Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

by New York Times

Thanks to Apathy Personified for the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/business/09templeton-cnd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN

Sir John M. Templeton, a Tennessee-born investor and philanthropist who amassed a fortune in global stocks and gave away hundreds of millions to foster understanding in what he called "spiritual realities," died on Tuesday in Nassau, the Bahamas, where he had lived for decades. He was 95. His death, at Doctors Hospital in Nassau, was caused by pneumonia, a spokesman, Don Lehr, said.

The foundation awards the Templeton Prize, one of the world's richest, and sponsors conferences and studies reflecting the founder's passionate interest in "progress in religion" and "research or discoveries" on the nebulous borders of science and religion.

In a career that spanned seven decades, Sir John dazzled Wall Street, organized some of the most successful mutual funds of his time, led investors into foreign markets, established charities that now give away $70 million a year, wrote books on finance and spirituality and promoted a search for answers to what he called the "Big Questions" — realms of science, faith, God and the purpose of humanity.

Along the way, he became one of the world's richest men, gave up American citizenship, moved to the Bahamas, was knighted by the Queen of England and bestowed much of his fortune on spiritual thinkers and innovators: Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the physicist Freeman Dyson, the philosopher Charles Taylor and a pantheon of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.

Inevitably, the Templeton charities engendered controversy. Critics called his "spiritual realities" a contradiction in terms, reflecting a fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. To many, the very idea of "progress" in religion seemed strange, and giving grants for "discoveries" in the field invited accusations that science was being manipulated to promote religion.

But Sir John was unmoved. A Yale graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, an audacious investor, a Presbyterian who preached open-mindedness and eschewed literal interpretations of Scripture, Sir John — who began annual meetings with prayers, he said, to clear the minds of shareholders — made billions as a pioneer in his globally diversified Templeton funds, often taking the old advice, "buy low, sell high," to extremes.

In 1939, when World War II began in Europe, the 26-year-old investor borrowed $10,000 and bought 100 shares each in 104 companies that were selling at $1 a share or less, including 34 in bankruptcy. A few years later, he made large profits on 100 of the companies; four turned out to be worthless.

In 1940, he bought a small investment firm that became Templeton, Dubbrow and Vance, the early foundation of his empire. Sir John embarked on mutual funds in 1954, establishing the Templeton Growth Fund in Canada to cut the taxes of many shareholders — Canada then had no capital gains tax — and to emphasize the global reach of its investment strategy.

As investor interest widened in the 1950s, he started funds specializing in nuclear energy, chemicals, electronics and technology. In 1959, with five funds and $66 million under management, he joined a surge of funds going public. Growth was dramatic. The flagship Templeton Growth Fund reported a 14.5 percent average annual return from 1954 to 1992; a $10,000 investment, with dividends reinvested, would have grown to $2 million.

Sir John sold the Templeton family of funds — scores of them with $13 billion in assets — in 1992, and turned to philanthropies that had engaged him for decades. While he was an elder of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), he took a broad view of spirituality, espousing non-literal views of heaven and hell and a shared divinity between humanity and God.

Contending that almost nothing of God was actually "known" through Scriptures and theology, he founded the Templeton Prize in 1972 to foster "progress in religion" — an idea that included philosophy and exemplary conduct relating to love, gratitude, forgiveness and creativity. He called it an effort to redress the fact that no Nobel Prize was given for religion.

Its first recipient, in 1973, was Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who received $85,000 for her charities. In the 35 years since, the prize, given in London, has grown to $1.6 million. And its criteria has been refined in recent years to encompass "progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities."

The Templeton Foundation, based in West Conshohocken, Pa., was established in 1987 to administer the prize and promote "projects to apply scientific methodology to the study of religious subjects," with room for theoretical physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and researches into love, human purpose and the nature and origin of religious beliefs. Today, with a $1.5 billion endowment, it largely sustains the controversial modern movement to reconcile science and religion.

Foundation projects have included a multimillion-dollar study of forgiveness, and a two-year study to demonstrate the effect of prayer on 600 patients about to undergo surgery.

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #206328 by Tyler Durden on July 8, 2008 at 9:26 am

 avatar
Foundation projects have included a multimillion-dollar study of forgiveness, and a two-year study to demonstrate the effect of prayer on 600 patients about to undergo surgery.
Well, it's a good job Sir John M. Templeton didn't completely waste his fortune.

Oh!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

2. Comment #206336 by Cartomancer on July 8, 2008 at 9:34 am

 avatarThe only "progress" that can be made in the field of religion is the complete abandonment of it as the ridiculous nonsense it clearly is. As such everyone who has thrown off the shackles of theistic myopia deserves a Templeton prize - for realising that the "spiritual realities" the old coot espoused were never there in the first place. I never had the virus myself, so I'm ineligible, but I encourage Richard and all the other noble people on this site who did once labour under such misapprehensions to make their claim.

Just goes to show that the ability to push large numbers of banknotes around the world doesn't make you any smarter as far as the important questions go. I respect Templeton's commitment to improving the world, I just wish he'd had the sense to find a better way of doing so.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #206338 by DrWinkie on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 am

I've always liked Templeton (He made me a 100% retrun on my investment in the early 90's!).

But truthfully, I respect his search for meaning in the world.

Other Comments by DrWinkie

4. Comment #206339 by Diacanu on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 am

 avatar95.

The fucktards always hang on so fuckin' long.

Meanwhile, the people I admire overdose or get murdered in their 30s-40's.

Is this post offensive?
Fuck it, Templeton offended me.
Why's that okay? Huh?

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #206341 by Gregg Townsend on July 8, 2008 at 9:38 am

 avatarTyler,

If memory serves that study was inconclusive or even showed patients were slightly more responsive without prayer? Is that the study they reference here?

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

6. Comment #206345 by Janus on July 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

 avatarThank God.

Other Comments by Janus

7. Comment #206349 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 am

 avatarI know that Dawkins and many other scientists strongly disapproved, to put it mildly, of Templeton's aims and the works of his foundation (like the Templeton Prize and the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion, to take two examples), but I don't think it's appropriate to "dump" on the dead (your mileage may vary). So RIP Sir John.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

8. Comment #206350 by Tyler Durden on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 am

 avatarGregg,

I think it is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

(Sorry, I was being facetious in my first post)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

9. Comment #206351 by mordacious1 on July 8, 2008 at 9:47 am

Why is it that people who acquire such wealth, seem to be off their rocker? I suppose one needs a driving force in their life to push one toward that goal. Although Warren Buffett seems normal.

Anyway let me be among the first to say goodbye.

Goodbye.

Other Comments by mordacious1

10. Comment #206352 by Gregg Townsend on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 am

 avatarTyler,

I found this article too.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_060330_prayer.html

I knew you were being facetious but the irony of the study always makes my day.

[edit] Yep, the fifth paragraph down points out funding by Templeton [/edit]

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

11. Comment #206354 by mordacious1 on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 am

Layla

One cannot RIP. One rots, or goes up in a puff of smoke....whatever. To say RIP implies that one may not RIP, and what does that mean? Ghosts, hell, turning over in one's grave? The dude is dead. End of story, except his stupid foundation will probably become really moronic now.

Other Comments by mordacious1

12. Comment #206355 by Tyler Durden on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 am

 avatarTo paraphrase Hitch:

"You should speak only good of the dead. Sir John Templeton is dead. Good."

Sorry, Layla, these nutjobs think their money gives them power over the truth, the planet is better off without them (although the money may remain).

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

13. Comment #206358 by al-rawandi on July 8, 2008 at 9:54 am

 avatarFather of modern mutual funds.





That is as far as his greatness went.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

14. Comment #206359 by Lev-CapeTown on July 8, 2008 at 9:54 am

 avatarWhy do they call this clown a philanthropist? It seems to me that he squanderred most of his money on pointless research when it could of been put to much better use. i.e. finding a cure for christianity or a vaccine for islam

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

15. Comment #206360 by Gregg Townsend on July 8, 2008 at 9:55 am

 avatarLayla,

I think it is poor taste to be joyful over someone's death, but...

If you "dumped" on someone while they were alive, I feel it's inconsistent to give them undue respect in death.

I have nothing to say about the man either way.

[edit]
Al,

I did not know that. See, I do have reason to be grateful for his contribution to humanity... I own mutual funds. Thanks John!
[/edit]

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

16. Comment #206363 by HourglassMemory on July 8, 2008 at 10:02 am

It's a sad day... for those who care.

Now, truthfully, my condolences to the family. They are humans beings like all of us and deserve a pat on the back.
It's not a pleasant thing to see someone you love, I expect the family loved the man, leaving forever.

Sure he tried to do his best, but from my point of view he was totally going the wrong way.
Mhhmm...imagine Templeton having been actually someone like Dawkins, who understood science and the silliness of religion. He would've been a great person to dissiminate common sense and science.
Of course...he wasn't that, so....like Hitchens said "He's dead. Good."

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

17. Comment #206367 by Lucas on July 8, 2008 at 10:06 am

 avatarHope Heaven is all you hoped for, Johnny boy.

There are many people who's deaths would make me smile; some would even make me dance. This one doesn't move me much, really, but I'll admit a sigh of relief.

Other Comments by Lucas

18. Comment #206369 by Diacanu on July 8, 2008 at 10:10 am

 avatarLayla Nasredden-


I don't think it's appropriate to "dump" on the dead


Dump on?

Nahhh, not me.

But, I may just start drinking lots of root beer, and eating asparagus in preparation for something else.....

Other Comments by Diacanu

19. Comment #206376 by brian faux on July 8, 2008 at 10:17 am

I notice that Templeton, like so many 'self made men' got his fortune by the manipulation of money (and a bit of luck) and not by the sweat of his brow. I wonder what Jesus would have said about that? (Maybe JT is in the process of finding out)

Other Comments by brian faux

20. Comment #206385 by WilliamP on July 8, 2008 at 10:25 am

Well, I guess he found the answers to his questions about the afterlife. Or, well, not really.

Other Comments by WilliamP

21. Comment #206435 by Apathy personified on July 8, 2008 at 11:14 am

 avatar Ashes to ashes, dust to dust
It's a pity that he'll never get the chance to realise his huge mistake - there is no god and all religions are as wrong as can be - shame he wasted millions on a doomed and flawed cause.

Sympathies to the family

Other Comments by Apathy personified

22. Comment #206442 by ronfac on July 8, 2008 at 11:22 am

"I refused to attend his funeral. But I wrote a very nice letter explaining that I approved of it."

Mark Twain

Other Comments by ronfac

23. Comment #206447 by Tezcatlipoca on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 am

 avatarSo giving $85,000 to a poverty pimp (Teresa) makes you a philanthropist?

-edit- spelling

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

24. Comment #206471 by davem on July 8, 2008 at 11:51 am

I really don't see the point of being offensive here. So he was deluded? So are millions. There have been, and will be, far worse. Some people give billions to their pet dog, FFS. Maybe he didn't know Mother T. was a charlatan? Who did? At least have the decency to extend sympathy to the family.

PS one of the Templeton funds gave me a 1,000 per cent return on investment, so I might be biased here... :0)

Other Comments by davem

25. Comment #206473 by Tezcatlipoca on July 8, 2008 at 11:52 am

 avatarI'm just being snarky after taking a look at how my 401k just tanked over the last month...luckily I have another 20 years to make it back up... ;)

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

26. Comment #206474 by al-rawandi on July 8, 2008 at 11:54 am

 avatarbrian faux,






So how did he make a fortune "manipulating money"?


Don't tell me you are one of those socialists who views any personal gain with scorn and jealousy.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

27. Comment #206478 by Tezcatlipoca on July 8, 2008 at 11:58 am

 avatarI plan on making my fortune the old fashioned way. Land ownership and inheritance!

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

28. Comment #206483 by al-rawandi on July 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm

 avatarTez,





Dollar cost averaging.


Do that and you will be fine. A 401k is a long term investment and the sole wager you are making (assuming you are invested in core funds) is that the US market will be bigger and stronger in 40 years than it is today. And guess what, it probably will be. Pump as much money into the 401k as you can... does your company match your contribution?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

29. Comment #206492 by action bastard on July 8, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Yeah, well Warren Buffet could kick his ass at investing that is. Buffet is not religious and plans to give most of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A secular charity that promotes education and world health. Btw, how are the two richest men in the world atheists? Must have sold their souls to the devil I guess.

Other Comments by action bastard

30. Comment #206495 by Tezcatlipoca on July 8, 2008 at 12:14 pm

 avatarAl-They sure do. When I start to cry about how broke I am and wonder where my money goes I log on and take a look at my fund and my paystub. It really isn't tanking that bad considering it shot up pretty good over the last year it's just adjusting. I only wish I would have started dumping money into it sooner. But, I've run through some calculators the amount I've put in, the pension that the company I work for (AT&T) gives and my personal property and it's going to be fine. 25 more years of work, I'll be 67, and I should have about 15 years of retirement to enjoy before I join Templeton as worm food.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

31. Comment #206521 by brian faux on July 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Al Rawandi
Speculation may require some (insider?) knowledge and not a little luck. However it does not produce wealth and yes I am quite happy to view those who make money purely from speculation with some scorn.

Other Comments by brian faux

32. Comment #206532 by Border Collie on July 8, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I had my tonsils (sp?) taken out when I was seven or eight. I woke up from the surgery and there were about eight people standing around my bed praying at about sundown. It scared the hell out of me. I thought I had died. Oh, well.

Can't fault Templeton for his money making ability. He must have had some good backing. Ten grand was a LOT of monty to borrow during that time period.

Other Comments by Border Collie

33. Comment #206536 by 8teist on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm

 avatarNext

Other Comments by 8teist

34. Comment #206537 by drbreakfast on July 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Like virtually everyone who regularly posts on this site, I certainly had no use for Templeton's objectives. However, the man had family and friends who will mourn his death. Therefore, I agree that it is in poor taste (and perhaps somewhat immoral) to speak ill of the dead unnecessarily.

The moral issue? Well, I certainly adopt Sam Harris' definition of morality, namely, avoid any conduct that causes needless suffering to others. While, speaking ill of Templeton upon his death is no where say if someone were to murder him, his family and friends would likely suffer emotionally if they heard many people saying, "it's good that he's dead" or other similar sentiments. Better to say nothing.

Plus, I doubt that his death will have any impact upon his foundation as its management and direction are in all likelihood managed by professional trustees.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

35. Comment #206550 by al-rawandi on July 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm

 avatarbrian faux,






Now you are changing your story. You said he "manipulated" money, now you are saying "speculation". And you assume that all speculation requires inside knowledge, which is illegal.

But what is speculation? In my estimation it is a vital part of an economy, someone is taking risk on an investment, this is speculating. All those people who are long crude oil could have been screwed if there was a drop in price (i.e. increase in supply or reduction in demand).

Finally, I don't understand why some begrudge others wealth, particularly when people work hard to get it. Too many jealous people.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

36. Comment #206619 by jmdoran on July 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm

This thread is an excellent example of why there are plenty of human flaws that are unassociated with religion.

I am an atheist, and an academic who is professionally focused on the scientific study of religion. My field, and my work, is constantly assailed by religiously-minded academics and theologians, who would love to see all funding and inquiry into this subject cease. The Templeton foundation has been one of our only champions in this constant battle for legitimacy.

John Templeton was interested in furthering human understanding, and his foundation explicitly, and unashamedly supported secular, scientific inquiry into religion. The fact that he also rewarded religious moderates who made real, worldly impact on human society is a testament to his even-handedness and compassion. Two things that are severely lacking in the new atheist movement.

Other Comments by jmdoran

37. Comment #206648 by Szymanowski on July 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm

 avatarHe sounds like a nice guy.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

38. Comment #206710 by Quine on July 8, 2008 at 5:12 pm

 avatar"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." - Ecclesiastes 9:5

Other Comments by Quine

39. Comment #206746 by acs on July 8, 2008 at 6:11 pm

His only redeeming feature seems to have been giving money to solzenitsyn who, despite having a deist approach, actually wronte some decent stuff about the negative effects of dogmatic belief structures in soviet era russia.

Still, the Templeton prize and foundation are evil organisations that spread more ignorance through the world by openly endorsing scientists that are prepared to argue against well established concepts like evolution.

Other Comments by acs

40. Comment #206753 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm

 avatarmordacious1 wrote:
One cannot RIP. One rots, or goes up in a puff of smoke....whatever. To say RIP implies that one may not RIP, and what does that mean?


Well, I was speaking metaphorically, the way an atheist might say "(God) Bless you" out of habit to somebody sneezing, or the way I keep saying "in sha' Allah" when mentioning a future event (despite my best attempts to stop!).

I don't want to sound like a self-righteous prig (too late!), but I've never liked rejoicing at somebody's death, even if he/she honestly deserved it and the world is better off without him/her. I was downright nauseated at a lot of the remarks made after Jerry Falwell's death, for instance, even if I didn't think much of the guy. Even in the case of Saddam Hussein -- who deserved it more than almost anybody -- I was still uneasy at the celebration.

That said, I can understand why people might have not-so-nice thoughts about people who have died, and I don't really want to be the kind of person who whines at everybody else to shut up because it offends my sensibilities. Speaking of which...

Tyler Durden wrote:
To paraphrase Hitch:

"You should speak only good of the dead. Sir John Templeton is dead. Good."


I can hear Hitch saying now, "Pardon me for saying so, but fuck your oh-so-tender sensibilities." And he'd be perfectly entitled to say so! ;-)

Anyway, even "P Zed" didn't speak ill of the dead...though he did remark that Templeton's son is apparently more into evangelical Christianity (ugh).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

41. Comment #206755 by Brian English on July 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm

I think we should be honest about the dead. It would be ridiculous to paint Saddam Hussein, or dare I Godwin the thread, Hitler, as being basically nice if misunderstood. It would be silly to paint a fundamentalist as a liberal. However, there's probably no need to get all personal, unless one was personally affected. So, you could say, for example, that Templeton helped fund research into woo, and tried to suborn scientists into painting a favorable picture of religion and science frollicking in the meadow. For that he should be criticized. But it's probably pointless to call him all sorts of names and grin over the corpse. He's dead, it won't affect him......

I really don't know what I'm saying do I?

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #206759 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

 avatarComment #206755 by Brian English

No, that makes perfect sense. You can criticize their actions if you disagreed with them, but don't make it personal. There is a line between honesty and gloating bad taste, I think.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

43. Comment #206762 by Bonzai on July 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm

We are all going to die. What is there to gloat?

I agree with Layla and Brian.

Other Comments by Bonzai

44. Comment #206768 by Laurie Fraser on July 8, 2008 at 7:27 pm

 avatarI despise "philanthropism." It is an indictment on societies who refuse to look after their citizens. A cop-out: "Whilst we have these great philanthropists, our Vincent de Pauls, our Salvation Armies, our Mother Theresas, we can ignore universal health care, decent public housing, the extirpation of poverty, and universal public education." Bah!

Viva Hugo Chavez!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

45. Comment #206799 by mordacious1 on July 8, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Layla

The world is better off without some people. I'm not too sad when they go. This guy was 95, so he had a good run. Probably did some good, some bad. His foundation is probably going to really turn into something run by some christian whackos who are worse than he was, and if it does, it's his fault.

Jerry Falwell died recently, should I grieve for his family? No. They are continuing in his footsteps, reaping ill-gotten gains from the flock of sheep and spewing hatred. F him and his spawn.

Jesse Helms died this week. Good to be rid of the nasty old SOB. He was a hatemonger and a bigot. The world is a better place without him too.

Sometimes, you disagree with somebody, and it may be a little sad when they go. I've got no problem with that. Other times people who cause a lot of harm and real sadness in the world die, and I say good riddance.

About the "god bless you", I either say "incoming" or if I do slip and say "bless you", I mockingly make a big sign of the cross to make up for it. Also, I notice you capitalize god, most people on this site don't, too much respect I think.

Well, these are my thoughts on that, and bless you (makes big sign of the cross with hand).

Other Comments by mordacious1

46. Comment #206841 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 8, 2008 at 9:40 pm

 avatarHe did pretty good for a monkey (chimp).

He was good at making money, maybe not much else.
He wanted to know more.
He funded everything he could think of.

OK: all he could think of was his heritage - religion.

What have you (we) done?

Bitch?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

47. Comment #206945 by Clapton_is_God on July 9, 2008 at 2:19 am

 avatarI don't criticise a man's search for meaning but I do find it sad that such huge resources, which could have been used to fund research into the real meaning for existence (cosmology,neurology), have been wasted on religious fantasies.

Thankfully there are philanthropists who eschew religion, Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet among them. They either call themselves atheists or agnostics.

CiG

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

48. Comment #206993 by Johnny O on July 9, 2008 at 4:41 am

 avatarHow does that saying about the rich man, the camel and the eye of a needle go??

Oh yeah, you're going straight to hell Mr. T...

(Except there isn't one)

Other Comments by Johnny O

49. Comment #207037 by nalfeshnee on July 9, 2008 at 5:38 am


Can't fault Templeton for his money making ability. He must have had some good backing. Ten grand was a LOT of monty to borrow during that time period.


Quite the wisest comment here!

Wow, Templeton - what a guy, what a money maker!

Hold right on there. Yes, it was a neat decision to invest in those companies at $1 a pop.

But what is that 10,000 USD in modern terms?

Well mosey on down to "Measuring Worth" (http://www.measuringworth.com/index.html).

The answer? Anything from $120,000 to $1,500,000. The average of the six figures listed is $500,000.

So the next time you start envying Templeton his business acumen (which he undoubtedly possessed), why not simultaneously envy him his good fortune to be in a position to borrow half a million dollars, aged 26, in the closing years of the Great Depression and on the eve of the largest war in world history.

I personally can't think of a BETTER time to be able to do some serious strategic investment.

Right place. Right time. Oodles of cash. And some sound business sense to top it off.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

50. Comment #207042 by curlyqlink on July 9, 2008 at 5:45 am

I'm disturbed at the overwhelmingly positive tone in the coverage of Mr.Templeton's legacy. I first heard of his death on National Public Radio, allegedly a "liberal" network, and I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak. That is, some acknowledgment that the man was a crackpot, spending a vast fortune in a Quixotic quest to prove a scientific basis for religion.

No mention that this quest has failed utterly, to the surprise of no rational being. No mention of the millions of dollars wasted. When one of the super-rich leaves millions to the pet dog, there is little hesitation over speaking ill of the dead-- outright ridicule ensues, even in the mainstream media.

No mention that the vast size of the Templeton Foundation's awards and prizes, so out of line with the norm in academia, raise the specter of bribery and tempt intellectual dishonesty. No mention that this funding comes with a clear agenda, and are a reward for bias, not inquiry.

When John Templeton is eulogized as a philanthropist, what we're witnessing is dishonesty in the media, dishonesty prompted by fear of criticizing religion.

Other Comments by curlyqlink
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: