The Templeton Prize

[McCulloch]

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanitys efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine. The Prize has been awarded to scientists, philosophers, theologians, members of the clergy, philanthropists, writers, and reformers, for work that has ranged from the creation of new religious orders and social movements to humanistic scholarship to research about the origins of the universe.

Source

2009: Bernard dEspagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science for acknowledging that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'

2008: Micha Kazimierz Heller a professor of philosophy at the The Pontifical Academy of Theology in Cracow, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff. Micha Heller graduated from the Catholic University of Lublin, where he earned a master's degree in philosophy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in cosmology in 1966. His works have sought to reconcile the "known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God."

2007: Charles Taylor, a Catholic, argues that problems such as violence and bigotry can be solved only by considering both their secular and spiritual dimensions. He suggests that depending wholly on secularized viewpoints leads to fragmented reasoning and prevents crucial insights that might help a global community that is increasingly exposed to clashes of culture, morality, nationality, and religion.

2006: John D. Barrow, member of a Calvinist church, for his "writings about the relationship between life and the universe, and the nature of human understanding [which] have created new perspectives on questions of ultimate concern to science and religion".

2005: Charles Hard Townes, member of mainline Reformed Protestant Christian denomination, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964. He considers that "science and religion [are] quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge".

2004: George F. R. Ellis, a Quaker, is President of the International Society for Science and Religion.

2003: Holmes Rolston III, ordained to Presbyterian Church (USA), helped to establish the field of environmental ethics. His work assigns value not only to human beings but also to plants, animals, species, and ecosystems as core issues of theological and scientific concern.

2002: John Polkinghorne, an ordained Anglican priest, for his contributions to research at the interface between science and religion.

2001: The Reverend Canon Arthur Robert Peacocke, ordained deacon and priest in the Church of England, perhaps for his attempts to argue that Evolution and Christianity need not be at odds. He is an advocate of theistic evolution.

2000: Freeman John Dyson, a Christian, for his challenge to humankind to reconcile technology and social justice. He claims, "Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. "

Is this prize worthwhile?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes.

[VermilionUK]

Is this prize worthwhile?

Increasing human understanding is always worthwhile. What's the harm in recognising their achievements with an award?

For an award is not worthwhile, you should take a look at the Queen's Knighthoods. In 2009 Nick Faldo received a knighthood at the Queen's Birthday Honours for services to golf . It's completely laughable now, it used to be reserved for exceptional bravery in battle, or contributions to society. But anyway, that's off topic.

Looking at 2009's winner:

2009: Bernard dEspagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science for acknowledging that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'

Is that really award worthy? I could have told people that science cannot fully explain the nature of being.
Where's my award?


Although I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. ...

2009: Bernard dEspagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science for acknowledging that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'

A somewhat less superficial and dismissive description can be found here.

[VermilionUK]

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. ...

2009: Bernard dEspagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science for acknowledging that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'

A somewhat less superficial and dismissive description can be found here.

Hehe, I popped onto the website and read what he was given the award for just before posting my comment - hence:

I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

That "conclusion" can be very misleading to the average reader .

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. ...

2009: Bernard dEspagnat, a French physicist and philosopher of science for acknowledging that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'

A somewhat less superficial and dismissive description can be found here.

Hehe, I popped onto the website and read what he was given the award for just before posting my comment - hence:

I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

That "conclusion" can be very misleading to the average reader .

Or the disinterested one. I appreciated your comments.

Perhaps an interesting comparison might that between d'Espagnat and Obama. I would still favor the good scientist.

[T-mash]

Although I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

Unfortunately you are wrong in that assumption. The prize is a technical bribe. They just look for smart people that said something supportive about religion and line up their quotes in a hall-of-fame. The site states it rather clearly: "The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension". You get a prize (well prize... 1,000,000 sterling....) for sneaking peudo-science in, not for being an amazingly knowledgeable mathematician who just happens to be religious too. The Nobel Prize awards scientists for their work. The Templeton Prize awards scientists for promoting the personal agenda of the Templeton Foundation.

From wikipedia:

---------------------------------------------
"Until 2001, the name of the prize was "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion", and from 2002 to 2008 it was called the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities" "
---------------------------------------------

Says it all really doesn't it?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Although I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

Unfortunately you are wrong in that assumption.

And you are transparent in the shallow bigotry of your presuppositions. For someone with your credentials to accuse someone like dEspagnat of taking a technical bribe is simply laughable.

[Goat]

Although I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

Unfortunately you are wrong in that assumption.

And you are transparent in the shallow bigotry of your presuppositions. For someone with your credentials to accuse someone like dEspagnat of taking a technical bribe is simply laughable.

On the other hand, exactly what did his talk about the philosophical aspects of QM actually accomplish, from a scientific point of view? All it means is one big 'God of the Gaps' musing, and has no practical application in the real world.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Although I'm sure the award was given for all of his work, not just that conclusion.

Unfortunately you are wrong in that assumption.

And you are transparent in the shallow bigotry of your presuppositions. For someone with your credentials to accuse someone like dEspagnat of taking a technical bribe is simply laughable.

On the other hand, exactly what did his talk about the philosophical aspects of QM actually accomplish, from a scientific point of view? All it means is one big 'God of the Gaps' musing, and has no practical application in the real world.

Well, then, it's most certainly worthless. He should no doubt be dismissed along with Gdel. Thanks for sharing ...