4 ms·

It links to two articles from the Templeton Foundation, which is plainly a (Catholic) religious organisation trying to inject themselves and their dogma into "s

It links to two articles from the Templeton Foundation, which is plainly a (Catholic) religious organisation trying to inject themselves and their dogma into "science". Wonder if the author is even aware, as the rest of it looks quite thoroughly researched and without ulterior religious motives. edit: not strictly Catholic, apparently, thanks Keiferski.

keiferski 3y ago
I don’t see anywhere that lists them as a Catholic organization. They seem to sponsor papers that are at the “intersection of science and religion” which is a fairly broad category. The founder himself was a Presbyterian, so I don’t know why his foundation would be Catholic. They also seem to have sponsored Buddhists, Hindus, and many other religious groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Thank you for calling this out. It puts this into perspective, it is a long article with ton of video's, ton of quotes, which is a technique I've noticed with some religious organizations putting a spin on science. Take a lot of science citations and examples and simply spin them differently to fit your desire. Here, what he is going for is to add 'Agency' back in to us, because the entire Religious Framework of Sin falls apart in a mechanistic universe. They must put some kind of Agency back into humans so they can have 'free will', so humans can make 'choices', and thus be liable for their Sin. You can't have a judgmental God, if the humans he created can't make a choice. Or - More Sympathetic interpretation. Maybe this guy isn't pushing the Sin/Choice issue, and is trying to go back to the Schopenhauer "Will to Power" type interpretation. But if he is going for this, it would be nicer to call that out a little more clearly.
- yamrzou 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive > Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.
  - jungturk 3y ago
    That's because its inordinately expensive to prove that a motive contributed directly so we resort to heuristics. This asymmetry is well understood and exploited for disinformation purposes (though there's often some collateral damage inflicted on nuanced sources, as you mention).
subanima 3y ago
All biologists interested in agency are keenly aware of Templeton's religious slant. Unfortunately we live under capitalism and scientists have to get paid from somewhere. Most standard funding bodies are not willing to fund agency research as teleology is seen to be deeply unscientific. Johannes Jaeger is one such researcher in this area who has written a blog post about this concern: http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/pushing-the-boundaries http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/pushing-the-boundaries Quote from the article: "I've been trying to get my research into organismic agency funded by public funders for years now, without the slightest chance of success. The project is heavily transdisciplinary, trying to redefine how scientists see evolving spaces of the possible, expanding our view of what is a valid scientific explanation beyond strict mechanicism (yet still rigorous and naturalistic), challenging our mechanistic view of organismic behavior and biological evolution, while attempting the impossible task of simulating a whole cell or organism (see below). No panel at any funding body other than Templeton was open minded enough or could muster the transdisciplinary expertise to judge such a project properly and fairly. Also: gatekeepers will be gatekeeping, especially in committees set up by public funders. Templeton offers me a unique opportunity to escape these problematic institutional constraints. Whatever their motives to do this, this project is almost sure to drastically reduce the space for supernatural mysticism in biology rather than justify it in any way."
- ddgflorida 3y ago
  There's nothing unfortunate about living under capitalism. Capitalism has reduced poverty more than any other economic system.
uoaei 3y ago
You may be conflating "giving alternative perspectives for a more holistic picture" and "attempting to supplant one perspective with another to advance one's own agenda".

keiferski 3y ago

I don’t see anywhere that lists them as a Catholic organization. They seem to sponsor papers that are at the “intersection of science and religion” which is a fairly broad category. The founder himself was a Presbyterian, so I don’t know why his foundation would be Catholic. They also seem to have sponsored Buddhists, Hindus, and many other religious groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Thank you for calling this out. It puts this into perspective, it is a long article with ton of video's, ton of quotes, which is a technique I've noticed with some religious organizations putting a spin on science. Take a lot of science citations and examples and simply spin them differently to fit your desire. Here, what he is going for is to add 'Agency' back in to us, because the entire Religious Framework of Sin falls apart in a mechanistic universe. They must put some kind of Agency back into humans so they can have 'free will', so humans can make 'choices', and thus be liable for their Sin. You can't have a judgmental God, if the humans he created can't make a choice. Or - More Sympathetic interpretation. Maybe this guy isn't pushing the Sin/Choice issue, and is trying to go back to the Schopenhauer "Will to Power" type interpretation. But if he is going for this, it would be nicer to call that out a little more clearly.

yamrzou 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive > Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.
- jungturk 3y ago
  That's because its inordinately expensive to prove that a motive contributed directly so we resort to heuristics. This asymmetry is well understood and exploited for disinformation purposes (though there's often some collateral damage inflicted on nuanced sources, as you mention).

subanima 3y ago

All biologists interested in agency are keenly aware of Templeton's religious slant. Unfortunately we live under capitalism and scientists have to get paid from somewhere. Most standard funding bodies are not willing to fund agency research as teleology is seen to be deeply unscientific. Johannes Jaeger is one such researcher in this area who has written a blog post about this concern: http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/pushing-the-boundaries http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/pushing-the-boundaries Quote from the article: "I've been trying to get my research into organismic agency funded by public funders for years now, without the slightest chance of success. The project is heavily transdisciplinary, trying to redefine how scientists see evolving spaces of the possible, expanding our view of what is a valid scientific explanation beyond strict mechanicism (yet still rigorous and naturalistic), challenging our mechanistic view of organismic behavior and biological evolution, while attempting the impossible task of simulating a whole cell or organism (see below). No panel at any funding body other than Templeton was open minded enough or could muster the transdisciplinary expertise to judge such a project properly and fairly. Also: gatekeepers will be gatekeeping, especially in committees set up by public funders. Templeton offers me a unique opportunity to escape these problematic institutional constraints. Whatever their motives to do this, this project is almost sure to drastically reduce the space for supernatural mysticism in biology rather than justify it in any way."

ddgflorida 3y ago
There's nothing unfortunate about living under capitalism. Capitalism has reduced poverty more than any other economic system.

uoaei 3y ago

You may be conflating "giving alternative perspectives for a more holistic picture" and "attempting to supplant one perspective with another to advance one's own agenda".