Dan Dennett's May 2007 reply to the July 2006 Milestones authored by Dr. Billy Grassie

The John Templeton Foundation claims to be committed to open-minded research on religion and science, but their actions belie their words. They recently featured a piece by William Grassie, "Inside Out-Outside In" which opens as follows:

"Noted philosopher Daniel Dennett recently published a book entitled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, arguing for the necessity of engaging in the scientific study of religious and spiritual phenomena.

The John Templeton Foundation shares with Dennett the conviction that the scientific study of religious and spiritual phenomena is a wholesome and worthwhile endeavor and has done much in the last decade to promote such research. However, for Dennett the assumption at the outset is that there is no truth-value in religion and that the result of this inquiry will be the disenchantment of religion."

This last sentence is flat false. The title of my first chapter, "Breaking which spell?" makes it clear that my goal is to dispel the traditional aura of hyper-respect for religion that makes certain scientific examinations of religion taboo, not the "disenchantment of religion." My major aim in the book is to provide precisely the level playing field and open-minded attitude towards research that the Templeton Foundation says it is calling for. As I say "The first spell--the taboo--and the second spell — religion itself — are bound together in a curious embrace. Part of the strength of the second may be — may be — the protection it receives from the first. But who knows?" (p18) I go on to address this fear: "Like the revivalist preacher, I say unto you, O religious folks who fear to break the taboo: Let go! Let go! You'll hardly notice the drop! The sooner we set about studying religion scientifically, the sooner your deepest fears will be allayed." (p20) Since my book is primarily one of setting out the questions, not the answers, I never even conclude, let alone assume, that there is no truth-value in religion. I do argue that the standard defenses of religion are flawed and probably not salvageable, but I leave the door open for other defenses to be mounted, and insist that the research needed to settle the issues has yet to be done. Assuming that religion is a natural phenomenon until it is proven otherwise is simply the starting point of all science, and the only truly objective way in which to do research on the "truth-value of religion."

I note that Grassie goes on in the same paragraph to draw attention to the Foundation's refusal to accept this starting point:

The Templeton Foundation's approach is to assume, indeed, that there is truth and other value to religion. God, by whatever name, exists.

William Grassie manages the Templeton Advanced Research Project, so his view on this matter is presumably official Templeton Foundation policy. The Templeton Foundation has been suspected in many scientific quarters of having a biased agenda, of supporting only those researches and reflections that will likely provide support for the claim that "there is truth and other value in religions" and now the head of their Advanced Research Project not only admits it, but exhibits in the very process of admitting it the danger of such an attitude: it leads all too often to misrepresentation, as it has done in this instance.

I do not consider this a mere difference of scholarly opinion, or a mere mistake of interpretation. I view it as an intentional distortion of my work and my reputation as an open- minded researcher, and I request a retraction and an apology from Mr Grassie and the Templeton Foundation.

Dennett

The John Templeton Foundation is dedicated to open minded conversations. The Foundation supports science and invests in the Big Questions.