For Twenty Years, the Multimillion-Dollar John Temple- Ton

FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:39 PM Page 27

or twenty years, the multimillion-dollar John Temple- ton Foundation has pursued an agenda broadly understood as bringing science under the guiding handF of religion. (Last year, it granted $60 million to some three hundred projects.) During its life, the Foundation has moved steadily from the lowbrow fringes of our intellectual establishment to its respectable, highly privileged center. The methods by which this transformation was carried out have been crude but effective: the Foundation has simply bought up scientists, teachers, and educators.

27 http://www.secularhumanism.org June/July 2007 FI June-July 07 Pages 5/3/07 2:23 PM Page 28

But before there was a Templeton Foundation, there was the “deep ethical truths built into the physical universe” can only Templeton Prize. In 1972, financier John Templeton, who would be discovered, never invented; (2) that Professor Townes later create the Foundation, announced an annual “Templeton attributes his discovery of the maser to “a ‘revelation’ as real Prize for Progress in Religion.” The title was later amplified as any . . . described in the scriptures”; and (3) that Charles (although perhaps not clarified) to describe the prize as honor- Taylor, in his 2007 acceptance speech, praised “Sir John” for ing progress toward “Research or Discoveries about Spiritual recognizing the “crippling” effect of “barriers between science Realities.” By stipulating that his prize must “always be worth and spirituality,” and denounced Stephen Weinberg (a Nobel more than the Nobel,” Templeton spelled out in hard cash his Prize winner in cosmology) for declaring that “it takes religion” conviction that “spiritual discoveries can be quantifiably more to make “good people do bad things.” significant” than discoveries in the secular disciplines favored Not until 1987 did John Templeton create a grant-making by Nobel. Today, at almost one and a half million dollars, the institution around the framework of his annual prize, launch- Templeton Prize is the juiciest plum in the academic world. ing the John Templeton Foundation. Today, the Foundation sup- The first winners of the Templeton Prize were Mother ports some three hundred projects, many of which center on Teresa (1972) and Billy Graham (1973). Revered though these bringing science and religion closer together—usually, with recipients may have been as religious enthusiasts, neither religion in the dominant role. Another focus of Foundation giv- stood high in the scientific pecking order. In later years, the ing is research into the study of forgiveness. Templeton Prize would significantly upgrade its scientific and Through the years, the Templeton Prize, the Templeton Foundation, and John Templeton’s public mission have contin- ued to evolve. They are evolving still; only now can we begin to discern a new layer in the Templeton agenda. In John Templeton’s master strategy, corrupting science may be only “In John Templeton’s master strategy, corrupting the beginning.

science may be only the beginning.” THE ENDOWMENT MILL—AND WHO RUNS IT If the unparalleled Templeton Prize—and the scientific and religious virtuosos who nowadays tend to win it—occupy the ideological firmament of the Templeton universe, we can find academic standards. The 2000 awardee was theoretical physi- its terra firma among the myriad lesser grantees who receive cist Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus at Princeton’s a few thousand to a few hundred thousand dollars each: stu- Institute for Advanced Studies. Subsequent winners have dents, teachers, science writers, medical journalists, and col- included George F. R. Ellis (2004), the mathematician who co- leges and universities. Recipients are found all over the authored (with Stephen Hawking) The Large Scale Structure Western world, though especially in the United States and the of Space-Time; Charles Townes (2005), an astrophysics and United Kingdom. In the online journal Slate, David Plotz astronomy researcher at Berkeley, already a Nobel laureate for reported that Templeton disburses $10,000 a year each to one his work on microwaves, masers, and lasers; and Frank D. hundred colleges for sponsoring courses on the reciprocity of Barrow (2006), a physics professor at Cambridge and the co- science and religion, as well as comparable sums to “medical author (with Frank Tipler) of The Anthropic Cosmological schools for classes on healing and spirituality” (see Principle. The 2007 award (announced March 14) moves from www.slate.com/id/1822). It supports “empirical” research such cosmology to the social sciences: its Canadian-born winner, as the Duke University study into how prayer affects longevity, Charles Taylor, currently a professor of law and philosophy at as well as an investigation under way at Johns Hopkins on the Northwestern University, is perhaps best known for his massive impact of meditation on brain activity. It awards “lifetime study, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, achievement awards” to “conservative scholars”: past recipi- published by Harvard Press in 1989. ents include Gertrude Himmelfarb, Milton Friedman, Walter The Templeton organization is eager to show that its Williams, Julian Simon, and Mary Lefkowitz. awardees’ scientific distinction is matched by their spiritual The Templeton Honor Roll “celebrated 126 universities, luminosity. Thus, by way of the many-gated Templeton Web site departments and professors and even textbooks that upheld (www.templeton.org), we learn (1) that Professor Ellis believes traditional . . . educational values.” Open to adolescents, the “Laws of Life Contest” offers $2,000 prizes for essays about Alexander Saxton is a professor emeritus of history at the “spirituality.” The award “For Inspiring Movies and TV” University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of extends $25,000 subsidies to “shows that acclaim faith.” Mel books including The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ came in as a double winner Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth Century America in this category for $50,000. (1990, 2003) and Religion and the Human Prospect (2006). He Aside from direct grants to educational institutions, the is currently working on a study tentatively titled Foundation maintains its own publishing house and sponsors “Spirituality” in the Digital Era. the magazine Science and Spirit, a bimonthly devoted to

free inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org 28 FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:39 PM Page 29

Sir John Templeton [Photo via Newscom] John Templeton Jr. [UPI photo/Monika Graff] “exploring things that matter.” Headquartered in Quincy, solidly within the corporate neoliberal mode that expects reli- Massachusetts, it acknowledges “generous grants” from the gion to serve as catalyst in the globalization of free enterprise. Templeton Foundation. The editor in chief, Karl Giberson, As we shall see, that is no accident. teaches physics and history of science—as well as courses on The geographic distribution of the Board of Advisors’ mem- the reciprocity of science and religion—at Quincy-based bership is illuminating. The United States and United Kingdom Eastern Nazarene College. Additionally, the Foundation indi- together account for 80 percent of the total, contributing fifty- rectly subsidizes selected academic journals by placing full- four and eleven board members, respectively. Nine more mem- page ads for its own publications and conferences within their bers hail from six nations of Western Europe, two from Eastern pages. Europe, and three from the Middle East—two of them from A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education esti- Israel. Africa contributes but two, both with strong first-world mates that the Foundation has so far spent more than $250 mil- ties: a French-educated astrophysicist based at Casablanca lion on its multiple programs; since John Templeton has just and a Briton—Professor Ellis, the 2004 Templeton Prize win- thrown another $550 million of his personal fortune into the ner, who now teaches at Capetown. No Templeton advisors hail Foundation’s capital pot, annual outlays can be expected to from southern or eastern Asia or from Latin America. double from the current $60 million per year. Geographically at least, the Board of Advisors mirrors the con- Giving away all this money is hard work, and a great many temporary Anglo-American alliance, even including its tenuous people earn their livings helping the Foundation do it. Many affiliations with Western Europe. work for subsidized subsidiaries and so may not appear on the But this may convey too narrow an image of the Templeton central organization’s personnel rosters. Presumably oversee- apparatus. We should also examine the backgrounds of the ing all of this activity is a very impressive Board of Advisors, a nine judges for the annual Templeton Prize. The current panel far-flung body presently comprising eighty-one persons (eleven of judges might be described as an ecumenical work of art. Not women and seventy men). Of these, sixty-four hold PhDs in sci- only in terms of geographic origin (India, Indonesia, Greece, ence or theology (several in both), four are medical doctors, Poland, Britain, and the United States) but also in respect to three are lawyers, and three hold master’s or bachelor’s religious orientation (Buddhist, Hindu, Greek Orthodox, degrees. Only three list no college credentials (though one of Roman Catholic, Anglican, and U.S. Protestant), the nine them is a well-known physicist and member of the Royal judges are unquestionably ecumenical. Moreover, their collec- Society). A substantial number hold appointments at major tive scientific profile is impressive, since, among the judges, we universities. The advisors’ qualifications are principally scien- find a Nobel Laureate in medicine, a pioneer in agricultural tific, academic, or theological; few have backgrounds in social ecology, and the current director of the Human Genome Project welfare, community organizing, or “entitlement” programs like (yes, Francis Collins, author of The Language of God: A public education, health care, or Social Security. Despite the Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief). The judges select advisors’ diverse academic and denominational connections, prizewinners; they do not direct the Templeton empire. But nei- the political and economic orientations of most seem to fall ther do the eighty-one advisors. Although many advisors are

29 http://www.secularhumanism.org June/July 2007 FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:40 PM Page 30

variously involved in Templeton activities, the twenty-two-page astonishing symmetries between science and faith: “Take the document detailing their qualifications says nothing of specific difficult Christian concept of Jesus as both fully divine and fully assignments. There is no allocation of advisorial responsibility, human. It turns out that this duality has a parallel in quantum no flowchart laying out channels by which advice crystallizes physics. . . . The orthodox interpretation of this strange phe- into policy. Presumably, then, acting on their own, the advisors nomenon is that light is simultaneously wave and particle.... simply offer suggestions to the Board of Trustees. So, too, with Jesus, suggests F. Russell Stannard of England’s The Board of Trustees resembles an executive committee. It Open University....” Stannard—although this may have has twelve members, six of them, again, “virtuoso performers” escaped Newsweek’s attention—happens to be one of in science and spirituality. Seven of the trustees serve also as Templeton’s viceroys in the United Kingdom. advisors. Three are business associates. Three bear the family Academics have generally been less starry-eyed. The late name and presumably act as watchdogs over its interests. John Stephen Jay Gould, commenting on the Berkeley symposium, Templeton, now in his nineties, retired two years ago but, as wrote that it was enveloped in “a deluge of media hype” as if chair emeritus, doubtless attends board meetings. His son, some “new and persuasive argument” had been presented John Jr. (called “Jack” to avoid confusion)—who is no average there. “In fact, absolutely nothing of intellectual novelty had been added. . . . The same bad arguments surfaced into a glare of publicity because the J. M. Templeton Foundation, estab- lished by its fabulously wealthy eponym to advance the syn- “. . . the Foundation has so far spent more than cretist program . . . garnered a splash of media attention by spending 1.4 million bucks to hold [the] conference.” $250 million on its multiple programs; More recently, John Horgan, a former Scientific American since John Templeton has just thrown another staff writer who now heads the Center for Science Writing at Stevens Institute of Technology, touched off “quite a ruckus” $550 million of his personal fortune into the when he acknowledged that he had accepted an invitation to be Foundation’s capital pot, annual outlays can be “one of the first batch of Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellows in Science and Religion,” although doing so had faced expected to double from the current him with “an ethical dilemma”: “The fellowship not only sound- $60 million per year.” ed like fun, it also paid all expenses and threw in an extra $15,000. . . . On the other hand, as an agnostic increasingly dis- turbed by religion’s influence in human affairs, I had misgiv- ings about the foundation’s agenda of reconciling religion and achiever in his own right, being a graduate of Harvard Medical science.” School and a pediatric surgeon—gave up his medical career to Published in The Chronicle of Higher Education and later become the Foundation’s new president. At this point, one posted on John Brockman’s elitist online symposium, Edge encounters the only flowchart to be found on the entire organi- (www.edge.org), Horgan’s essay provoked a flurry of responses zational blueprint. It is admirably concise: the president that either acknowledged or denied the reality of his dilemma, “directs all Foundation activities in pursuit of its mission to alternately praising or damning the Foundation. Among the encourage progress in scientific and religious knowledge.” respondents were a Templeton Prize winner (Dyson), two top- Obviously, we are not dealing with the sort of throwaway CEOs level Foundation staff members, and prominent scientists, and consensus-by-proxy decision making that characterize including Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett, both out- twenty-first-century corporate styles. No, this is absolute, out- spoken critics of religion. Yet, the most impressive aspect of the right monarchy. entire episode was not Horgan’s recognition of the dilemma but the ease with which he ultimately managed to resolve it. “So THE ETHICS OF AMBIVALENCE what did I do?” Horgan asked. “I went to Cambridge of course. Mainstream media and the scientific establishment at large I rationalized that taking the Foundation’s money did not mean have reacted differently to the Templeton Foundation’s move that it had bought me, as long as I remained true to my views.” toward center stage. The press dutifully extolled its growing As though setting up an advance defense for his own apolo- largesse as a bonanza for academia. Thus, one of the earlier gia, Horgan claimed to know of only one scientist who publicly Templeton symposia—“Science and the Spiritual Quest,” held rejected Templeton money. This was University of Chicago at Berkeley in 1998—was covered by The Wall Street Journal physicist Sean M. Carroll, who had justified his refusal to par- under the headline: “Faith and Reason, Together Again,” while ticipate in a Templeton-sponsored conference (which featured The New York Times announced that “Science and Religion sixteen Nobel Laureates) by charging that the Foundation [are] Bridging the Great Gap.” Newsweek, working backwards deliberately blurred the line between science and religion, from its front-cover announcement blaring that “Science Finds making it seem as if the two were part of “one big undertak- God,” reported that scientists were discovering ever-more- ing.” Carroll called this “woefully misguided” and stayed away.

free inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org 30 FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:40 PM Page 31

By way of contrast, Horgan could point out that the “nation’s American Bible Society and Princeton Theological Seminary. leading scientific organization,” the American Association for Announcement of the John Templeton Prize didn’t come until the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—together with scores of 1972, when he was approaching retirement. Perhaps he had colleges and research universities—were, in fact, “Templeton planned this venture for many years. In any case, it moved him Foundation beneficiaries.” That the fiery-tongued atheist, from the inner chambers of Presbyterian-controlled institu- Richard Dawkins, was an invited speaker at the journalism tions to the grander stage of international (and ecumenical) seminar, Horgan explained, helped convince him of the semi- philanthropy. He had earlier been naturalized as a British citi- nar’s “legitimacy.” Horgan’s final position regarding his moral zen and moved his official residence to the Bahamas. In 1987, dilemma apparently draws on the saw that begins, “When in honoring his manifold contributions to her realm, Queen Rome . . .”: “Still I can’t regret spending three weeks in Elizabeth II duly knighted him; to the extent that such an Cambridge classrooms, pubs, and punts . . . jawing with brainy archaism signifies anything in the modern era, it signifies that folks about the meaning of life. The highlight for me was getting he’s a “sir”—an honorific the Templeton Web site never misses to know the nine other fellows, who represented such big-time an opportunity to hang before his name. media as National Public Radio, ABC News, the BBC, The New Meanwhile, his son, John Jr. (“Call me Jack”), had retired York Times and The Washington Post.... About half were from his medical career to take charge of the Foundation’s bur- believers and half were skeptics like me. My conversations with geoning empire. There is a certain tension between the spiritu- the faithful deepened my appreciation of why some intelligent, al eclecticism of John senior and the narrower evangelical faith well-educated people embrace religion.” of his son. In a curious way, we find a similar tension between Most responses to Horgan’s article, even those that took a the approaches to science taken by the Templeton Foundation dim view of the Foundation, accepted his ambivalent resolution and Christian conservatism’s highest-profile encounter with of the dilemma. One might suggest that Horgan, who recently the world of science, the intelligent design (ID) movement. Both published a book titled Rational Mysticism: Spirituality projects have deep roots in Protestantism with its built-in pro- Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment, was search- clivity for fundamentalist readings of Scripture, yet both have ing diligently for reasons to be ambivalent. However, that only distanced themselves from full-bore creationism. Both try to be compounds the problem. Horgan did not invent ambivalence. contemporaneously relevant and to reconcile religion with sci- Ambivalence is built into the ideology and politics of our time. ence. Their “disjuncture” is that the Templeton Foundation has Doubtless, the Templeton Foundation asserts certainty over moved more rapidly away from its traditional roots than ID, ambivalence, yet its ability to recruit creative, socially respon- which still claims to be protecting Scripture against evolution. sible people—and, especially, its stunning success at moving Essentially, the difference between them is that, while ID prior- from the slummy backstreets of the Anglo-American academy itizes faith over science, the Templeton Foundation declares to its elegant Park Avenue building—will help to persuade those two not only equal, but identical as conscious strivings postmodern intellectuals like Horgan that ambivalence is noth- to grasp reality. Charles Townes, 2005 Templeton Prize winner, ing other than twenty-first century reality. recently chastised ID: “I do believe in both a creation and a con- tinuous effect . . . certainly [God’s] laws guide how the universe ‘SIR JOHN’ AND SON JACK was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over So who is this protean and apparently inexhaustible Sir John a week’s time is just an analogy . . . it’s very unfortunate that Templeton? For starters, don’t let the “sir” fool you—he is this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the American born and bred. He was born in 1912 to a rigorously term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that Presbyterian family in back-country Tennessee, not far from one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no the site of the Scopes “Monkey Trial.” A top student at Yale, changes. . . .” Templeton won a Rhodes Scholarship to Balliol College For Townes, ID poses no problem, because he simply includes (Oxford), from which he graduated with a master’s in law and neo-Darwinian evolution as part of the divine plan. For a funda- a new (or renewed?) sense of identification with John of mentalist, this would be anathema. Other leading lights in the Gaunt’s England (“this other Eden . . . this earth, this realm, Templeton firmament tend to concur with Townes. Accepting the this England”). By 1937, nonetheless, he was back in the New Prize in 2000, Dyson confessed that he did not care much for the World, on Wall Street, specializing in international investment “historical truth of the gospels . . . as a scientist and as a reli- funds. When war began in Europe, he borrowed money to buy gious person, I am accustomed to living with uncertainty.” into companies (some already bankrupt) whose stock had fall- Holmes Rolston III, a philosopher and Gifford Lecturer who en below one dollar per share. These investments began to won the prize three years later, having surveyed science’s “nar- yield profits four years later, laying the basis for the Templeton rative” from the Big Bang to neo-Darwinian evolution, conclud- Growth Fund and for the “fabulously wealthy” endowment mill ed that belief in “a divine presence underneath natural history” into which it would subsequently be transformed. remained no less plausible than denial of that belief: “The ques- Loyal to his Presbyterian heritage, Templeton worked as tion becomes not so much a matter of conclusive proof as of elder in local congregations and served on boards of the warranted faith.”

31 http://www.secularhumanism.org June/July 2007 FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:41 PM Page 32

Francis Collins opens his own confession of faith by affirm- free-wheeling latitudinarianism is very much in the style of ing the intrinsic validity of science. “If God created the uni- John senior, who permits himself to be quoted as saying that, verse, and the laws that govern it, and if He endowed human although he holds no quarrel with what he learned in beings with intellectual abilities to discern its workings, would Presbyterian Sunday school, he still wants to learn more. “Why He want us to disregard those abilities? . . . Science is the only shouldn’t I go to Hindu services? [Why not] to Muslim services? legitimate way to investigate the natural world.... “ But sci- If you are not egotistical, you will welcome the opportunity to ence is not the only way of knowing: “The spiritual world view learn more.” provides another way of finding truth.” John senior, and, by all indications, the foundation that Of late, the Templeton Foundation has been moving beyond bears his name, have no difficulty embracing “the premise that its well-known focus on science and religion issues to embrace scientific principles of evolution and the idea of God as Creator a broader agenda. Early in 2006, it advanced $6.2 million in are compatible.” This sounds more like High Church Anglican seed money to the “Foundational Questions Institute” (FQXi), a ecumenicalism than old-time religion in Tennessee. To be ecu- newly formed, grant-awarding project based at the Massa- menical precludes being fundamentalist. chusetts Institute of Technology. The Boston Globe reported This brings us to the thorny issue of John senior’s son and that FQXi, “run by two well-respected researchers who say presumptive successor. John Horgan reports that Jack they are not religious,” was making its own award decisions Templeton, now president of the Foundation, is, in fact, an evan- independently through “peer review by other scientists.” In gelical Christian. He is also “chairman of Let Freedom Ring other words, FQXi was regranting monies granted to it by (www.letfreedomringusa.com), which raises funds for conserva- Templeton. Max Tegmark, a professor of physics at MIT and tive causes” and is “reportedly” a contributor to the presidential the director of the new institute, revealed that the original pro- campaigns of George Bush—“whose relations with the scientific posal had come from Templeton, together with assurance that community are arguably the worst of any president in history.” no strings would be attached to the funds. In July 2006, FQXi’s Horgan’s adverb “reportedly” errs on the side of caution: Jack first round of awards disbursed $2.2 million of Templeton’s Templeton (according to the Mother Jones 400 List) contributed money to thirty recipients. All were physicists or cosmologists, $555,950 to the Bush campaign of 2000, thus ranking in the and none were involved in research that meshed science with upper levels of Republican donors. Jack seems to have stayed religion or “spirituality.” In a recent issue of the Templeton- closer to the fundamentalist heritage than his father. This puts subsidized bimonthly, Science and Spirit, Tegmark argues him theologically closer to the ID movement, or even to creation- plausibly enough that “big” questions often carry theological ism, than to the stances of eminent Templetonians like Dyson, implications (such as, “What came before the Big Bang?”) that Townes, Rolston, and Collins or to the stances of most rank-and- are also crucial in science, yet are unlikely to get funded by our file Templeton grant recipients. increasingly pragmatic and weapons-oriented grant-giving Throughout the Templeton Foundation’s self-presentations, apparatuses. Jack’s role has remained minimal compared to that of his Quite recently, the Templeton Foundation revised its princi- father. He is less frequently quoted in pop-ups and cached pal mission statement, deleting any references to religion or pages. His appearances, at first, were likely to be in settings spirituality in favor of new language about “life’s biggest ques- that carried fundamentalist connotations: Jack as chairman of tions.” At www.templeton.org/about_us, you can read that “The National Bible Week or Jack rallying “College Republicans” to mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to serve as a phil- “Let Freedom Ring” by reelecting Bush in 2004. On November anthropic catalyst for discovery in areas engaging life’s biggest 28, 2005, Business Week reported that, when John senior questions . . . [which] range from explorations into the laws of retired, he set up a monitoring structure to protect against the nature and the universe to questions on the nature of love, grat- risk that Jack might go overboard on the fundamentalist side. itude, forgiveness and creativity.” The Foundation’s previous, “Every five years independent analysts will evaluate” whether overtly spiritual mission statement has not vanished altogeth- Foundation grants match the founder’s intent. If they find that er, but simply been transferred to a less frontal location— Jack has given more than 9 percent of grant funds to inappro- specifically, to John Templeton senior’s personal profile priate causes, he will have “one year to correct the problem” or (www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/sir_john_temple- “be fired” along with his two top CEOs. It seems unlikely that ton). Here, the mission is still equated with research pursuing Jack could fail this test. In an interview added to the “knowledge and love of God”; here, John senior repeats his ear- Foundation’s Web site in 2006, he was asked if he thinks that lier admonition that, although relatively little is actually known science, on questions of scientific fact, ought to take prece- about God “through scripture and present day theology,” we dence over Christian revelation. By responding with an unqual- can still hope that “scientific revelations [will prove] a gold- ified “Yes,” Jack distanced himself from the creationist and ID mine for revitalizing religion. . . .” positions. Yet, he remains apparently unconstrained in his pur- The missions outlined by these two statements are in no suit of right-wing politics. Thus, his connection with Colin way identical. Are seekers—and for that matter, recipients— Hanna, founder of Let Freedom Ring, was publicly reaffirmed of Templeton grants free to choose between them? FQXi and its when the two appeared together as guests on Hugh Hewitt’s grantees appear to have been extended just such leeway. Such ultraconservative radio talk show in February 2007.

free inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org 32 FI June-July 07 Pages 4/26/07 12:41 PM Page 33

THE HOLY TRINITY: RELIGION, SCIENCE, AND the United States but the rest of the world falsify any notion CAPITALIST ENTERPRISE that “competitive business” (especially when liberated from welfare restraints) will abolish poverty. Meanwhile, there is lit- Is all of this a calculated balancing act aimed at keeping con- tle evidence that unethical practices regularly lead to business tact with the lower echelons of fundamentalist believers in failure. But Templeton’s insistence that they do is not simply anticipation of a time, perhaps not far off, when political expe- the voice of naïveté. When he expresses such views, he is key- diency will modify their enthusiasm for scriptural literalism? ing us in to an ideological argument that serves as empirical The Templeton Foundation’s internal architecture replicates grounding for a vast, nested spiritual superstructure. On this the Anglo-American alliance. A replica, in this sense, offers an view, free private enterprise (“competitive business”) rests on accurate representation of present reality (a scale model, if religious faith, faith validates science, and science opens the you will) and expresses a prophetic wish for the future. What natural world to competitive enterprise. Together, these form might the future hold? Literal interpretation of Scripture is the holy trinity of the modern world. John senior never calls it unlikely to become an essential element in the Anglo- the New Trinitarianism, yet he writes ceaselessly on its American alliance, but a relentless globalism is already cen- themes, having authored or edited twenty-three books on these tral to the agenda of the Bush administration. In fact, these topics since 1987. two impulses are contradictory: literal interpretation impedes globalization, because it stands against the religious ecumeni- cism without which, in our era at least, any global order seems inconceivable. Behind this contradiction stand other factors, “. . . across the entire range of Templeton less immediately visible, yet historically significant. Especially in the United States (where it matters most), Protestant fun- literature one seldom—if ever—spots any damentalism remains deeply incised by its lower-class, anti- reference to social conflict.” capitalist beginnings. Its roots were in the white supremacist “democracy” of the old South, as well as in the politics of western populism. Literal interpretation of Scripture, while useless The New Trinitarianism is a master agenda of which as a defense, nonetheless served as a denial—an effort to Templeton’s influence upon science is only the start. On the evade—the intrusion of industrial capitalism into a previously Templeton homepage, one click on the button labeled “Free agrarian social order. Media-smart and affluent though it has Enterprise” triggers cascades of information about projects for become in recent times, fundamentalist religion still displays expanding “philanthropic activity . . . in the free enterprise the stigmata of its traumatic past. For the Templeton mission area [to] a scale of $20 to $25 million . . . annually by 2010.” to succeed, these stigmata must be overcome in favor of eco- That’s right, grants to encourage free enterprise! Typical pro- nomic globalism. That, not simply skewing the direction of the posals, approved or already under way, include the following: sciences, may be Templeton’s ultimate target. •A grant to the Center for Study of Economy and Society A journalist once described John senior as “God’s Venture (Cornell) for researchers from Cornell, Stanford, Lund Capitalist.” A more accurate label might be “the wizard of University (Sweden), and Beijing University to investigate investing other people’s money in mutual funds.” Still, it would “mechanisms . . . behind China’s emerging free enterprise be foolish to underestimate the intellectual sharpness (or “spir- economy.” itual” seriousness) of his career, which never would have taken •To the Cato Institute in support of a Russian-language Web off had not his initial stock selections, early in World War II, site (Cato.ru), where “Russian-speaking friends of liberty can been shrewdly made. On the other hand, even the smartest find . . . hundreds of full-text books . . . policy studies, and choices would have proved worthless had the United States not reports that explain and apply libertarian policies to the entered the war nor opted to use its postwar power by way of post-Soviet world.” the Marshall Plan and similar schemes for reconstructing cap- •To the Centre for Civil Society, “a research and educational italism in Western Europe. think tank” in New Delhi, India, supporting efforts to propa- Templeton remains, to this extent, a child of his time, a gate principles of civil society, limited government, rule of happy capitalist with a global perspective. He believes that law, free trade, and competitive markets. “competitive business” fulfills the compassionate aims of reli- •A two-year grant to the University of Newcastle upon Tyne gious organizations. “For one thing, it enriches the poor more (England) “to explore whether and to what extent private than any other system humanity has ever had. Competitive education”—read school-voucher schemes—benefits the business has reduced costs . . . increased variety . . . improved poor in developing countries of Africa and Asia. quality.” He trusts market forces to encourage not only pros- •To the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research, for perity but ethics too; if a business is not ethical, he declares, “it “disseminating a scientifically-grounded, value-based will fail, perhaps not right away, but eventually.” description of free enterprise. . .inspired by Sir John On each point, Templeton is wrong. Statistics that measure Templeton’s conviction that values play a central role in free the widening gap between wealth and abject poverty not only in enterprise.”

33 http://www.secularhumanism.org June/July 2007 FI June-July 07 Pages 5/3/07 2:23 PM Page 34

•“Generous” support to the Foundation for Teaching Templeton worldview, figures simply as a creative challenge to Economics (FTE), Davis, California, for making available “a high-spirited entrepreneurs and investors, not a factor that landmark set of classroom materials titled, ‘Is Capitalism escalates the “cost” of wealth and consequently—given the dis- Good for the Poor?’” designed to “guide teachers in present- tributive mechanisms that typify neo-liberalism—exacerbates ing information about the innate fairness of capitalism....” the spread of poverty. This is Milton Friedman economics at its The Foundation’s list of emergent philanthropies, if not yet most lethal. totally global, is certainly ecumenical by intent. The appropri- Paul Kurtz, recently defending “progressive taxation” in ate bottom line of this entire portfolio comes from Waco, Texas, FREE INQUIRY (“The Principles of Fairness,” October/November home of Baylor, the world’s largest Baptist university. Through 2006), preemptively rejected the “storm of protest” that he felt its Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR), Baylor has enjoyed sure would be kicked up by “libertarian readers.” The real “major” funding from the Templeton Foundation. A September question, Kurtz insisted, went beyond the politics of taxation 2006 news release reports the arrival of a new installment of and was “primarily ethical.” “The democratic ethic holds that Templeton dollars to be used for discovering links between— every individual should have an opportunity to realize his or no, not religion and science—“religion and economic growth.” her potentialities in society. . . . Every child is entitled to have That dynamic, according to ISR codirector Byron Johnson, access to education, proper nutrition, and good health care, has become a focus of attention for “scholars around the even if his or her parents lack an adequate income,” Kurtz world,” because, as Johnson explains, “economic research sug- wrote. One might add that such a collective commitment to gests that stronger religious beliefs within a country are asso- community responsibility offers the only possible basis for a ciated with higher rates of economic growth.” moral social order. Yet precisely that is rejected in the It is also revealing that, across the entire range of Temple- Templeton scenario, which instead brings forward a libertari- ton literature, one seldom—if ever—spots any reference to an model as the core of an agenda to globalize itself under pro- social conflict. Poverty and wealth are frequently spoken of, yet tection of the Anglo-American alliance. not identified as “properties” (or defining characteristics) of Well, one might ask, what’s new about that? Or, what’s new any particular group, class, or political tendency. Discussing about equating science to religion, which harks back at least to poverty without reference to class points to certain ideological the late Middle Ages, when “natural” religion (science) and corollaries. Consider, for example, the following question-and- “revealed” religion (Scripture) were seen as parallel roads to answer catechism that opens the “Overview” of the proposals the same truth? What is new is the Templeton Foundation’s listed above: vision of a new Trinity: a triangle with religious belief at the Why focus on enterprise? Why focus on creation of wealth? . . . A apex, validating and guiding science, while science, in turn, typical question on poverty might be, “What causes it?” Yet empowers corporate “free” enterprise in its (so far) tri- knowledge of the causes of poverty would only be necessary if the primary aim would be to cause more poverty. Thus the key umphant march toward a global marketplace. question that matters is, not to understand poverty, but to understand dynamics of wealth creation. So how is wealth created? . . . Further Reading The Foundation’s focus on free enterprise follows from the sim- Collins, Francis. The Language of God: a Scientist Presents ple insight that entrepreneurial activity is at the heart of wealth Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006. creation. It is therefore key to us to expand the understanding of Cook, Gareth. “Initiative Will Join Physics, Theology,” The Boston the various ways in which enterprise can impact poverty. Globe (July 31, 2006). Crook, Clive. “The Ten Cent Solution,” Atlantic Monthly (March 2007). Wealth creation and the spread of poverty are treated here Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin, as totally separate processes—ruling out any suspicion that 2006. certain ways of generating wealth might also generate poverty. Flynn, Tom. “Who Says Money Can’t Buy Happiness?” FREE INQUIRY On the Templeton view, wealth flows out painlessly from entre- (October/November 2006). preneurial skills when they are religiously inspired and Golden, David. “At Some Colleges, Classes Questioning Evolution Take Hold,” The Wall Street Journal (November 14, 2005). deployed in a free-enterprise setting. Since spiritually motivat- Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the ed entrepreneurship could have no incentive to search for (let Fullness of Life. New York: Library of Contemporary Thought/ alone promote) cheap labor, adversarial concepts such as Random, 1999. class that treat CEOs and laborers as potential antagonists can Harper, Charles (Senior Vice President, John Templeton Foundation). be dismissed as irrelevant. The effect is to bracket global cor- “Letter to the Editor,” The Wall Street Journal (December 14, 2005). porations that scour the world seeking cheap labor (Wal-Mart, Hempel, Jessi. “The Devout Donor,” Business Week (November 28, for example) into the same economic category as a campesina 2006). mother who takes a micro-loan to convert her front room into a Horgan, John. “The Templeton Foundation: a Skeptic’s Take,” The beauty parlor. Chronicle of Higher Education (April 7, May 19, 2006). The Templeton scenario contains no such thing as labor or Kurtz, Paul. “The Principles of Fairness: Progressive Taxation,” FREE INQUIRY (October/November 2006). gender exploitation. Nor does it offer any clue to the oncoming Tegmark, Max. “Deep Impact,” Science and Spirit (November/ disasters of ecological burnout. Ecological crisis, in the December 2006).

free inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org 34