The Fleecing of Sir John

(Note: Originally Posted 1-18-05)

When I first heard of the Templeton Foundation, founded by Sir John Templeton, I was thrilled at the prospects. The endeavor to unite the study of science and religion was much needed and timely. Science had long since gone off the deep end in its embrace of philosophical materialism; the trend had become so advanced that the unsophisticated, unable to divorce the philosophy from the practice, believed science was materialism. And the study of religion had retreated under the advance of creeping secularism; in the seminary, spiritual insight was replaced by pop psychology exported from rat studies.

I entertained the hope that Sir John Templeton's funds would revitalize the dialogue between science and religion and, in the process, lift both studies out of their primitive states.

The rigor of science would force religion to abandon outdated dogma; religion would be forced to refocus on spiritual reality. Religious thought, on the other hand, would awaken science from its slumber under the blanket of myopic materialistic philosophy. The Templeton dialogue would revitalize the age-old push into the frontiers of human knowledge.

The reality of the Templeton Foundation, however, turned out to be something very different...

My first exposure to the Foundation's philanthropy was a lecture given by Pascal Boyer at the University of California at Santa Barbara as part of the "Science, Religion, and Human Experience" program. Dr. Boyer's lecture paralleled his book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought.

Boyer's thesis hypothesized religion evolved out of the primitive mind: religion was an evolutionary artifact of pre-historic jungle events. The brain, according to this theory, contained trace genetic memories of a time when Man rationalized natural phenomena into supernatural theology. Saint Augustine simply echoed the trembling of an ape before the approaching storm.

Boyer's work, however, lacked evidence, and logic. His narrative was implausible, it read like an improvised fairy tale a father invents to lull a restless child to sleep. His theory was so insubstantial, so disconnected from spiritual reality that it aroused cynical awe: How could someone present such wild conjecture with a straight face?

Given this was a Templeton funded lecture, I was certain someone with a modicum of knowledge regarding religion, theology, and spirituality would be in attendance. Dr. Boyer would be challenged to support his thesis. Given the academic setting, I assumed scientists in the audience would point out the lack of rigor in Boyer's work.

To my chagrin and astonishment no one raised a question regarding the work's validity. The nearest theologian or monk might as well have been on retreat on Mars. Host Dr. Jim Proctor (of UCSB’s geography department) ignored questions submitted from the audience asking Boyer to supply evidence to support his idea; instead, he tossed out a few "softball" questions then closed the discussion.

A dialogue between science and religion? The lecture fell significantly short of such billing. If the event had been billed as a roast with religion as its guest, the public relations would have been more accurate.

As I hiked to the parking lot in a light drizzle, I wondered if Sir John had any idea he was being fleeced. Did he know religion was being dragged through the mud, mocked as the invention of prehistoric primates, and represented to be an evolutionary quirk which had outlived its usefulness?

My hopes for the future of the Templeton Foundation dimmed. Maybe this one lecture had simply slipped past without scrutiny. The lack of dialogue was perhaps an accident. The theologian, or the monk, who represented a contrary view had perhaps been called away at the last moment on more important matters. Hope springs eternal.

Recently, however, my attention was drawn to a new program funded by Templeton and administered by Dr. Proctor. The previous event, it appears, was no fluke. The new program, also bankrolled by Sir John—as part of the continuing "dialogue" between science and religion—had on its panel two primate researchers! Does Sir John believe understanding baboons brings spiritual enlightenment?

Reading further in the literature, I found, among other participants, a member of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science. Figuring this participant , Antje Jackelén, might be the source of a counter-balancing view, I visited the Zygon site. There I found she "spoke in evolutionary terms." Phrases like "religious naturalism" were abundant. (The phrase religious naturalism wins my nomination for Oxymoron of the Year, as religion addresses the supernatural realm while naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural.)

After considerable pondering, I arrived at the conclusion that Sir John Templeton is being soundly fleeced. He could not possibly be aware his funding is used to support the argument that religion is the product of an ape roaming the Savannah long ago. Aside from being nonsense science, such unsupportable conjectures are the antithesis of religion and spirituality. Religion's grave is being excavated with shovels paid for by Sir John. The ground may be hard, but the grave diggers are determined and well-funded. Sir John wanted a dialogue with science; instead, he has funded a Requiem.