John W Templeton Student Internship

Stu­dent Intern­ship
John Tem­ple­ton Foun­da­tion
Rad­nor, PA

The John Tem­ple­ton Foun­da­tion and its new Divi­sion, Tem­ple­ton Ven­ture Phil­an­thropy Asso­ciates, is seek­ing a stu­dent intern for the sum­mer of 2003.

The Foun­da­tion awards grants around the globe for projects that involve sci­ence and reli­gion, spir­i­tu­al­i­ty and well-being, char­ac­ter devel­op­ment in youth, and free enter­prise. A fla­vor of some of this work is on the Foundation’s web­site. Suit­ably qual­i­fied stu­dents might assist in a range of research-relat­ed tasks that might include search­es of the WWW, sta­tis­ti­cal analy­ses, project design and day-to-day man­age­ment, sur­vey admin­is­tra­tion, and econo­met­ric mod­el­ing. Interns work a min­i­mum of 10 hours per week to a max­i­mum of 40 hours. Com­pen­sa­tion will be deter­mined based on back­ground and whether aca­d­e­m­ic cred­it is being sought.

Inter­est­ed stu­dents should send a brief resume high­light­ing skills and work expe­ri­ence and a short cov­er let­ter in Word for­mat to Mar­ta Oliv­er at moliver@templeton.org. Ques­tions may also be direct­ed to this e‑mail address. Please do not call the Foun­da­tion.

Jesus — A Level 5 Leader

If you’ve nev­er read any­thing by Jim Collins, he’s a for­mer prof at Stan­ford who’s hit it big (huge would be a more accu­rate term) in the world of busi­ness writ­ing. His two books Built to Last and Good to Great are devoured by busi­ness lead­ers hun­gry for an edge.

In the lat­ter book, Collins talks about the cru­cial­i­ty of lev­el 5 lead­er­ship. Lev­el 5 lead­ers com­bine humil­i­ty and strength in a sur­pris­ing­ly potent pack­age. I found this excerpt from an inter­view with him fas­ci­nat­ing:

I have absolute­ly no reli­gious back­ground at all, which gives me more con­fi­dence in the find­ings. If I had come from a strong reli­gious back­ground, I’d be more sus­pi­cious. After the book came out, I kept hear­ing peo­ple say to me, “There was this ulti­mate Lev­el 5 leader who lived 2,000 years ago. The things he talked about in the Gospel have great com­pat­i­bil­i­ty with what you say.” Of course I had heard about Jesus, but as a result of find­ing out about Lev­el 5, I was inspired to begin read­ing the New Tes­ta­ment to see for myself. read the whole inter­view

The Cold Reaches of Heaven

Sojourn­er Mag­a­zine just ran an arti­cle about Nobel lau­re­ate William Phillips called The Cold Reach­es of Heav­en. Phillips is a Chris­t­ian, and he has some­thing inter­est­ing to say about the rela­tion­ship between sci­ence and reli­gion:

“I’m not an anom­aly,” he says emphat­i­cal­ly. “In fact, I would say that if you were to ask, the major­i­ty of physi­cists would answer that they believe in God in one form or anoth­er. Maybe not in exact­ly the same way that I do, because I believe in a per­son­al God, but God in one form or anoth­er.”

in a lat­er sec­tion he com­ments:

“If I want to know how the uni­verse went through its stages of devel­op­ment, I ask obser­va­tion­al astron­o­my and the­o­ret­i­cal cos­mol­o­gy,” says Phillips. “If I want to know why are we here, why is there a uni­verse in the first place, or what is the nature of my rela­tion­ship to my Cre­ator, I turn to the Bible. But when I study cos­mol­o­gy as a sci­ence, when I study physics, one of the things that I learn is that there are very clear, beau­ti­ful­ly sim­ple laws that describe almost every­thing that I observe. I see that kind of sim­plic­i­ty and beau­ty, and I think, this is a put-up job, this did­n’t hap­pen by chance.” Phillips laughs.

“That’s a way in which sci­ence informs my faith. I don’t want to com­part­men­tal­ize them, but I am clear that there are ques­tions that are well-posed to sci­ence and ques­tions that are well-posed to reli­gion. But they’re not com­plete­ly sep­a­rate enti­ties.”

FYI: I’ve updat­ed our list of famous sci­en­tists who are Chris­t­ian with a link to the arti­cle.

Galileo And The Pope: Perspectives

Check out this brief inter­view with Pro­fes­sor Lind­berg (his­to­ry of sci­ence prof at Wis­con­sin-Madi­son) Did Mar­tin Luther Get Galileo in Trou­ble?

How did the church respond to Galileo’s the­o­ry?
There was a com­mit­tee estab­lished called the Holy Office, which had the respon­si­bil­i­ty to deter­mine the truth in mat­ters of faith. Charges were lev­eled against Galileo, and so the helio­cen­tric ques­tion came before them.

We don’t know much about what went on in their con­sid­er­a­tions. But it’s impor­tant to look at the whole pic­ture. And one part of that pic­ture is that the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty is over­whelm­ing­ly opposed to Galileo. That is, the evi­dence that Galileo has is not par­tic­u­lar­ly pow­er­ful. It’s not over­pow­er­ing. He was looked on as a crack­pot by lots of sci­en­tists.

If we com­bine this pic­ture with the author­i­ty of the Catholic Church to inter­pret the Bible—and their new atten­tion to lit­er­al interpretation—it’s just clear what the answer is going to be. They’re not going to vio­late their own hermeneu­tic exeget­i­cal stan­dards in order to adopt this crack­pot minor­i­ty opin­ion of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty.

So then he goes before a papal court. It was­n’t his sci­ence that was on tri­al, though. What was he tried for?
Obe­di­ence was the only issue in the tri­al. And he was guilty. Every­body could tell he was guilty because Galileo does­n’t just dis­cuss the pros and cons of the the­o­ry, he just advo­cates all the way. It was a blun­der on Galileo’s part.

Galileo then recants. Why?
He had two choic­es. There was the threat of impris­on­ment or he could recant. Every­body knew it was a for­mal­i­ty, so he did­n’t cost his cause any­thing to recant.

How did the the­o­ry of the sun as the cen­ter of the uni­verse final­ly get accept­ed by the church?
Once New­ton’s the­o­ry of grav­i­ta­tion came along, you had over­whelm­ing argu­ments in favor of helio­cen­trism. The church says, “Okay, now we’ve got proof, so now we will rein­ter­pret the Bible.”

By the end of the 17th cen­tu­ry, the church was on board, though Coper­ni­cus’s book stayed on the index of pro­hib­it­ed books until 1835. This geo­cen­tric mod­el remained an alba­tross around the Catholic Church’s neck.

Inter­est­ing stuff.

More Scientists Who Believe

I just ran across a link for the Amer­i­can Sci­en­tif­ic Affil­i­a­tion: a fel­low­ship of men and women in sci­ence and dis­ci­plines that relate to sci­ence who share a com­mon fideli­ty to the Word of God and a com­mit­ment to integri­ty in the prac­tice of sci­ence.

They have an absolute­ly incred­i­ble respos­i­to­ry of arti­cles and links to resources. If you’re in the sci­ences, you need to check this out!

The Groves of Academe: When Disrespect is Respectful

Dar­ryl Hart, aca­d­e­m­ic dean at West­min­ster The­o­log­i­cal Sem­i­nary, weighs in with a con­trar­i­an per­spec­tive on Chris­t­ian aca­d­e­mics in an essay titled The Groves of Acad­eme: When Dis­re­spect is Respect­ful.

Well, con­trar­i­an for an evan­gel­i­cal.

He argues that mod­ern uni­ver­si­ties have no place for Chris­t­ian schol­ar­ship, and appro­pri­ate­ly so: If believ­ing schol­ars could rec­og­nize hos­til­i­ty to faith as the acad­e­my’s high­est form of flat­tery, in oth­er words, if they could acknowl­edge the ways in which Christ and cul­ture are legit­i­mate­ly at odds, they might under­stand why some habits die hard. They might even dis­cov­er the plau­si­bil­i­ty of cer­tain anti-reli­gious prej­u­dices.

Inci­den­tal­ly, this essay is a response to Force of Habit and Spe­cial Plead­ing (both are also quite inter­est­ing, and take dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives).

The Wilberforce Forum

The Wilber­force Forum is a col­lec­tion of excel­lent resources for thought­ful Chris­tians.

At present, they have resources in the
* Arts
* Lit­er­a­ture
* Phi­los­o­phy
* Sci­ence & Math
* His­to­ry and Polit­i­cal Sci­ence

They have more dis­ci­plines in the works. Looks like some­thing to book­mark!

A Student’s Guide To Liberal Learning

I just read a mar­velous essay by James Schall (a priest and pro­fes­sor at George­town) called A Stu­den­t’s Guide to Lib­er­al Learn­ing (link found from the author’s home­page, which I ran across cour­tesy of the Clare­mont Insti­tute). It’s sim­ply out­stand­ing (although I found the style a lit­tle odd at times).

Schall argues that stu­dents must take respon­si­bil­i­ty for their own learn­ing. Two pas­sages serve as a decent intro­duc­tion:

When a stu­dent arrives at a uni­ver­si­ty, espe­cial­ly a pres­tige [sic] one, he will prob­a­bly think that what he is about to study will be the best that he can pos­si­bly come by. He nat­u­ral­ly expects that what he is get­ting is, in fact, his “mon­ey’s worth”, as they say.… This par­tic­u­lar essay is not writ­ten for stu­dents who have no prob­lems with the sys­tem or who, even less, do not want to find any. They will nev­er know the dif­fer­ence. They will nev­er doubt that what they are being taught is any­thing but the high qual­i­ty stuff that it is tout­ed to be in the brochures and media or, appar­ent­ly, con­firmed by the high cost of their tuition. Often how­ev­er, from one’s reli­gious or philo­soph­i­cal back­ground, from one’s fam­i­ly, per­haps from a friend or a teacher or from some­thing that one chanced to read or see, a young man or woman will be at least alert and, hope­ful­ly, begin to sus­pect that all is not well in acad­e­mia, or in the cul­ture, or, for that mat­ter, in one’s own soul.

and also

E. F. Schu­mach­er, in his great book, A Guide for the Per­plexed, tells of going to Oxford as a young man, that is, of going to what was thought to be the great­est uni­ver­si­ty of his time. He dis­cov­ered that what was taught and dis­cussed there bore lit­tle mean­ing and truth to him. Schu­mach­er was forced to look else­where for some sem­blance of an edu­ca­tion that dealt with the high­est things, that took seri­ous­ly what the great philo­soph­i­cal and reli­gious minds real­ly were talk­ing about, issues that he already felt press­ing in his own soul but were nev­er addressed in the great uni­ver­si­ty.

And one last obser­va­tion which I found par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ing: In spite of most of what a stu­dent will read on the top­ic, rev­e­la­tion seeks rea­son, is addressed to mind and fos­ters it. The Bible sim­ply has pro­found things to tell us, things we clear­ly ought to know. We now have stu­dents in class, more­over, even those who have gone to church or syn­a­gogue all their lives, who have not the faintest accu­rate idea about what is said in Scrip­ture, a work that almost every gen­er­a­tion before this era has read care­ful­ly either to under­stand or to dis­pute or to live by.

If you find Schal­l’s essay help­ful, you might also want to read my ear­li­er post­ing on Becom­ing Wise In Col­lege.

The Faith of a Scientist

From an inter­view at Chris­tian­i­ty Today: John Polk­ing­horne worked for years as a the­o­ret­i­cal ele­men­tary par­ti­cle physi­cist and then a math­e­mat­i­cal physics pro­fes­sor at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty before resign­ing to train for min­istry in the Church of Eng­land. Ear­li­er this year, he was award­ed the 2002 Tem­ple­ton Prize for progress in reli­gion…

Polk­ing­horne on whether sci­ence and faith are com­pat­i­ble: “I’ve nev­er felt an either/or sit­u­a­tion that I had to choose either my sci­ence or my reli­gious belief. Of course, there are puz­zles about how the two relate to each oth­er, and I tried to think about those dur­ing my sci­ence days. And, of course, I’ve thought a great deal more about them since then.

“I try to hold the two togeth­er as far as I can myself. I want to be, so to speak two-eyed: look­ing through my sci­ence eye and my reli­gious eye at the same time. I’m glad that I’m both a physi­cist and a priest and, though I’m puz­zled by how those aspects of me fit togeth­er, I want to hold them in dia­logue with each oth­er.” (read the whole thing)

Legal Rights Are Rooted In Divine Laws

Michael Novak has an inter­est­ing col­umn argu­ing that it’s in our nation­al self-inter­est to real­ize that there is an intrin­sic con­nec­tion between the wide­spread sense of reli­gious con­vic­tion in Amer­i­ca and the free­doms we enjoy.

Specif­i­cal­ly, Novak argues that Chris­tian­i­ty pro­vides a unique foun­da­tion for the con­cept of indi­vid­ual rights. Read all about it

(I should men­tion that it’s in the con­text of an anti-ACLU polemic).