That awful Templeton Prize
July 16, 2008 5:53 am scienceOne of the more amusing things about the state of modern science is the gap between what the physicists are finding, namely the incredible fine tuning which is required at every level to produce a universe in which there are intelligent observers, and the materialist doctrines of randomly self-assembling biobots that are the party line in the field of biology. The biologists rail against design, while the physicists record it in the incredible number and detail of laws that have to work out just so, sometimes to 20 orders of magnitude, to produce minds such as ours, which watch stars and listen to Mozart.
I refer you to Stephen Barr’s “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” as the most compelling example of the physicists’ increasing amazement at these combinations of laws and facts. Some physicists are so appalled at the deistic implications that they avoid the topic by recourse to Hugh Everett’s many universes theories, in which the entirety of what we see out from the Big Bang is treated as the tiny part of the Landscape (their word) where order of the kind we experience is possible. To get this result, the central role of consciousness in making the observations that collapase possibilities into realities, which is the core of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, has to be denied.
The invention of even more improbable hypotheses, such as multiple universes, is used to put off the contemplation that the universe we live in is the product of design, and that mind is integral to it.
As is common with scientific debates, what is the orthodoxy is one branch of science is treated as not proven in another. One need only think about “the Bell Curve” as an example of the psychometricians dumping a large stone into the still pond of environmentalist thinking about intelligence.
It was Gardiner’s implied contention that Templeton’s prize was somehow undermining materialist and atheistic science, which is thought to be the only real kind. However, the discoveries of modern physics undermine the contention that the Universe is the product of random forces. So the Templeton Prize may be promoting real science, which is a process of testing hypotheses, and not a presumption of atheism and materialism.
The diametrically opposed views of physicists and biologists on the central issue of mind in the constitution of matter needs an airing out.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dalwhinnie
Dan Gardner :
Date: July 16, 2008 @ 7:30 am
No, Dan Gardner sniffs at Templeton Prize for starting with a conclusion about the nature of knowledge and the universe and rewarding those who support it. It’s as if Alfred Nobel had set out his views on what physics, chemistry, and other sciences would ultimately discover and then stipulated the Nobel Prize would go only to scientists and philosophers who agreed.
Jon :
Date: July 16, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
So, why doesn’t Gardner attack pro-Jewish philanthropists or pro-Muslim/Arab prizes?
Yes he “sniffs,” because he can. Attacking pro-Christian, pro-religious targets is hip in Gardner’s lefty circles.
It’s nothing more than an excuse to jump on the Dawkins venom wagon.
Those other Jewish, Muslim and religious philanthropists can feel safe that their relative prizes and awards will always get attacked second because it is easier to go after the low hanging Christian fruit.
There is a word to describe Gardner and his anti-religious pals - bigots.
The Templeton Prize never claimed disinterested benefactor status, just as the Citizen never claimed to be bigotry free…
Dalwhinnie :
Date: July 16, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
I think Dan Gardner is a man of good faith who has lost sight of an importnat fact, while holding on to another, equally inportnat one, of which he speaks of in his comment. The fact of which he has lost sight is that it is Templeton’s money. The other facts of which he has no inkling are that the physical laws of the universe, those we can calculate and observe, do not support a materialist interpretation. I see no harm in Templeton’s money.Think of the billions spent on proving global warming.
Neil B :
Date: November 11, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Wow. You are right about the fine-tuning, and your hint about the specialness of consciousness as well. It is good to find something here I can agree with.