Physicist Sean Carroll and@YourTitleSucksagree . The answer is “ No . ”
Slate has republisheda reckon - stimulate essayby author , blogger and physicist Sean Carroll about why he wo n’t take money from the John Templeton Foundation , “ a philanthropic organization that supports research into the ‘ self-aggrandizing Questions of human design and ultimate reality , ’ encourages ‘ dialogue among scientist , philosopher , and theologian , ’ and seeks to use skill to adopt ‘ new spiritual information . ' ” In other Bible : the JTF seeks to unify scientific discipline and organized religion .
Carroll ’s essay is in the end about two brands of moderatism : the first ontological , the 2nd pro . The former , he affirm , is impossible . He refuses to forge immediately with or accept funding from the JTF , because he believes their foreign mission undermines the role of scientist to be as “ decipherable and lineal and tacky ” about the nature of reality as potential , and that “ collaborating with organization like Templeton inevitably thin out that message . ”
The latter , however , is doable – at least in Carroll ’s eye . While he will not accept financial support from JTP directly , he readily acknowledge that he will mould with masses who do take money from JTF , “ money that is appropriately laundered , if you will , ” if he consider them to be worth “ collaborate with in their own right . ” This commit him in a bit of a berth :
This mean that more or less nobody agrees with me ; the Templeton - friendly folk cogitate I ’m too uptight and straight-laced , while the anti - Templeton faction finds me sadly lacking in conviction . So be it . These are issues without well-off answer , and I do n’t mind take a heady middle basis .
I worry that Carroll ’s piece will excise some people as hypocritical , for at least two reasons that I can recollect of .
1 . There ’s the obvious one : Carroll ’s “ doubly - removed ” policy of address JTF money and his “ deficiency of conviction ” to the naturalist / atheist crusade . He remark this himself in his small-arm , and it ’s something he has efficaciously asked us to : : sunglasses : : get by With , as is his right .
2 . Carroll ’s assertion that professional quandaries such as where do I get my funding ? are “ issues without easy answers , ” whereas conundrums like is there a gamey power ? are n’t really conundrum at all .
Now , it ’s well-defined to me why the 2nd criticism would make sense had Carroll ’s piece been write in a vacuum cleaner – but it was n’t . In fact , it ’s part of a long , ongoing , and really quite full-grown debate on Accommodationism ( which is just another name for the disputation over whether science and faith can be reconcile ) . This debate plainly goes back many , many years , but it was recently reignite in a major way by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne ; his book , Why Evolution is True ; andhis eponymous blog . If you really want to dig into this stuff , I highly recommend check up on outCoyne ’s collection of blog postal service cataloguing the opposing viewpoints on the case of Accommodationism – includingthis one , by Carroll , wherein he explicate in much more formal , well - delineated terms why he finds science and religion so out or keeping .
“ On Templeton ” – Carroll ’s original blog post , date May 8 , 2013 , republished today at Slate under the heading“Science and Religion Ca n’t be settle ” – a headline that would have been better suit for :
“ Science and Religion are not Compatible ” – A post by Carroll go out June , 2009 , wherein he explicate in greater detail his take on Accommodationism , in the wake of the keep up serial publication of web log posts :
“ The Big Accommodationism Debate – Relevant Posts ” – A series of blog posts , foregather by Jerry Coyne , on the subject of Accommodationism .
atheismPhysicsScience
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , scientific discipline , and culture news in your inbox day by day .
News from the future , delivered to your present .
You May Also Like
