Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

The ethics of mixing science and religion

by New Scientist

Thanks to Logicel for the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/ethics-of-mixing-science-and-religion.html

The ethics of mixing science and religion

I have to admit, when I picked up the phone to call Michael Heller, the Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest who was today awarded the $1.6 million Templeton Prize, I was a little uneasy. I am strongly committed to the idea that science and religion don't mix, while the prize is awarded by the Templeton Foundation for "progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities".

The Templeton Foundation is a strange beast indeed. On the one hand, it is not officially committed to any particular religion, it does not support hack religious theories like intelligent design, it funds lots of fundamental theoretical physics that is not otherwise readily funded, and it doesn't explicitly interfere with or influence the scientific results of the various projects it funds.

On the other hand, the foundation's primary goal is to support science that in turn supports religion, to use science as a tool to promote a religious agenda. It's as if rather than fighting against science the way some religious factions - like creationists - do, they figure, we'll just buy science and use it for our own ends.

Consider this: when Sir John Templeton established the Templeton Prize in 1972 he stipulated that the monetary value should always be higher than that of the Nobel Prize -his way of saying that theology is more important than any other intellectual enterprise. Still, Sir John always seemed to be more of an eccentric billionaire than a dangerous force.

Now, however, his son Jack has taken over the foundation, and as Alexander Saxton pointed out in a Free Inquiry article, Jack is a gung-ho Evangelical Christian. In light of all this, some scientists feel it undermines their integrity to accept Templeton money. Others think, why not just take their money and put it to good scientific use?

When I talked with Heller, my concerns were eased. Heller comes across as a contemplative, kind and brilliant man with an impressive intellectual range, flitting easily between talk of complex philosophical ideas and sophisticated mathematical physics. (I was intrigued that his current work is focused on ridding physics of the big bang singularity - despite the fact that many Catholics have latched on to the idea of the singularity as the space left for God and his creative power.)

He is the kind of physicist who is so awestruck by the mathematical order of the universe that he sees God lurking in equations. For him, science and religion are difficult to separate. And after talking with him I could understand why - Heller grew up in a family environment in which intellectualism and religion were deeply intertwined and in a political environment in which both were persecuted by the Communist regime in Poland. The point is, the Templeton Foundation's efforts to buy scientists might be dangerous. But Michael Heller certainly isn't.

Here's something to ponder: Would you take $1.6 million from an organisation whose motives you didn't agree with?

Amanda Gefter, Opinion editor

*check the original article for many embedded links

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 64 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #142473 by Animavore on March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Simple answer. Yes.

Other Comments by Animavore

2. Comment #142486 by Forti on March 12, 2008 at 2:47 pm

^ Think of the time you'd have to waste before you'd earn it.

Other Comments by Forti

3. Comment #142487 by MrPickwick on March 12, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Complex answer. Yes.

Other Comments by MrPickwick

4. Comment #142496 by Animavore on March 12, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Seriously! They're asking atheists do they have a problem taking money of a religious group? Don't they know we're not sukers duped into living a life of 'modesty' I mean, sure we have our morals (don't we) but we're not feckin' stupid. I'd take money of a gangster if I thought it would get me my dream life of living as a nomad out of hotels always on the move, never answering to no one. It's like asking a bee if it would take nectar off a flower.

Other Comments by Animavore

5. Comment #142500 by ft77 on March 12, 2008 at 3:07 pm

'He is the kind of physicist who is so awestruck by the mathematical order of the universe that he sees God lurking in equations.'

AKA, the lazy kind.

Other Comments by ft77

6. Comment #142503 by Animavore on March 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I see priests lurking in playgrounds.

Other Comments by Animavore

7. Comment #142505 by Jiten on March 12, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Everyone has a price ; mine is $1.6 million ! :))

Other Comments by Jiten

8. Comment #142507 by Jolly Bloger on March 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm

It's like when Sylvia Browne says she won't take James Randi's money because she doesn't like him. Randi says "all the more reason to take my money and make me look foolish!"

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

9. Comment #142509 by Animavore on March 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I MEAN FOR FU... eck sake. Did he really ask that question? I'd have sex with another man for that amount. I'd lose a little finger.. I'd eat dung. You only have to live with the embarrassment for a bit then you're laughing for the rest of your easy life getting fat.

Other Comments by Animavore

10. Comment #142524 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

I'd ask for $3.2 million!
$1.6 million for the initial work, than
$1.6 million for not changing my mind later, in the light of new evidence.
Heck, usually I'm anybody's for a dollar and a kiss... and the dollar is not obligatory.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

11. Comment #142532 by Elles on March 12, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Heh. If they want to give me $1.6 million so that I can donate it to RDFRS, I'd do it.

Other Comments by Elles

12. Comment #142533 by Apathy personified on March 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm

We come to the real truth of humanity, everyone will compromise their morals for a certain price, the shock is how low that certain price is.
If there are no strings attached (like actively promote religion forever, etc) then i'd have taken $500,000.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

13. Comment #142554 by lievemebe on March 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Heller grew up in a family environment in which intellectualism and religion were deeply intertwined

The Templeton Foundation should fund more research into the intertwining of intellectualism and religion.

I am disturbed by the enormous capacity of some individuals to compartmentalise.

Other Comments by lievemebe

14. Comment #142555 by The Soilworker on March 12, 2008 at 6:01 pm

NOT taking money from a blatantly religiously motivated fund (or at least headed by one) is NOT a moral. Fuck that! Take the money - goodness knows that religion owes science WAY more than 1.6 million....

Other Comments by The Soilworker

15. Comment #142561 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I'd take the money, but during my acceptance speech launch into a blistering attack on religion and christiainity in particular a la Chritopher Hitchens. =)

Other Comments by Inferno

16. Comment #142562 by FightingFalcon on March 12, 2008 at 6:22 pm

$1.6 million from the Templeton Foundation? Probably.

$1.6 million from the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals, Muslim sheiks, etc.? Absolutely not. I suppose I hate religion too much to ever take their money.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

17. Comment #142564 by rod-the-farmer on March 12, 2008 at 6:29 pm

$1.5 million from the Templeton Foundation ? Almost certainly. The same amount from Microsoft ? Hmmm.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

18. Comment #142565 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I don't see why not. The TF has its own philosophy which influences the kind of projects it funds for sure, but it does fund scientifically interesting research. Even its critics acknowledge that it does scrupulously maintain a non interference policy for the projects that receive its fundings, the scientists are firmly calling the shot, The same cannot be said about some corporate donors such as big pharmaceuticals. The profit motive is a much more serious threat to scientific integrity in the modern world IMO.

The role played by TF is not so different from the wealthy patrons of science in European history. Many distinguished scientists got their supports through this patronage system.I am sure almost all of these patrons were religious and they might have funded scientists for motives other than purely to advance science.

The TF is no Discovery Institute, people should chill out.

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #142581 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Comment by lievemebe:

The Templeton Foundation should fund more research into the intertwining of intellectualism and religion.

I am disturbed by the enormous capacity of some individuals to compartmentalise.

Reminds me of a Mormon psychiatrist I got into a debate with. She said God was all-good and powerful enough to bend the laws of logic. We argued that for at least ten frikken minutes, with me repeating the same arguments because she didn't understand them. Finally, and with a surprised look on her face, she said, "well, I guess I just don't believe that"!

Another time she said that if the earth was created in 6 days, then it would make sense for it to be only several thousand years old. I said that didn't make sense. She said it did. I pointed out that the age of something has nothing to do with the time it took to make it, and she agreed with me, not even realizing she contradicted herself!

I swear these theists are immune to reason, especially Mormons.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

20. Comment #142597 by PJG on March 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm

I think I heard somewhere that the Templeton Foundation funded some of the (so far) best research into the efficacy of prayer. The results (of course) showed that there was no benefit (in fact, those who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse!) The findings were published with no attempt at suppression even though, presumably, these results were not what they had hoped for.

That shows a certain integrity (better, as Bonzai says above, than certain pharma companies... and certainly better than most (all?) government funded research!)

However, I understand also that there is a considerable pressure brought to bear (is it a "condition"?) that the recipient of the funding says nice things about God/religion. If that is the case, then, depending on what that would have to consist of, I might refuse the money. No amount of money is worth compromising one's integrity as appears (allegedly!!) to have happened here:

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/moore-1-28k.smi

to Dr. Keith Moore (Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto)

Other Comments by PJG

21. Comment #142599 by natheist on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I guess I'm the only one, but I would definitely not take the money. Even if I was putting it to better use. It would just encourage them, it wouldn't be polite, and it might reinforce negative stereotypes about atheists.

Just my two cents.

Other Comments by natheist

22. Comment #142601 by theantitheist on March 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm

The money would just be used by the religion for some fancy planes, art, new house of slavery / worship etc. sod it i'll take it and put it to work (probably give half to saving the gorillas, i like Gorillas) and blow the rest on myself. Better then ending up as gold plating to some fucking dome.

And Rod the Farmer, i'll disagree with you on Microsoft. They a better force for good on this planet then the three abrahamic religions combined. Take Africa as the main example:

Muslims - Causing conflict; mutilating children, especially girls genitals (Ask AAH) genicide etc.
Catholics - Aids; over population; poverty
Jews - Fuck all theres less then 2% of the entire pop who are Jewish, why the fuck do we hear so much from them? There such fucking whingers!!

Microsoft/ Bill & Melinda Gates - Giving $50Billion over time to cure disease/malaria/aids ect. end poverty and give comfort to those who are terminal.

Religion 0 - 1 Microsoft

Other Comments by theantitheist

23. Comment #142605 by mmurray on March 12, 2008 at 8:32 pm

... and certainly better than most (all?) government funded research!)

As a mathematician who has done (Australian) government funded research can I ask what is wrong with that? Or with the research funded by the NSF or NSERC if those are nearer to home ?

I am not sure why an atheist would want to take money for a prize whose aim, according to wikipedia, is

"trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity."

It has always seemed to me that part of the agenda of this prize is to confuse the public by trotting out scientists who `believe in God'. Here we have someone who thinks he can see God in mathematical equations --- how can the average person argue with that ?

Personally I would rather take it from big pharma -- at least that would be getting back some of what I pay them to keep me alive :-)

Regards - Michael

PS: There is an interview here that I am told is interesting -- haven't listened to it myself.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2188303.htm

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #142610 by mmurray on March 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm

For what it is worth here is the list of prize winners.

Michael

-------------------------------------------

1973 - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
1974 - Frère Roger, founder of the Taizé Community
1975 - Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, President of India
1976 - Leon Joseph Cardinal Suenens
1977 - Chiara Lubich, founder of the Focolare Movement
1978 - Prof. Thomas Torrance
1979 - Rev. Nikkyo Niwano
1980 - Ralph Wendell Burhoe, founder of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science
1981 - Cicely Saunders, hospice founder
1982 - Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, evangelist
1983 - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Soviet dissident novelist
1984 - Rev. Michael Bourdeaux, founder of the Keston Institute
1985 - Alister Hardy, founder of the Religious Experience Research Centre
1986 - Rev. James I. McCord of the Princeton Theological Seminary
1987 - Stanley Jaki
1988 - Dr. Inamullah Khan
1989 - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, physicist and philosopher, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, founder of the Iona Community and Indarjit Singh
1990 - Baba Amte and L. Charles Birch
1991 - Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits
1992 - Kyung-Chik Han
1993 - Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship
1994 - Michael Novak, philosopher and diplomat
1995 - Paul Davies, theoretical physicist
1996 - Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ
1997 - Pandurang Shastri Athavale
1998 - Sigmund Sternberg, philanthropist
1999 - Ian Barbour, professor
2000 - Freeman Dyson, physicist
2001 - Rev. Arthur Peacocke
2002 - Rev. John Polkinghorne
2003 - Holmes Rolston III, philosopher
2004 - George F. R. Ellis, cosmologist and philosopher
2005 - Charles Townes, Nobel laureate and physicist
2006 - John D. Barrow, cosmologist and theoretical physicist
2007 - Charles Taylor, philosopher
2008 - Michael Heller, physicist and philosopher

Other Comments by mmurray

25. Comment #142612 by mmurray on March 12, 2008 at 8:59 pm

The money would just be used by the religion for some fancy planes, art, new house of slavery / worship etc. sod it i'll take it and put it to work (probably give half to saving the gorillas, i like Gorillas) and blow the rest on myself. Better then ending up as gold plating to some fucking dome.

The Templeton Prize is not handed out by any religion.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

26. Comment #142615 by lievemebe on March 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Further to Comment #142581 by AtheistAspy

Michael Heller wrote in the Templeton prize press conference, and reiterated in an Australian national radio interview that I heard this morning: "Science gives us Knowledge, and religion gives us Meaning".

The statement is mindless garbage. Alternatively, it is the mark of misplaced intelligence to ascribe absolute meanings to words. He may as well make the simple faith statement: "God exists".

Other Comments by lievemebe

27. Comment #142618 by LorienRyan on March 12, 2008 at 9:34 pm

How do scientists compartmentalize?

My guess, much the same as listening to music or reading a good novel. Maybe some scientists just like the way the idea of religion makes them feel, but don't actually believe it's true?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

28. Comment #142619 by lievemebe on March 12, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Comment #142618 by LorienRyan

Maybe some scientists just like the way the idea of religion makes them feel, but don't actually believe it's true?

Perhaps that has $1.6m worth of plausibility.

Other Comments by lievemebe

29. Comment #142620 by Ed-words on March 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm

After the check clears,the winner tells the Templeton folks in a press conference which
atheist groups he donated it to.

Other Comments by Ed-words

30. Comment #142621 by lievemebe on March 12, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #142620 by Ed-words

This would knock the shoes of Templeton. Cheekily, there could be some truth in this. Heller stated that he was using the money to set up an institute for science and religion at Cracow. Why does he not simply donate it back to Templeton?

Other Comments by lievemebe

31. Comment #142631 by oriole on March 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

There are two issues with an atheist accepting the prize. One is corruption of the atheist and the other is exploitation by religious apologists. Many of the commenters are acting as if Templeton simply mails you a check with no publicity and no questions asked. So sure, if Templeton or the Catholic Church or Scientology just sent me some money on some whim and left me free to say, "hey, these guys are nuts, but if they want to give me money, fine by me", then there's no problem.

But in fact Templeton only gives the money to people who support, intentionally or unintentionally, their agenda, and the foundation is not stupid, so in any real-life situation, if they offer anyone money, then that individual will with certainty be a prominent person who is helping Templeton do their work, even if that was not his intention.

So if you're an atheist and Templeton offers you money, the only proper thing to do is find out what you're doing that they're so happy about and instantly stop and renounce that activity. If you take the money, you'll inexorably find yourself on a path leading to you standing in front of a faith-head audience and giving a speech in support of religion, so you'll have accepted a $1.6 million bribe to sacrifice your intellectual integrity. (Unless of course, God forbid, you've really decided to go over to the other side.)

And of course you should also remember that any prominent sceptic who were to accept such a prize would be a propaganda gold mine for the religious demagogues.

Other Comments by oriole

32. Comment #142632 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Comment by LorienRyan:

Michael Heller wrote in the Templeton prize press conference, and reiterated in an Australian national radio interview that I heard this morning: "Science gives us Knowledge, and religion gives us Meaning".

It's even worse than that. A lot of theists don't know what they're arguing. I remember one Christian who claimed all non-Christians are damned. I then asked him about Jews. He started to fudge but never quite stated his opinion.

Also theists will say "you can rationalize anything" or "truth is relative." The meaning of either statement is unclear, unless they mean that we can always come up with an argument (which may be unsound) and that we disagree on what is objectively true, both of which would be trivial points anyways.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

33. Comment #142635 by mmurray on March 12, 2008 at 11:14 pm

There is an interview with the guy here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13454-qa-2008-templeton-prize-winner.html

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

34. Comment #142636 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 11:15 pm

I am a bit surprised that some people here are comparing TF with the RC Church and hell fire and brimstone Christians. I may be mistaken, but I am not aware that the TF has any particular religious affiliation. Its agenda, based on my possibly erroneous understanding, is an attempt to build a bridge between science and some kind of vague, wooly "spirituality", which is not specifically Christian, it is not even necessarily theistic,--"God" or "divine" can be a shorthand for a lot of things if it is not tied to any specific doctrine..

You may still find that distasteful, but I think it is knee jerk to react as if it is some kind of Church sponsored operation.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #142638 by lievemebe on March 12, 2008 at 11:20 pm

According to the Templeton Foundation:
The Templeton Prize is awarded annually on the decision of a panel of judges from the major religions of the world today.

An atheist would have to be engaged in covert atheism to win the Templeton prize. It is more likely that a prize would be awarded accidently to an atheist. With so much egg on its face Templeton would have to accede to the winners agenda.

Other Comments by lievemebe

36. Comment #142640 by mmurray on March 12, 2008 at 11:25 pm

From the New Scientist interview:

What do you make of the current debate between science and religion, in which the two are often presented as mutually exclusive?

Everything depends on your concept of rationality. Science is a model of rationality. The question is whether the limits of rationality coincide with limits of the scientific method. If they do, then there is no place for religion or theology because everything outside of the scientific method is automatically irrational. On the other hand, if you agree that they do not coincide then there is a place for rational religious belief. If you look at the recent history of science and philosophy, you can see that the dominating philosophy in western countries was positivistic, it said that the scientific method is identical with rationality and that what's beyond the scientific method is beyond rationality. Nowadays very few philosophers agree with this; we are more pluralistic

But what about rationality in the broader sense of gathering evidence and weighing it ?

-------------------------------------------

Bonzai: I think Templeton is about more than just linking science and spirituality they talk (OK the wikipedia page talks) about `the divine' which implies some kind of God to me.

Edit: OK I looked at their web page

http://www.templeton.org/about_us/about_us_faq/

and they claim to only be about answering `big questions' etc not sure where the divine quote on wikipedia comes from.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

37. Comment #142663 by kungfucat on March 13, 2008 at 1:27 am

I agree with Inferno

Take the money and give em the finger. Just make sure they can't use you as their PR monkey. "Look Prof/Dr. so-and-so has contributed to religion by.... etc etc"

Other Comments by kungfucat

38. Comment #142665 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #142565 by Bonzai

The role played by TF is not so different from the wealthy patrons of science in European history. Many distinguished scientists got their supports through this patronage system.I am sure almost all of these patrons were religious and they might have funded scientists for motives other than purely to advance science.

I am mostly of the same opinion, although it could be argued that by funding scientific research into religious questions they aren't helping in some areas. There have been battles to reveal the true religious nature of Intelligent Design. Suppose the Templeton Foundation did offer funding to "study" ID, and some scientists took the money (even if only to attempt to show how wrong it was). That would give ID some scientific credentials it not only does not deserve, but it would be dangerous for it to have.

So, I can see potential problems.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #142675 by John Desclin on March 13, 2008 at 2:15 am

to comment 21 by Natheist (#142599):
You certainly are not the only one: I would never have thought of taking money from them (although I was a poorly funded scientist)!
In matters of science, there can be no compromise!

Other Comments by John Desclin

40. Comment #142683 by LorienRyan on March 13, 2008 at 2:36 am

AtheistAspy,

Re: your quote in #32.

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but that wasn't my comment. It was from lievemebe.

:)

Other Comments by LorienRyan

41. Comment #142689 by bamboospitfire on March 13, 2008 at 2:56 am

oriole has hit the nail on the head. The whole question is moot, at least in the context of the Templeton Foundation, because if you don't say that your research indicates that God exists, they won't give you the money. In order for anyone to accept the prize, that person has to be offered it, and that means that he or she has already sold out.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

42. Comment #142691 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #142689 by bamboospitfire

The whole question is moot, at least in the context of the Templeton Foundation, because if you don't say that your research indicates that God exists, they won't give you the money

I would like to see evidence for this, as I know of scientists who have been funded by Templeton who I am pretty certain would not have said this.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #142697 by mmurray on March 13, 2008 at 3:16 am

I would like to see evidence for this, as I know of scientists who have been funded by Templeton who I am pretty certain would not have said this.

Yes I know one as well.

By the way on the ID question they say on their web page:

Does the Foundation support I.D.?

No. We do not support the political movement known as "Intelligent Design." This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the "Intelligent Design" movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.

It is important to note that in the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the Intelligent Design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the Intelligent Design movement, but, as outlined above, this was not our intention at the time nor is it today.

http://www.templeton.org/about_us/about_us_faq/

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

44. Comment #142700 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 3:20 am

I agree with Steve's reservations. We're indirectly selling them scientific credibility, or at least the appearance of scientific credibility, but this can't really be bought. They're trying to have their cake and eat it and we're holding the plate for them if we co-operate.

What scientific contributions did Mother Teresa make? The fact that she was the first recipient of this award undermines its scientific integrity surely?

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

45. Comment #142706 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #142697 by mmurray

I may be being far too cynical, but I kind of expected that.. they would have no credibility at all if they did directly support ID.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #142744 by windweaver on March 13, 2008 at 4:25 am

Bonzai said:

The TF is no Discovery Institute, people should chill out

Well I, for one, am not going to "chill out" about the TF. It has a far right agenda and it's headed by an evangelical nutcase:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1749,John-Templetons-Universe,Barbara-Ehrenreich-The-Nation

Other Comments by windweaver

47. Comment #142753 by irate_atheist on March 13, 2008 at 4:40 am

Here's something to ponder: Would you take $1.6 million from an organisation whose motives you didn't agree with?

Not even the right question.

The realquestion is:

Would you take $1.6 million from an organisation whose motives you didn't agree with, if by doing so you furthered their cause?

For moi, the answer to the wrong question is yes, of course, as I could do what I liked with the cash to serve my motives.

The answer to the correct question would be no, now fuck off and find someone with low self-worth to take your filthy lucre.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

48. Comment #142754 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 4:42 am

Would I accept the money? No, I'm not a scientist, and if I was, I would want to be researching something that I have a chance of getting good results with, and means something to the progress of humanity.

I would not accept money from many many people or organizations. If I wanted to be dishonest and ripp people off, that is what I'd do.

I'm not interested in money, it would be nice to have enough that I wouldn't need to worry about it, but I don't want more than excessively more than I need.

If I was rich, I know exactly what I would be doing (not that 1.6 million would be enough to do it for more than a couple years). I would be stoned and drunk out of my mind on a beach somewhere surrounded by beautiful women. What can I say? I'm a weak man.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

49. Comment #142778 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 5:12 am

Irate - I think you have it right there.

EDIT: Think Robin Hood (I come from Nottingham!)

Other Comments by PJG

50. Comment #142796 by notsobad on March 13, 2008 at 5:31 am

.. and certainly better than most (all?) government funded research!)

You mean Bush gvt. funded research.

Anyway, I'd take the money but would not do anything I disagree with to please them. And they don't just give it away, do they?

Other Comments by notsobad