Talk:John Templeton Foundation

	This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

One of the things the Templeton foundation funded was an examination into the effectiveness of prayer. Not surprisingly it showed no correlation between prayer and results. But it could conceivably have shown that prayer was very effective. If that had happened, one can but wonder if the religious supporters of NOMA would have said: "Ah well, that doesn't count. That was data collected by the scientific method so we can't use it to support our position." Somehow I doubt it.--Bob^{bing up} 14:32, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Article in 6/21/10 Nation magazine

http://www.thenation.com/article/god-science-and-philanthropy

It's about a Templeton beneficiary who founded the Flame of Love Project to establish "a new interdisciplinary science of Godly Love". We might need haz new artikal! ħuman 00:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the prize ever been given to someone who supports pseudoscience?

Because if it hasn't, the article's tone should really change. I feel as though Coyne and Myers are just unwilling to admit that legitimate erudites (i.e, proponents of evolutionary biology) can also be religious, or sympathetic to religion.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Another irrelevant claim. Who cares whether Coyne and Myers would or would not "admit" that legitimate erudites can be religious or sympathetic to religion. There certainly are religious scientists, though they're a distinct minority. That such people may exist and that others may "admit" it, has no bearing on the reality that science cannot address that which has never been observed. Supernatural phenomena may or may not be empirically testable in principle. That's a different discussion. We can't prove a negative. As a practical matter, however, there is and has never been any evidence that they exist. 21:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation definitely funds pseudoscience through grants to right-wing think tanks, though, which definitely needs a mention. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits

This article was mostly petty jabs and vague criticisms by anti-theists. It's better now. --"Shut up, Brx." 08:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The hell it is. You just whitewashed it. Reverting. 18:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyedited. Your edit was a whitewash and your edit warring to force it on this site is flatly inconsistent with our mission. There is nothing credible about the Templeton Foundation's agenda even if you accept that non-overlapping magisteria silliness. 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

They fund science. They don't promote creationism. They aren't racists or bigots. What's the point of hating them? RationalWiki is rife with immature articles that are little more than "hey look at that, religion: STUPID AND IRREDEEMABLE." This makes us look petty and causes people to dismiss us out of hand when real issues are at play (as in, alternative medicine, which may actually result in suffering and death). Hell, they should be praised for their prayer study. If Bob Jones had done it they would have fixed the results, but these guys had the grace to be honest, and to follow proper scientific protocols.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Although they claim to award it to anyone of any faith, any "creed" and "men and women alike" the vast, vast majority of Templeton laureates are white, wrinkled with age, male and Christian. This is brazenly incorrect. Have a look at the list of prize winners. My version, which called into question giving the awards to Billy Graham and Mother Teresa, was better.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your defense of the Foundation is frivolous. These irrelevant assertions about bigotry and it funding science and not creationism (which is false - a number of winners are openly creationist - a few have written extensively about creationism), even if true, don't absolve it of pushing pseudoscience, which is the only way to describe the interface between science and religion or spirituality. Sure, it funds some science, but, as described in the article, its overall purpose of addressing spirituality is antagonistic to real science. The results of the prayer study are mentioned, so your minor point was addressed before you ever touched the article. As for this claim that the winners are somehow not overwhelmingly white, wrinkled with age, and christian, go do some research. You're wrong. The Foundation website has a tremendous amount of information about every award winner, including speeches specifically addressing their religious positions in a number of cases. Maybe you'll learn something. The award has been given to 3 women in 30 years. The vast majority of the other winners are as described . As for tone, the article is appropriately harsh on nonsense. It doesn't imply that religion is stupid and irredeemable. It addresses the merits and fortunately lacks much of the unfounded and uncited assertions that pass as "snark" here. 21:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it. I didn't whitewash shit. The complaints from the New Atheists were all there in my version. My version still questioned giving the award to Mother Teresa, and even added Billy Graham to the list. I was still quite clear about the Foundation's mission. What I did was remove childish invective and falsehoods. --"Shut up, Brx." 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Regardless of who wins the edit war, we need to reword the mother teresa part. while i personaly agree she was a religious fanatic who loved her people to suffer, that is not why she was given the prize. as it reads now, we suggest that the world at large knew of her abuses, and it was for that reason the award was given. We need to restate it with a "for her charity work, despite the fact that it turns out it was neither charitable nor honerable". Enjoy the edit war. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sophie is probably correct that the foundation committee didn't know about Mother Theresa's work being cruelly harmful to sick and desperate people. So sure, it's not due any moral opprobrium for that fact alone. That doesn't mean it's not worth noting that it likely chose this person, who had no substantive background in science or medicine, but solely in religion and religious missionary work, for reasons completely unrelated to any scientific work. It's also worth noting, just as it would be in the Nobel Prize article, that she ultimately turned out to be quite a different person than she was perceived to be at the time. 21:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That sounds about right. She got a free ride for decades, and was pretty much above criticism. That the Templeton Foundation was one of those taken in by this mask of worthiness is no more their fault than it was everyone else's. We should add, as Nutty Says, that the TF had no place giving money to someone who didn't even pretend to be scientific, and whose contribution to medicine was, basically, administering medicine. Sophie^Wilder 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)