On the theory that it is good to mention events before they happen, so that interested parties might actually choose to attend, check out the upcoming Skeptics Society conference: Origins: the Big Questions. It will be at Caltech, and will take just one day, Saturday October 4, with a pre-conference dinner the previous night, Friday the 3rd. The day’s events are divided into two parts. In the morning you get a bunch of talks on the origins of big things — I’ll be talking on the origin of time, Leonard Susskind on the origin of the laws of physics, Paul Davies on the origin of the universe, Donald Prothero on the origin of life, and Christof Koch on the origin of consciousness.
Then in the afternoon they change gears, and start talking about science and religion. Names involved include Stuart Kauffman, Kenneth Miller, Nancey Murphy, Michael Shermer, Philip Clayton, Vic Stenger, and Hugo Ross. It’s this part of the event that has stirred up a tiny bit of controversy, as it is co-sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, famous appliers of lipstick to the pig that is the interface between science and religion. It’s legitimate to wonder why the Skeptics Society is getting mixed up with Templeton at all, and it’s been discussed a bit in our beloved blogosphere: see Bad Astronomy, Pharyngula, and Richard Dawkins.
I am on the record as saying that scientists should be extremely leery of accepting money from organizations with any sort of religious orientation, and Templeton in particular. (Happily, in this case the speakers aren’t getting any money at all, so at least that temptation wasn’t part of the calculation.) But it’s by no means a cut-and-dried issue, as we’ve seen in discussions of the Foundational Questions Institute.
Personally, I prefer not to have the chocolate of my science mixed up with the peanut butter of somebody else’s religion, and certainly not without clear labeling — peanut allergies can be pretty severe. But if someone wants to explicitly put on a peanut butter cup conference, that’s fine, and I don’t have any problem with participating. The problem with the Templeton Foundation is not that they coerce scientists into repudiating their beliefs through the promise of piles of cash; it’s that, by providing easy money to promote certain kinds of discussions, those discussions begin to seem more prominent and important than they really are. Perhaps, without any Templeton funding, the Origins conference would have devoted much less time to the science-and-religion questions, leaving much more time for interesting science discussions. This would have given outsiders a more accurate view of the role that religion plays in current scientific work on these foundational questions: to wit, none whatsoever.
The Templeton Foundation has every right to exist, and sponsor conferences. And there is undoubtedly a danger among atheists that they get caught up in a “holier than thou” competition — “I’m so atheist that I won’t even talk to people if they believe in God!” Which gets a little silly. I don’t think there’s anything explicitly wrong with the Origins conference; the Templeton-sponsored part is clearly labeled and set off from the rest, and it might end up being interesting. (Also, the conference concludes with Mr. Deity — how awesome is that?) Michael Shermer’s own take is here. But I look forward to a day when discussions of deep questions concerning the origin of the universe and of life can take place without the concept of God ever arising.
Slippery slope… Soon you’ll be speaking in tongues like Sarah Palin. 😉
I object to the association of peanut butter to religion. Religion might be a little nutty sometimes, but it is rarely delicious on a sandwich with jelly.
That important point out of the way, I agree that there’s a dangerous line to walk when working with the “other side.” But, sometimes I feel as though we have no choice — if the general public is obsessed with religion vs. science, maybe it’s best that we address it in a pro-science environment.
Yea I’m having a hard time getting past that part of the (delicious) analogy.
Perhaps it’s not the CONTENT of the discussion between religion and science, but the FORM. Both sides too often treat the other with condescension & bemused contempt. “I look forward to a day when discussions of deep questions concerning the origin of the universe and of life can take place without the concept of God ever arising.” When people of faith here that, they undoubtedly will respond with “I look forward to a day when discussions of deep questions concerning the origin of the universe and of life can take place without the concept of physics ever arising.” And then where are we? Two groups with their arms folded across their chests, rolling their eyes at one another. Yes, I know – readers of this blog have no problem with the first sentence, but scoff at the second. Shouldn’t discussion be able to engage ALL thinkers, without dismissing any out of hand? And it’s no fair responding that people of faith are not “thinkers.” You don’t get to decide that.
Who is Hugo Ross? I know of Hugh Ross, who is a nutjob who thinks that string theory proves Christianity among other things. (If he’s the person you meant, the event just lost all credibility!) But who is Hugo Ross?
Hell, I checked the website. It IS Hugh Ross. Sean, if it were me I would withdraw immediately rather than lend this guy even the impression of credibility. At a minimum make sure you read his web site ahead of time so you’ll know what’s coming.
See also THE TEMPLETON FOUNDATION: A SKEPTIC’S TAKE by John Horgan
@Paul M.
>>Shouldn’t discussion be able to engage ALL thinkers, without dismissing any out of hand?
Yes. However, people who believe that you can have a discussion of the origins of the universe without talking about physics aren’t thinking. If you think that it’s a legitimate position, you aren’t thinking. I would like to hear your defense of the position “Being able to account for the physical laws of the universe is not at all necessary in serious discussions of how the universe came to be”.
Archgoon:
That’s the whole point – I DON’T think that’s a legitimate position, but by the same token, neither is the position that concepts of God can be utterly ignored, even if they seem to be utterly incompatible with Physics.
…if only I could hop on a plane down to Caltech. That sounds like a really interesting conference.
Hmmm – so is the “holier than thou” the reason for people talking about “athiest”? “I’m the athiest atheist here! Wayyyyy athier than thou.”
Why would you make such a statement? What if the Templeton Foundation decided to fun medical research? Should biologists, physicians, etc. be leery of accepting that funding? Should they also refuse to work at Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish universities or hospitals?
Gee, that’s awfully generous of you, Sean, to grant them that right. I think that your hositlity to religion is not due to the fact that you’re an atheist. Rather, it appears that you think that you are God and you’re upset that all of the major world religions disagree.
I certainly can’t believe that you are God. The band Squeeze was not that great, merely OK. I can’t worship a god who doesn’t understand that.
You’re not going to blog about the demise of LCDM and the Dark Flow?
Hey King Cynic, why should Sean withdraw just because the conference is also going to feature a debate between Vic Stenger and Hugh Ross?
The presentations in the morning and the debate later in the day are two different things.
I do hope that Dr Carroll will give us his thoughts about Susskind’s talk, which promises to be very interesting.
#12. Everyone is God, atman=brahman.
No, science makes belief in God unnecessary.
Now having answered the central question of the conference, I will move on to more serious things.
Sean you should read B’s link and, please, at least accept the $15000 🙂
It’s too bad that there are no big thinkers that can separate god from religion and magic. Maybe god is just logic itself or an extension of number theory. Sure, religion is icky, but why blame that on god? God had nothing to do with it.
It’s amazing how people can entertain absurd notions like infinite parallel universes, with no corroborating observation of any kind, yet they can’t possibly believe that the physical proof of the existence of god can be observed by gazing into a flat reflective surface at a perpendicular angle.
Will transcripts or audio from the conference be available online or in print?
I think Michael Shermer’s opinion should be the final word for anyone who is worried about the Templeton Foundation.
Hi Sean, wish I could catch the morning talks, look really good.
Re aftrenoon talks, I was pleasantly surprised at a Cambridge confrence on science and religion last suumer. I’m not religious, but I found that some theologians can pose great questions concerning the philosophical implications of science . To be honest, some of the discussions were much more interesting than those I’ve had with certain (not all) philosophers, who focus almost exclusively on how science is done).
Regards, Cormac
Hugh Ross is an evangelical Christian and an astronomer. His organization, Reasons to Believe, has been in existence for over 20 years. Hugh and members of his organization show how scientific discoveries are congruent with the creation accounts given in the Christian Bible. Hugh is a polite, soft spoken man who has made presentations at major universities across the US, and he is well received wherever he goes.
Some commentators to this blog may be shocked to learn that science in general has been converging toward the views of Hugh Ross. I suspect that is why he was invited to the “Origins” conference at CalTech. Evidence for this convergence can be found in Hugh’s recent book Creation as Science and in articles on his web site.
Doing science is a faith-based enterprise. Paul Davies has given strong arguments supporting that assertion. Even Sean Carroll implicitly accepts that assertion when he says in his SciAm article, “we seek an understanding of the laws of nature and of our particular universe in which everything makes sense to us.” He has faith that the universe will make sense to him. But why should it? The interplay between science and religion is here to stay.
What is God? Is it the source of consciousness, or an all-knowing ideal entity?
They are not the same. Consciousness is a bottom up emergent phenomena, while knowledge is a top down ordering of available information, of which there is no ideal, since an objective perspective is an oxymoron.
It is politically convenient to base religious faith on a top down model, as it validates top down political, social and economic structures, but since there is no ultimate top down ideal, the various structures which presume to this assumption tend to find themselves in mortal conflict.
Religions originated as tribal tradition and Gods as tribal spirits, of which individuals were parts of the larger whole. This bottom up origin of theology does make sense from a biological perspective, as we as individual members of society are essentially a form of organic parallel processor in which our intellectual complexity is a reaction to the complex reality we engage. Thus, like other swarming beings, we overwhelm obstacles.
Physicists tend to be reductionists and view reality in terms of its components/particles. Other sciences, such as biology and other life sciences, have moved on and view reality from the wholistic perspective of process, with function as cause and form as effect, so the evolutionary function of religion is normative.
We actually talked about this same issue a bit at the first annual Skeptrack at Dragon*Con as well.
I have ALWAYS found religion fascinating, when I left college my councilor tried to get me to finish off a few more credits so I could possibly get a full degree in Theology. I had to tell her that I took those classes because I find religion fascinating, I think everyone should know how different people see the world and why they might believe in whatever ‘supreme’ being that they think is ruling the natural world.
As my dad has always told me; “Derek, let us say there IS a god, or deity, do you REALLY think that anyone here on Earth has a clue what we need to do to keep whatever it is happy?”.
And, to me, that pretty much says it all.
My bet is that this will be the best attended event you’ve ever had!
It’s always odd to me when I hear people saying that they would like to discuss the origin of the universe without mention of a Creator as being responsible for it. It’s kind of like people wanting to talk about the creation of a work of art without ever mentioning the artist – did the painting just appear, as they say, out of nothing?
I encourage all of you to give Dr. Hugh Ross a listen. He is a top rate scientist. I also encourage you to put his creation model to the scientific test at this event. You’ll be surprised how well it fares under intense scientific scrutiny.