For the love of God... scientists in uproar at Â£1m religion prize / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

For the love of God... scientists in uproar at Â£1m religion prize

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Thu Apr 07 2011, 08:48AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

For the love of God... scientists in uproar at Â£1m religion prize

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent
Thursday, 7 April 2011

The Astronomer Royal has won this year's Â£1m Templeton Prize, an award denounced by many atheist scientists as an underhand attempt to promote religion by linking it with science.

Martin Rees, the former president of the Royal Society and master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was given the award for "exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension" through his research and writings on cosmology. Lord Rees of Ludlow, who has said he holds no religious beliefs, defended the prize on the grounds it was awarded by a foundation which has given money to fund important science projects at respectable research institutions, including Cambridge.

"I would see no reason to be concerned because they support a variety of interesting and worthwhile research projects in Cambridge University and many other places," the 68-year-old said. "The fact they have given this award to me, someone who has no religious beliefs at all, shows they are not too narrow in their sympathies. I feel very surprised because I really thought that I didn't have the credentials, but obviously I'm extremely pleased because I'm joining a roll call of distinguished previous winners, including six members of the Royal Society."

The award was established in 1972 as the Templeton Prize "for progress in religion" by the late Wall Street financier John Templeton, who died in 2008, aged 95. Its first recipient was Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The Templeton Foundation is worth about $2.1bn (Â£1.3bn) and each year hands out about $70m in grants, about half of which goes to scientific fields.

In the 1980s, the Templeton Prize switched its focus more towards science, emphasising the spiritual dimension of research that has a wider significance in terms of explaining the human condition. But this has only infuriated its critics, who believe the prize is a not-too-subtle attempt to inveigle respectable scientists into the sphere of religion.

"That will look great on Templeton's CV. Not so good on Martin's," said Professor Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University, who has been an outspoken critic of the Templeton Foundation.

Harry Kroto, a British Nobel laureate at Florida State University in Tallahassee, was equally scathing: "There's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientists they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion."

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, said the Templeton Foundation is "sneakier than the creationists" by introducing the idea of faith into a discipline where faith is anathema. "Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning. In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice," he said. The philosopher Anthony Grayling, of Birkbeck College, London, also has misgivings about the aims of the Templeton Foundation, which, he believes, should not pretend that questions of religion are on the same level as those of science. "I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research," he said.

Nevertheless, distinguished scientists such as the cosmologists Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies have accepted the prize in previous years.

3l3ctrici7y

Thu Apr 07 2011, 09:59AM

Registered Member #1806 Joined: Sun Nov 09 2008, 04:58AM
Location: USA
Posts: 136

Let's go and look at dictionary.com for a definition of atheism

â€“noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Please note that in both lines, the word "belief" is used. Yes, the same word used by those that believe GOD does exist. As much as many will vehemently argue the point, there is no argument; Atheism is, without a doubt, a religion. Normally, I would not cite a blog as proof of anything, but in this case, there is nothing to prove, so I think the blog states the relevant points quite succinctly.

This is an example of atheists wanting their religion institutionalized, and becoming displeased when it is not.

Look around you, everything decays to a more simple, more elemental state if not constantly maintained. When the all mighty science can explain how we extremely complex creatures came about in a world where everything decays, then I will have a little more respect for atheistic "science", but until then, they're just operating on the presumption of a proven negative hoping no one will say that the king has no clothes.

Ash Small

Thu Apr 07 2011, 10:37AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I agree with your point, 313.

Science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of God. Even Darwin's theories don't disprove his/her/it's existence.

I think agnostics like me will be waiting a very long time for science to answer this question definitively.

Bjørn

Thu Apr 07 2011, 11:17AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

The word belief can mean anything from an opinion to a religious tenet that is beyond question. Even if the same word is used in two diferent places does not mean that the word carry the same meaning in both cases. There is a large difference between the belief(opinion) that god does not exist and the belief(divine truth) that god does exist.

Any discussions about the existence of god would most likely fall under the pseudo science rule and is not acceptable on this forum. Thermodynamics and all its higher level siblings would be most welcome.

Steve Conner

Thu Apr 07 2011, 11:30AM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

3l3ctrici7y wrote ...

Look around you, everything decays to a more simple, more elemental state if not constantly maintained. When the all mighty science can explain how we extremely complex creatures came about in a world where everything decays, then I will have a little more respect for atheistic "science"

We came about as part of the decay process. We may look extremely complex, but that is just judging by our own standards. In the scheme of things I guess we have pretty high entropy compared to the heart of a newborn star or the Big Bang.

You could argue that we are more complex in an algorithmic sense. But I've never figured out whether it makes sense to compare statistical entropy with thermodynamic entropy.

For instance, you can calculate the statistical entropy of everything Bach ever composed, by getting it as MIDI files, zipping them, and then calculating the odds of that combination of bits coming about by chance and feeding it into the formula for Boltzmann entropy. It is an awfully big number, but it's negligible compared to the thermodynamic entropy of all the food he ate.

So you can argue that the world would have been a more ordered place if Bach had never been born, and yet his music leaves you feeling the exact opposite.

Mattski

Thu Apr 07 2011, 05:07PM

Registered Member #1792 Joined: Fri Oct 31 2008, 08:12PM
Location: University of California
Posts: 527

3l3ctrici7y wrote ...

Let's go and look at dictionary.com for a definition of atheism

â€“noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I would agree with you that atheism can indeed be treated as similar to a religion to the extent that there is belief, however you miss the fact there is also agnosticism. I personally am agnostic because I find the whole debate to be pointless: there is no compelling evidence that there is a higher being of some sort, nor is there a way to disprove the possibility. If one believes in the principle of Occam's Razor they could conclude that atheism is more logical than religion, but Occam's Razor is just a thought process, not proof of any sort. It's also bit amusing to criticize atheists for spreading their "belief" in this case since they are reacting to what seems like a religious group attempting to spread their beliefs through doling out of prizes and grants to scientists.

wrote ...
Look around you, everything decays to a more simple, more elemental state if not constantly maintained. When the all mighty science can explain how we extremely complex creatures came about in a world where everything decays, then I will have a little more respect for atheistic "science", but until then, they're just operating on the presumption of a proven negative hoping no one will say that the king has no clothes.

There is nothing about this inconsistent with current thermodynamics. So far it seems that entropy continuously increases globally, but it can decrease locally for sure. Give it time, eventually we'll catch up with the trend

Proud Mary

Thu Apr 07 2011, 06:01PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

I think 3l3ctrici7y should be commended for having the courage of his convictions, and not having crept off bleating into his funk hole.

It seems to me that the main antagonism is not so much between those who believe in a god, and those that do not, but between those who believe in the infallible authority of Bronze Age, Iron Age, and MediÃ¦val religious writings, and those who do not.

Clearly, any position that denies the origin of the species and the descent of man is extra-rational, and hence is refractory to reason and logic.

Sulaiman

Thu Apr 07 2011, 06:22PM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140

IF one believes that there is a supreme being
(e.g. I believe in Allah)
then all science is just a part of the supreme being's creation - there is no conflict.

The only difference is that I believe that I have an absolute frame of reference (Islam)
whereas we all know that the frame of reference for all of the sciences moves as we learn more.
If I do find a conflict I will let you know!

Don't forget how much of modern science is from Jews, Christians, Muslims.
On the other hand,
misguided/radical/corrupt clerics, politicians and scientists are an entirely different matter.
In my opinion, mis-guiding people is worse than even terrorist atrocities. (total harm done)

Ash Small

Thu Apr 07 2011, 06:37PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Proud Mary wrote ...

.Clearly, any position that denies the origin of the species and the descent of man is extra-rational, and hence is refractory to reason and logic.

If we're going to get into a debate about whether or not we're all descended from Charles Darwin, or whatever, I'd like to take the opportunity to mention the theories of Sir Fred Hoyle, whose ideas regarding life arriving on Earth by viroids attached to frozen grains of dust floating through space and floating down through the atmosphere, to then combine together into more advanced life forms, specifically adapted, through natural selection, for life/survival on this planet seem more credible (to me) than the alternative theories.

Extrapolating from this, one can surmise that 'some' mutations of viruses, etc could be due to this mechanism continuing, as further viroids arrive on this planet.

This leads to the conclusion that life did not 'spontaneously start' on this planet, but exists in various forms throughout the universe.

How, where and why life originated, though, still remains a mystery.

Chris Russell

Thu Apr 07 2011, 08:19PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

BjÃ¸rn wrote ...

Any discussions about the existence of god would most likely fall under the pseudo science rule and is not acceptable on this forum. Thermodynamics and all its higher level siblings would be most welcome.

I tend to agree with Bjorn here; there is, by definition, no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, so any discussion along these lines isn't going to be fruitful. Such discussions also tend to stir up a lot of pseudoscientific concepts that have no place on the forum.

The one thing I'd like to correct is the mistaken assumption that belief follows a linear progression with agnostics straddling the line between belief in God and disbelief in God. It doesn't work that way:

It's possible to be both an atheist and agnostic (I don't think there's a God, but I don't know for sure), or theist and agnostic (I believe there is a God, but I can't be sure). It's also possible to be a gnostic atheist (I know there is no God) and a gnostic theist (I know there is a God). The last two tend to be the most problematic, as both positions assert knowledge of an absolute fact. In any case, it's unwise to attempt to lump all atheists together, or all theists together. Not all atheists are militant God-haters, and not all theists are radical fundamentalists.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob