The Templeton Prize

[Nitaidas]

Here is a link to an article and a radio broadcast about the recent Templeton prize awarded to Martin Rees, a well-known astronomer in Britain. It is an interesting addendum to the question of the relationship between science and religion.

Here.

and

Here.

Any thoughts?

[Ekantin]

Coyne is right on the money as usual. He brings up the extremely good point about researchers looking anywhere for funding in these dire economic times. This is unfortunately the sad fact of the moment; some science advocate friends regularly write about how the coalition government here in the UK are making cuts to various govt. departments as well as public spending cuts across the board, under the plea of trying to weather these economic times. Science and health funding has been reduced in some areas as a consequence. If any foundation is prepare to offer a million pounds worth of funding, it seems a very attractive and tempting offer.

Then Coyne discusses the cons of being a Templeton brown-noser; it has the potential to discredit one's research and findings in the eyes of other scientists, given that Templeton has been aligned to 'spiritual' research for a long time. I was impressed by this quote:

Is there really a need for Templeton's "dialogue" between science and faith? I don't see the point. Science has never needed religion to progress, while science's only benefit for religion is to disprove its dogmas, compelling theology to regroup and confect new rationalisations for God. But by forcing science and faith together, Templeton hopes that some of the public's respect for science will rub off on religion.

This is like what I was saying elsewhere; I am growing to resent the prostitution of scientific language to lend an air of credence to theories and ideas under the plea of being "open minded to the spiritual side" and such things. Some months ago Coyne wrote an excellent piece for USAToday where he discussed this point in more detail: Science and Religion aren't friends.

The point about scientific progress forcing religion to confect new dogmas is a point well proved by the very recent announcement of computers controlled by only brain power: Brain Controlled Computers. This made the news yesterday. Today the nutcases are out in force as rabbis meet to debate whether brain-controlled cars will violate Shabbat. You can't make this stuff up, it's unreal.

[vkaul1]

Apr 8, 2011 7:53:35 GMT -6 Ekantin said:

Coyne is right on the money as usual. He brings up the extremely good point about researchers looking anywhere for funding in these dire economic times. This is unfortunately the sad fact of the moment; some science advocate friends regularly write about how the coalition government here in the UK are making cuts to various govt. departments as well as public spending cuts across the board, under the plea of trying to weather these economic times. Science and health funding has been reduced in some areas as a consequence. If any foundation is prepare to offer a million pounds worth of funding, it seems a very attractive and tempting offer.

Then Coyne discusses the cons of being a Templeton brown-noser; it has the potential to discredit one's research and findings in the eyes of other scientists, given that Templeton has been aligned to 'spiritual' research for a long time. I was impressed by this quote:

Is there really a need for Templeton's "dialogue" between science and faith? I don't see the point. Science has never needed religion to progress, while science's only benefit for religion is to disprove its dogmas, compelling theology to regroup and confect new rationalisations for God. But by forcing science and faith together, Templeton hopes that some of the public's respect for science will rub off on religion.

This is like what I was saying elsewhere; I am growing to resent the prostitution of scientific language to lend an air of credence to theories and ideas under the plea of being "open minded to the spiritual side" and such things. Some months ago Coyne wrote an excellent piece for USAToday where he discussed this point in more detail: Science and Religion aren't friends.

The point about scientific progress forcing religion to confect new dogmas is a point well proved by the very recent announcement of computers controlled by only brain power: Brain Controlled Computers. This made the news yesterday. Today the nutcases are out in force as rabbis meet to debate whether brain-controlled cars will violate Shabbat. You can't make this stuff up, it's unreal.

While I agree with your sentiment about the fashionable use of science with spiritual concepts. However, we should be careful not to dismiss all such endeavors. One of the better works I have studied out there is www.amazon.com/Pauli-Jung-Meeting-Great-Minds/dp/0835608379 where Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung try to investigate concepts with an open mind. Like you I have been disappointed by most of what I have seen as far as spiritual "science" is concerned, but the work above and then work by Henry Stapp are some good anomalies to that general rule.

[Nitaidas]

Apr 8, 2011 7:53:35 GMT -6 Ekantin said:

The point about scientific progress forcing religion to confect new dogmas is a point well proved by the very recent announcement of computers controlled by only brain power: Brain Controlled Computers. This made the news yesterday. Today the nutcases are out in force as rabbis meet to debate whether brain-controlled cars will violate Shabbat. You can't make this stuff up, it's unreal.

Is this what we are striving after here, too? The confection of new dogmas that align well with scientific truth as we currently understand it? Maybe. We have a powerful literary expression for this tradition in which the expressors tried to pass on their private or semi-private experiences of either Mahaprabhu directly or Mahaprabhu on the background of the older literary tradition surrounding Krsna. Can we translate this into something meaningful today without confecting new dogmas? Are we being just as silly as those rabbis? I want to say no, but I am not sure I have any justification for it.