THERE ought to be a debate about whether this or any other science magazine should accept advertisements from .
鈥淚t is not in science鈥檚 interests to run ads from the Templeton Foundation鈥�
This institution, which aims to promote a connection between religion and science, spends large sums of money supporting research in theoretical physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and social science. It acknowledges that its interests are as much religious as scientific; its include 鈥渘ew concepts of God鈥�, 鈥減rayer and meditation鈥�, 鈥渟piritual capital鈥�, 鈥渟piritual transformation鈥�, 鈥渦nconditional love鈥� and 鈥渨orship鈥�.
Advertisement
Empirical inquiry into why people hold beliefs about such matters or engage in such practices might be desirable, but spiritual capital and the rest are subjects of a quite different kind from particle physics or biochemistry. Mixing them is surely an attempt to give religion some of the respectability of science and to challenge the boundaries between them.
One can put the point more robustly by asking whether it would be acceptable to publish ads from bodies wishing to promote astrology or tarot readings. The single difference between religion (which may be defined as faith-based credence in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe) and astrology or tarot divination is that religion has been institutionalised, and as such has been greatly influential in most societies and still retains its hold in many. The evidential base for beliefs in the existence of supernatural agencies is little different from that for astral influences or the effectiveness of divination. Their hold on credence is historical, not empirical; they are not subject to experimental test; and they require the suspension rather than the support of rational consideration.
Sceptics might regard the foundation鈥檚 ample funding as a form of inducement, tempting some who do not subscribe to religion to temporise, so that what they say can be construed as leaving the door ajar for 鈥渘ew concepts of God鈥�, 鈥渟piritual transformation鈥� and other aspects of the Templeton agenda. That reflects the foundation鈥檚 primary aim: to maintain a space for religious considerations to be raised in scientific contexts.
Let us look at an even more questionable effort to keep religious belief alive in the face of scientific progress, this time not by efforts to forge connections but by outright opposition. In the US and elsewhere seeks to combat evolutionary biology, partly by propaganda (鈥渃reation museums鈥� have vegetarian tyrannosauruses playing peacefully with children in Eden) and partly by trying to get equal time for intelligent-design creationism in school curricula.
This endeavour has found fertile ground in Louisiana (see 鈥淓volution, global warming and cloning: up for grabs in Louisiana鈥�). Previous attempts to insert creationist teaching into classrooms having failed, the Discovery Institute-backed lobby has persuaded the state to adopt a bill authorising use of unspecified 鈥渟upplementary materials鈥� in biology classes, allowing science teachers to hold discussions that challenge traditional theories, including evolution, cloning and global warming.
New Scientist would not take advertising from the Discovery Institute; it refuses ads from any organisation that says 鈥淕od is the answer鈥�. But the magazine argues that taking money from the Templeton Foundation is different because it aims only to promote discussion between science and religion.
I agree that the Templeton Foundation is more moderate than the Discovery Institute, but it shares a goal with it: to keep religion in science. Is this in the interests of science and science education? I think not, and I would question whether to run its advertisements in these pages.