws of nature, I can't imagine what research could be done. This is likely to be the only universe of which we'll ever have experience, so for all we know, this is the only way a universe could possibly be.

True, we can imagine that the laws of nature might have been different, and if so, we wouldn't be here, but what's the point of such speculation? It's difficult to design experiments demonstrating that the universe should have been some other way, but for someThing's intentional tinkering.

On the other hand, if the laws of nature were actually discovered to be hostile to our existence, that could indicate that some tinkering had occurred. But if our observations indicate no incompatibility, I think we've gone as far as we can go with the issue.

[PatrickHenry]

Further thought: I said that if the universe were demonstrated to be incompatible with our existence, it would indicate that there may have been some tinkering to permit our existence. However, those who are so inclined can conjecture that the universe's compatibility with our existence is, itself, evidence of design.

Thus, compatibility with the universe indicates design; and incompatibility also indicates design. It's one of those propositions where design advocates can claim victory either way.