NYT: Physicist Is Awarded the Templeton Prize in Spiritual Matters

[DeepModem Mom]

Physicist Is Awarded the Templeton Prize in Spiritual Matters
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: March 10, 2005


Dr. Charles Townes, a physicist who shared the Nobel Prize for helping to invent the laser, added another and most unusual prize to a lifelong storehouse of honors yesterday. In a news conference at the United Nations, he was announced as the winner of the $1.5 million Templeton Prize, awarded annually for progress or research in spiritual matters.

Dr. Townes, 89, a longtime professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has long argued that those old antagonists science and religion are more alike than different and are destined to merge.

"Understanding the order in the universe and understanding the purpose in the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart," he wrote in a seminal paper titled "The Convergence of Science and Religion," published in 1966 in the IBM journal "Think."...

***

Dr. Townes, who described himself as a Protestant Christian, said there was no reason to expect that the Bible would be all correct. Asked about his beliefs, he said, "I have enormous respect and adoration for Christ and what he did," but he added that he did not know whether Christ actually was the son of God.

"He's closer to it than anybody else I know of," Dr. Townes said....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/science/10prize.html

[jpak]

1. He is an advocate of intelligent design

that's why he got the prize.

[skjpm]

3. Ooh! Ooh! Here it is! How do I link it?

This is the article I refer to in my thread. So, why couldn't this article be talked about in a science class? Why couldn't a teacher bring this article to the attention of his students for discussion in his physics class, say?

[Viking12]

7. Because it is religion, not physics

Comparative Religion in philosophy class. Science in science class. Math in math class. See how that works?

[KittyWampus]

11. If You Believe There Is No Philosophy Inherent In Neo-Darwinism

and Establishment Science you are totally incorrect and/or in denial.

Materialism is at the very base of Science as most practise it.

The unproven and unprovable assumption that Consciousness proceeds from Physical Matter.

That Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of Matter.

That is an a priori assertion that you cannot prove and which causes MORE questions and problems then does the possiblity that-

COSNCIOUSNESS is the a priori state from which Matter descends.

[Ripley]

16. Why can't that "philosophy" stay in the Philosophy department?

Why do you want to muck up a biology class with metaphysical musings? Should we also teach that in Driver's Education classes, and Electrical Engineering?

[VegasWolf]

24. Exactly! n/t

[heidler1]

38. If the complexity of the human eye for, instance, make you question

evolution. Then doesn't the notion that there must therefore be an eternal, all powerful and all knowing supreme being compound the probability factor that perplexes the mind in the first place. Wouldn't this then require another and another in infinitum of creators.

If these creatures do exist why would they be interested in the lives of us resentful human mortals, dogs maybe for they will joyfully kiss the hand that feeds them. If the "intelligent design" concept is true it is a house of cards, and we are at their mercy, worse yet they show no mercy. I prefer to accept the poorly understood big bang accident scenario with all of it's surprises.

[Stunster]

51. Complexity

Do you tell biologists to give up biology in favor of physics because
biological explanations are more complex than physics explanations? Or
economists to give up economics because physics provides simpler
explanations of the price of oil?

You're assuming that science itself is completely reductionistic, but that itself is far from being established. It's certainly not clear that from a complete knowledge of physics, one could predict the emergence of higher level properties such as life or consciousness or culture. For one thing, there are serious doubts about whether determinism is true. For another, it's possible that higher level properties supervene on physical properties in virtue of laws that are not themselves laws of physics. And that's just for starters.

Harking on with this complaint that theism posits something of a higher order of complexity is like complaining that mathematicians posit sets to explain numbers. Most people find numbers much easier to understand than set theory!

Nor do I need to accept that God is more complex than the material world. In classical theism, God is an ontologically simple, not a composite being. God is immaterial substance, i.e. is not composed of parts. Matter, by contrast, always seems to possess a complex essence, with a variety of measurable properties such as position, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Simplicity is really a vague, not a well-defined, notion, and I suspect that when used to characterize explanations, it's inherently subjective. But when we use it to characterize, not explanations, but beings, then I think that rational consciousness is less obviously complex (in the sense of being composite or divisible into discrete parts or properties) than is material reality. It's certainly not obvious that mind is more ontologically complex than matter.

But even if mind or God was more ontologically or explanatorily complex than material reality, one would still have to show why a correct explanans of any given thing has to be less complex than the explanandum. It seems to me that in science, we often explain something by positing something more complex than the thing being explained. For example, we see an apple fall from a tree. When along comes Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity, do we say, "YOU'RE WRONG, ALBERT. YOUR THEORY IS A LOT MORE COMPLEX AND HARDER TO UNDERSTAND THAN A FALLING APPLE!"????

No, we don't, is the short answer to that. Same with explaining WELCOME TO SCOTLAND signs by reference to conscious rational minds acting purposively rather than by reference to purposeless movements of material particles.

[Viking12]

17. I didn't say there weren't philosphical foundations of science.

there are philosophical fopundations behind every subject. Should we have a metaphysical discussion in shop class too? Nice strawman though. I said that ID and spiritualism don't meet the criteria of science to be considered for discussion in a science class.

If you want to have a discussion on the relationship between ontology & epistemology in the Philosophy class, go for it.

on edit: fixed typo

[VegasWolf]

25. I guess you are not a big follower of Existentialism! Sarte was

right, philosophy is Absurd, stick to science, therein
lies the truth.

[iam]

34. I can prove it...

Assess an empty room (empty of everything but fields) to show that there is no consciousness within. Then put a human in the room and re-assess. Poof - there's your proof.
I just love it when people say that something "cannot be known". Only if you are infinitely intelligent(which is impossible unless you are infinite yourself) can you know if something cannot be known (doesn't that in itself make the infinite, finite?). This is more "it was meant to be" crap and the inverse causalists chant of "things happen for a reason" idiocy.

[blm]

8. Are you sure about that?

I haven't seen his name connected with intelligent design before.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. No, no mention of intelligent design or evolution

It was the 1966 publication of his seminal article, “The Convergence of Science and Religion” in the IBM journal THINK, however, that established Townes as a unique voice - especially among scientists - that sought commonality between the two disciplines. Long before the concept of a relationship between scientific and theological inquiry became an accepted arena of investigation, his nonconformist viewpoint jumpstarted a movement that until then few had considered and even fewer comprehended. So rare was such a viewpoint at the time that Townes admitted in the paper that his position would be considered by many in both camps to be “extreme.” Nonetheless, he proposed, “their differences are largely superficial, and…the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each.”

The article was generated from a talk delivered by Townes in 1964 before a congregation at New York’s famed Riverside Church, known for its embrace of groundbreaking perspectives on philosophy, theology and social activism.
...
In nominating Townes to the international, interfaith panel of nine judges that awards the prize, David Shi, president of Furman University, wrote, “He points out that both scientists and theologians seek truth that transcends current human understanding, and because both are human perspectives trying to explain and to find meaning in the universe, both are fraught with uncertainty. Scientists propose hypotheses from postulates, from ideas that ultimately cannot be proven. Thus, like religion, science builds on a form of faith.”

Shi added, “Charles Townes helped to create and sustain the dialogue between science and theology. Thus he has made a profound contribution to the world's progress in understanding - and embracing - the wonder of God's creation.”

http://www.templetonprize.org/townes_pressrelease.html

[jpak]

29. Why does this statement bother me???

"Thus he (Townes) has made a profound contribution to the world's progress in understanding - and embracing - the wonder of God's creation.”

Emphasis on "God's creation"...

[patcox2]

43. It shouldn't bother you.

It does not mean that he tries to use science to prove that God created the universe.

It is rather a common statement among those who beleive there is no conflict between science and religion. Understand that "god's creation" simply means "the universe." Science, by revealing previously unseen and unknown wonders of the universe, does not debunk religion, but rather should increase reverence for the wonder of "creation." It does not mean literal creation, it accepts all scientific knowledge, such as the big bang and evolution, and the laws of nature, as simply better and better understandings of how god created the universe, or I should perhaps say "how the universe came to be," because to use the word "creation" is I think anthropomorphizing a bit, what we do when we "create" things is something completely different from the formation of the universe, you would think. Dig what I am getting at? That when the topic is the nature of "god" and the manner in which the universe came into being, all words used must be regarded as limited symbols for unknowable and inexpressible realities?

[jpak]

45. When it's coupled with a statement like this...

"Scientists propose hypotheses from postulates, from ideas that ultimately cannot be proven. Thus, like religion, science builds on a form of faith."

It bothers me a lot...

[w4rma]

26. Wrong, jpak. (nt)

[jpak]

39. If so, why does Townes claim science is "destined" to merge with religion?

Destiny implies there is some kind of divine plan - who's plan?

The Intelligent Designer??????.

...and where's the evidence for this "inevitable" merging of science and religion????

There is none.

The development of the theories of Evolution, Big Bang Cosmology and Plate Tectonics (and please don't confuse theory with conjecture) represent a clear divergence from religious dogma.

The divergent trajectories of scientific philosophy relative stagnant religious dogma over the last 500 years is simply not consistent with the inevitable merging of science and religion.

Townes also states that not all the Bible myths can be true - this implies that in the merged religion/science of the future it's OK to cherry pick the data to fit your preconceived notions of how the universe works - i.e., biblical cosmology and creationism.

Does the Scientific Method or accepted scientific practice allow researchers to cherry pick the data to draw their conclusions?????

Nope - and just try to get cherry-picked data published. The reviewers will squash you like a bug.

Science does not have to resort to trickery to describe observable processes in the natural world and cosmos. The intellectual honesty of the future inevitable-merged-religion-science, however, will be highly suspect.

In the NPR interview this AM, Townes claimed that a personal "revelation" led to the development of the laser, and that this was somehow equivalent to God's revelation of "truth" to Moses?

WTF?????

Townes's "revelations" were insights gained from tangible evidence (accepted physics and available hardware). Moses's "revelations" originated from a burning bush, some loud noises and a conversation with a God that only he could communicate with.

I fail to see the similariies...

Finally, (IMHO) all this nonsense about merging religion with science is nothing more than a clever attempt to introduce the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Fuck that.

[Shakespeare]

41. You're really pushing his statement FAR beyond what he said.

"The development of the theories of Evolution, Big Bang Cosmology and Plate Tectonics (and please don't confuse theory with conjecture) represent a clear divergence from religious dogma."

It's pretty evident that he in NO way subscribes to dogma of any variety, and that his religious views are more of a pantheistic, deistic nature.

"Finally, (IMHO) all this nonsense about merging religion with science is nothing more than a clever attempt to introduce the teaching of creationism in public schools."

Sorry, but there is no way you can logically conclude that he has any such desire based on anything said in that story.

Again (although Tygrbright has already said it beautifully), a belief that the spiritual and scientific can have some connection IS NOT the same as subscribing to the "intelligent design" philosophy.

[jpak]

44. He was awarded the prize because he wrote a paper

entitled "The Convergence of Science and Religion".

the NYT article stated that:

<snip>

Dr. Townes, 89, a longtime professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has long argued that those old antagonists science and religion are more alike than different and are destined to merge.

<snip>

and...

<snip>

Dr. Townes often recalls that he came up with the idea that would become the laser while sitting on a Washington park bench in 1951. In his 1966 article, he said there was little difference between such epiphanies, when the subconscious hits on the solution to a problem, and the religious experience of revelation.

<snip>

In the NPR interview he clearly referred to Moses' "revelations"..

From the Templeton press release...

<snip>

Townes said, “Science and religion have had a long history of interesting interaction. But when I was younger, that interaction did not seem like a very healthy one.”

<snip>

and what has changed since then??? (the rise of the religious right????)

and finally...

<snip>

...Scientists propose hypotheses from postulates, from ideas that ultimately cannot be proven. Thus, like religion, science builds on a form of faith.”

She added, “Charles Townes helped to create and sustain the dialogue between science and theology. Thus he has made a profound contribution to the world's progress in understanding - and embracing - the wonder of God's creation.”

<snip>

again, emphasis on "God's creation"...

am I missing something here?????

I don't think so....

This is the rhetoric of the Religious Right and it's pretty plain to me where all this is headed.

[Shakespeare]

46. Yes, you're missing something.

Again, no dogma WHATSOEVER in Townes' statements. You seem to think that belief = fundie dogma, and it simply doesn't.

You know, there are many, many, many of us who have a very broad, very liberal view of what God and religion are, and it is as far from the realm of the fundies than anything you can apparently imagine. Frankly, that you can't see just how far divorced from fundamentalism his statements are is quite telling.

The usual fundy response to complex science like physics is to plug the ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA." They avoid it like the plague, when they're not outright denouncing it. I'm guessing that Falwell's minions would see Townes as quite the heretic.

[jpak]

47. Religion is dogma

sorry I missed that...

[Shakespeare]

48. Nope, it isn't. n/t

[patcox2]

49. He could not be further from the religious right, beleive me.

You are reacting to certain of his words because they are religious right buzzwords (actually fundamentalist buzzwords) but the fundamentalists don't own those words and he obviously is not one of them.

Let me describe what I see in your arguments this way. You despise the religious right for trying to force everyone to beleive what they beleive, for forcing religion into the schools, and for rejecting anything in science which they beleive contradicts their religious beliefs. I agree with you on all points.

But this guy is not doing that, when he says science and religion are not incompatible. He is not saying "you should beleive in my religion, because it is compatible with science."

You seem to be objecting because, at bottom, you believe that science disproves religion. This guy's statements challenge that. I don't agree with you there. Religion should not dictate science, but neither does science "prove" or "disprove" religion. They concern different things and operate in different realms.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. Templeton's foundation is non-sectarian. Check them out.

Link:
www.templeton.org

This ain't no fundie organization, folks, so don't worry.


:bounce:

[jpak]

4. He was on NPR this AM

sounded like an ID guy to me....

[GOPBasher]

5. That's pretty cool.

That is probably my greatest interest in life -- the convergence of theology and science.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Longer article from LA Times --

Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize
Nobel recipient's belief that religion and science were converging raised hackles in the 1960s.

By Larry B. Stammer, Times Staff Writer

....The co-inventor of the laser, Townes, 89, said no greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life — and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos.

"If you look at what religion is all about, it's trying to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe," he said in a telephone interview from New York this week. "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."

Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental....

***

Townes said science was increasingly discovering how special our universe was, raising questions as to whether it was planned. To raise such a question is the work of scientists and theologians alike, said Townes, who grew up in a Baptist household that embraced "an open-minded approach" to biblical interpretation. He is a member of the First Congregational Church in Berkeley and prays twice daily....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prize10mar10,0,7011552.story?coll=la-home-nation

[oneighty]

9. " discovering how special our universe was"

Special compared to what? Other less special universes?

I cannot buy this. But of course who cares that I cannot. Will I get a prize?

When it comes to things philosophical we are all winners.

180

[Occulus]

28. Special to us because we live in it.

There are some theories- like the "Many Worlds (or Universes) Interpretation" or metatheory of quantum mechanics- that seem to reach in the direction this guy is talking about. That particular theory, by the way, doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, but is in itself a legitimate creation theory. One FAQ can be found here: http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/many-worlds-faq.html

I should quote the following from that FAQ so people don't think this is some whacked-out thing from left field:

"Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
----------------------------
"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown .

1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%

Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No, I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.

The findings of this poll are in accord with other polls, that many-worlds is most popular amongst scientists who may rather loosely be described as string theorists or quantum gravitists/cosmologists. It is less popular amongst the wider scientific community who mostly remain in ignorance of it.

More detail on Weinberg's views can be found in Dreams of a Final Theory or Life in the Universe Scientific American (October 1994), the latter where Weinberg says about quantum theory:

"The final approach is to take the Schrodinger equation seriously <..description of the measurement process..> In this way, a measurement causes the history of the universe for practical purposes to diverge into different non-interfering tracks, one for each possible value of the measured quantity. <...> I prefer this last approach"

In the The Quark and the Jaguar and Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology <10> Gell-Mann describes himself as an adherent to the (post-)Everett interpretation, although his exact meaning is sometimes left ambiguous.

Steven Hawking is well known as a many-worlds fan and says, in an article on quantum gravity , that measurement of the gravitational metric tells you which branch of the wavefunction you're in and references Everett.

Feynman, apart from the evidence of the Raub poll, directly favouring the Everett interpretation, always emphasized to his lecture students that the "collapse" process could only be modelled by the Schrodinger wave equation (Everett's approach).

Jagdish Mehra The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science (by) Richard Feynman
Stephen W Hawking Black Holes and Thermodynamics Physical Review D Vol 13 #2 191-197 (1976)
Frank J Tipler The Physics of Immortality 170-171"


So, I guess there may be something to it after all.

[oneighty]

31. These are opinions only.

Philosophies, we are all entitled to think to dream to imagine.

There is no proof one way or the other to declare our universe as being special among other universes.

And of course one cannot prove our universe is not special.

There is no proof that Jesus is or is not the son of god either.

Checkmate. (Or your move)

180

[Occulus]

32. Special *to us.*

Why should we care what happens in another universe? If there are two, there could be a dozen, a hundred, or (more logically) an infinite number of them, with ours being based on which probabilities resolve in which direction. If true, our minds are the rudder which guides us through these possible universes, as we have the capacity to make choices independent of the world's (or universe's) overall state.

However, other universes, under MWI, do not and can not affect us. This is the only universe that can demand our attention, therefore it is 'special'.

[Stunster]

35. The Many-Worlds interpretation of QM and philosophical biases

I took a graduate seminar in the philosophy of quantum mechanics with this guy (when he was teaching at USC) so I'm familiar with the Many-Worlds interpretation.

It is controversial, but I do remember Arntzenius gave a rather spell-binding argument against that interpretation. I found his argument totally convincing, and it had something to do with the fact that there's a problem with how to interpret probabilities in the Everettian picture. But it was very technical, and I can't remember the details now.

My own view is that a lot of the motivation for accepting the MW interpretation of QM is precisely to avoid having to explain the world theistically, though this is rarely admitted by its proponents. In other words, there is a bias towards it derived from a prior worldview (naturalism). I think the bias is philosophical rather than strictly scientific, so I'm suspicious of it.

Of course, the same could be said for those who reject it. The moral being,"Just because a scientist says something, don't assume that s/he's saying it purely for scientific reasons". But, as I say, this cuts both ways as between theists and nontheists working in science.

In fact, I think there's a lot of philosophical presupposition and bias at work within science, especially in certain fields such as QM, cosmology, and the investigation of consciousness. Einstein is a good example of someone whose philosophical prejudices governed his reaction to quantum mechanics.

[blm]

10. I still don't get the impression he's sold on intelligent design. Sounds

more like he weighs in on the science end while seeking the input of real theologians, not preachers.

Furman University is a more liberal school in Greenville and opposes the Bob Jones type of theology.

[jpak]

12. This is the quote that struck me

"Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental...."

[Stunster]

18. I think what he means is that

it is extremely unlikely unless there is a Multiverse. Martin Rees, who is not a theist, comes to exactly the same conclusion in his book JUST SIX NUMBERS. Rees, however, posits a Multiverse....

Since the Multiverse notion involves a vast number of additional universes, and is not straightforwardly 'observable' in the normal scientific sense (since other universes with different laws of physics are, by definition, not physically accessible to us), then perhaps what Townes means is that he rejects the Multiverse idea as being: a) an egregious violation of Ockham's Razor; and b) as having to posit an invisible infinity, which kind of defeats the purpose of explaining the laws of physics without positing the invisible infinity that is God.

In other words, he may simply find the Multiverse idea ontologically extravagant and incoherently motivated, compared to theism.

;-)

[Occulus]

30. See my post #28 for an alternative n/t

[pmbryant]

19. That doesn't sound like "Intelligent Design"

ID, as I understand it, is about the complexity of life forms on Earth and whether they could have arisen by chance natural selection or not.

Whether the laws of physics are accidental or not seems to me a separate problem.

--Peter

[jpak]

23. My interpretation of Townes's statements was that

they were the same arguments used by ID advocates - i.e., biological systems are too complex to have originated by chance, therefore there had to be an Intelligent Designer.

He's just extending this argument to the origin and structure of the cosmos.

...and I'm more than a little suspicious when I see people advocating the "merger" science and religion.

Which begs the question - which religion is "destined" to "merge" with science and why is this religion more likely to "merge" with science than other spiritual beliefs?????

Am I overly paranoid???? Maybe...

:shrug:

on edit: oops!

[patcox2]

37. You need more knowledge of the concepts, they are not similar or related.

Intelligent design has very little more than a superficial resemblance to the cosmological theories this guy is talking about.

Here is the simplest way to explain it. Intelligent design is false psuedo-science, made up by charlatans for the sole purpose of refuting Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

I would bet a million dollars that this physicist does beleive in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Discussions at the cosmological level about the possibility that the universe's laws are so perfectly tuned to our own existence as to imply some purpose or cause have, as I said, nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

There are even some theories that the universe had to evolve in such a way that we came into existence because its existence itself would not be but for our observation of it. I am muddy on this, but the general thought is that the universe would not exist if we were not here to observe it. But again, these are deep thoughts from deep thinkers, most of them not christians, and I don't pretend ot understand them. But I do understand enought to know that there is no connection between them and intelligent design.

[jpak]

52. If he is not an advocate of ID what does he mean by this???

"Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental...."

[pmbryant]

53. He may well mean...

that some entity (e.g., God) created the laws of physics and set the Universe in motion. It does not appear that he means that some entity designed complex life forms directly, which is what the ID movement is about.

This former concept, while of course not scientific, is not unusual amongst scientists, past and present, and is not at all the same as what is generally referred to as "Intelligent Design" these days. (Although, of course, it can be viewed as "intelligent design", when using the mere literal interpretation of those words.)

Perhaps Townes deserves criticism, I don't know enough about him to say. But this statement strikes me as quite harmless.

--Peter

[jpak]

55. Hi Peter. Thanks for answering that question.

but I have to disagree with you again...

Townes DOES advocate ID...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence.html

<snip>

Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and coinventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics "seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law."

<snip>

http://www.doesgodexist.org/MarApr01/FaithAndReasonTogetherAgain.htm

<snip>

"We do not know why the physical constants are what they are," Mr. Townes noted, "but many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe." The "onus is on nonbelievers," Mr. Peacocke added. "We're entitled to ask them, `Well, then, how do you explain it?'"

<snip>

and I don't see this as harmless.

After the Townes interview on NPR this AM, the local newscaster announced that Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA) was coming to town to speak about global warming. The announcement further stated that Spenser will refute the "theory" of global warming.

Spencer is a very right-wing fundamentalist Christian. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, he refuses to accept the concept of anthropogenic climate change - this derives entirely from his fundamentalist beliefs i.e.,"God said he would never send another Flood...Only God can change the climate ...etc..."

He - like Townes - is using his credentials to promote the fundamentalist Christian view on global warming. It's not evidence driven - it's faith based, and it is a direct assault on the theory and practice of modern science.

So ya, I'm a little hot about this...

Finally, what are the implications of Templeton award? Every fundie in the good ole' USA will using this to promote the teaching of creationism in schools - in LTTE's, at achool board meetings and on and on.

You can bet your Bibby they will.




.

[Stunster]

56. You're making it true by definition

that anyone who believes that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe (which many physicists and other scientists do) subscribes to 'Intelligent Design'.

I don't think that's how the term is used in creationism v evolution debates.

[Stunster]

13. Here's the site of a previous winner of this prize

http://www.polkinghorne.org/

[skjpm]

14. John Polkinghorne is a thoughtful Anglican

I put him up there with C. S. Lewis.

[Stunster]

21. I once gave a seminar paper in Berkeley

on a book by Polkinghorne.

No big deal, you say. True, but Polkinghorne himself was there, and replied to my paper.

He said I had given the best argument he'd come across for divine timelessness.

Sorry, I can't remember what it was. It was so long ago...

Tempus fugit
;-)

[TygrBright]

15. Y'know, it IS possible...

...for an individual to believe, as Templeton states, that it is "extremely unlikely" for anything as elegant as the universe to have happened purely by chance, and NOT want children taught cruddy pseudo-"science" in school.

In spite of the truly hellish downside to it, religion represents some of humanity's best achievements as well as its worst abuses. As an attempt to view that which we know exists, but which is beyond our five senses, religion represents some of humanity's most innovative thinking. Religion is a large part of how we evolved beyond the eat-or-be-eaten stage of evolution, and designed ways to live together without self-destructing. It informs a large chunk of our evolved thinking about ethics and moral principles.

A number of scientists who are not exactly sloppy thinkers or poor scientists have done a great deal of speculating about spiritual and metaphysical issues. Much of it is deeply compassionate, humane, and heartbreakingly beautiful in its expression.

Is it absolutely necessary to automatically equate religious or spiritual thinking with fundamentalist bullshit?

exasperatedly,
Bright

[Stunster]

20. You're Bright!

Is it absolutely necessary to automatically equate religious or spiritual thinking with fundamentalist bullshit?

Absolutely not!

Yours spiritually and antifundamentalistically in exasperation at this endlessly trotted out moronic equation,

Stunster

[Shakespeare]

36. Thank you. My thoughts precisely.

All religious and spiritual thinking is NOT fundamentalist bullshit, and folks here should step back a moment and try to understand that.

That kind of kneejerk extremism is the flip side of the coin where fundies think that science and spiruality are incompatible.

[Stunster]

50. Amen, and indeed, exactly.

All religious and spiritual thinking is NOT fundamentalist bullshit, and folks here should step back a moment and try to understand that.

That kind of kneejerk extremism is the flip side of the coin where fundies think that science and spiruality are incompatible.

It would be good if these sentences could be posted in courtrooms and schools around the country.

;-)

[mountebank]

40. Nice post. Agreed. n/t

[VegasWolf]

27. So, he knows that the bible is just a set of stories and he is not

positive that Jesus Christ is the son of god. Hey! I'm
a christian, wow, never woulda thunk it.

[patcox2]

42. Don't be so dismissive, literalism is not required.

So many non-beleivers are really just non-beleivers in literalist fundamentalism. Yes, Virginia, it is only a small set of christians who beleive in the literal truth of the bible, and on an even higher level, in higher theology, there is a kind of rarified agnostocism even about the nature of Jesus' relationship with God and the nature of his "death" and "resurruction."

Its ironic, I think, that most of those who are contemptuously dismissive of religious beleif themselves have only the most primitive and fundamentalist understanding of religious belief.

And then, behaving exactly as a christian fundamentalist would, these non-believers, on being told that literalist beleif in everything ion the bible is not part of mainstream protestant religion, they will tell the liberal christians that they are not really christians if they don't beleive in the literalist fundamentalism that the non-believer chooses not to believe in.

Its lose-lose to argue with such, they say "you are an ignorant carzy person for beleiving in obvious hogwash and fairy tales. You say "but they are not meant to be read literally." Then they say "you are a hypocrite, because you beleive in the bible (in the way that I think you should beleive in so I can call you deluded and superstitious)."

[VegasWolf]

54. You really should not be so presumptuous. I have had an outstanding

Catholic Jesuit education and I am well familiar with
theological arguments. I am an atheist because the entire
concept of god to me is a worthless idea. If you want
to believe in sky people go right ahead. I simply
re-iterated what the physicist said. A person of strong faith
should not so easily be so upset by others that are dismissive of his faith.

[patcox2]

59. "Sky people?" You prove my point.

The god you choose not to believe in is an infantile conception, if thats what you think it is, anyway. God is a big superhuman in the sky, that would be funny, if it weren't that so many fundamantalist literalists believe (and disbelieve) in such a simplistic and childish concept.

[diamond14]

33. charles townes took the LOW ROAD...used his science without

humanity...."science without humanity"...one of the CARDINAL SINS...

and later, townes decided to HIDE BEHIND GAWWDDDD....claiming some kind of 'spirituality....when his entire career and subsequent high level university "rewards" were because he used his SCIENCE to KILL PEOPLE and spent most of his career in the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX....he created LASERS and MASERS for the WAR department, to KILL people....and like many scientists who sold their souls to the devil for WWII atomic bombs and other WMD, townes did quite well financially on the devil's deal...even now claiming that he doesn't need the $$$ and will just give it to some fundie groups....



"MASTERS OF WAR"

Come you masters of war.....


Even Jesus would never forgive what you do.....


Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you foregiveness?
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul


(Bob Dylan)


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prize10mar10,0,7011552.story?coll=la-home-nation

Born in Greenville, S.C., in 1915, Townes received a bachelor's degree in physics, summa cum laude, from Furman University in Greenville when he was 19. Two years later he received a master's in physics from Duke University, and in 1939 a doctorate in physics from Caltech with a thesis on isotope separation and nuclear spins.

During World War II he helped develop radar systems that functioned in the humid conditions of the South Pacific.

His research led to the development of the maser in 1954, which amplifies electromagnetic waves, and later co-invented the laser.

He was named provost and professor of physics at MIT in 1961, director of the Enrico Fermi International School of Physics in 1963, and, in 1967, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, a post he held until 1986.

[Merlin]

57. Your rage against this man appears to me to be unwarranted.

The man worked for the military during and just after WWII. Does that make him a criminal?

He invented the laser. Lasers are saving lives all around the world in precision surgery and cancer cell destruction. Lasers help the nearly sighless see again. Lasers help provide meticulous control of complex machinery, allow us to measure distances and provide gudes where none were possible before.

I salute him above all for devoting a significant part of his life to the resolving pressing modern day questions about god and science.

He is a great man and does not deserve your needless, uninformed wrath.

[pmbryant]

58. I agree

Thanks for that post, Merlin.

--Peter