PDA

View Full Version : French Physicist Wins Templeton Religion Prize



FlaGator
03-16-2009, 10:18 AM
Interesting story on science and religion and how some see the two as complimentary to each other. Somebody else to confrustrate Richard Dawkins.



French Physicist Wins Templeton Religion Prize
By Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Mar. 16 2009 10:33 AM EDT

A French physicist and philosopher of science is the winner of the 2009 Templeton Prize for religion, the largest annual religion prize given to an individual, the foundation announced on Monday.

Bernard d’Espagnat, 87, will receive the $1.42 million prize for his work in quantum physics that shows the limits of knowable science and affirms a reality that can be explained through spirituality and art, according to Reuters.

D’Espagnat said in prepared remarks that he is “convinced that those among our contemporaries who believe in a spiritual dimension of existence and live up to it are, when all is said, fully right,” according to The Associated Press.

The John Templeton Foundation announced the prize at a news conference held at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris.

“[D’Espagnat has] explored the unlimited, the openings that new scientific discoveries offer in pure knowledge and in questions that go to the very heart of our existence and humanity,” said John Templeton, Jr., president of the foundation, at the ceremony.



Read it all here (http://www.christianpost.com/Education/Research/2009/03/french-physicist-wins-templeton-religion-prize-16/index.html)

The Night Owl
03-16-2009, 09:24 PM
Interesting story on science and religion and how some see the two as complimentary to each other. Somebody else to confrustrate Richard Dawkins.

Read it all here (http://www.christianpost.com/Education/Research/2009/03/french-physicist-wins-templeton-religion-prize-16/index.html)

I don't get the sense that Bernard d'Espagnat is a religious guy in the way that you are. I mean, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't believe in the talking snake and all that stuff.

Religion and science can coexist but they don't necessarily compliment each other.

FlaGator
03-16-2009, 09:52 PM
I don't get the sense that Bernard d'Espagnat is a religious guy in the way that you are. I mean, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't believe in the talking snake and all that stuff.

Religion and science can coexist but they don't necessarily compliment each other.

And that is the error in atheistic/religious thinking that creates the antagonism between the two. Both provide different ways of viewing reality that can benefit each other. When one closes the door on the other then each deny themselves the complete view of creation that God wants us to understand.

I understand Bernard d'Espagnat's view point better than you might realize and he aligns somewhere between theist and deist.

PoliCon
03-16-2009, 10:24 PM
I don't get the sense that Bernard d'Espagnat is a religious guy in the way that you are. I mean, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't believe in the talking snake and all that stuff.

Religion and science can coexist but they don't necessarily compliment each other.

why not? most of the greatest scientific break throughs were made by religious men. :cool:

The Night Owl
03-16-2009, 10:57 PM
I understand Bernard d'Espagnat's view point better than you might realize and he aligns somewhere between theist and deist.

I would say that Bernard d'Espagnat is somewhere between pantheist and deist. In any case, I don't think that Bernard d'Espagnat and Richard Dawkins are as far apart as your first post suggested. Both d'Espagnat and Dawkins seem to agree that what we see of the world is not the real world but a sort of model of it. And, both d'Espagnat and Dawkins seem to agree that we're not the stuff of which we're made...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

The idea that we're not the stuff of which we're made is downright spiritual, isn't it?

palerider
03-17-2009, 04:40 AM
why not? most of the greatest scientific break throughs were made by religious men. :cool:

I have always been of the opinion that, assuming we don't kill ourselves into extinction, that someday science will advance far enough to pull back the curtain and to their great surprise, meet God face to face.

PoliCon
03-17-2009, 07:51 AM
I have always been of the opinion that, assuming we don't kill ourselves into extinction, that someday science will advance far enough to pull back the curtain and to their great surprise, meet God face to face.

I don't need Science for that. That happened a while ago for me. We had a nice talk He and I. :)

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 08:08 AM
I would say that Bernard d'Espagnat is somewhere between pantheist and deist. In any case, I don't think that Bernard d'Espagnat and Richard Dawkins are as far apart as your first post suggested. Both d'Espagnat and Dawkins seem to agree that what we see of the world is not the real world but a sort of model of it. And, both d'Espagnat and Dawkins seem to agree that we're not the stuff of which we're made...


The idea that we're not the stuff of which we're made is downright spiritual, isn't it?

The difference is that d'Espagnat sees design in nature, hence his acceptence of a designer and a purpose to existence. Dawkins, however, believes that all things are random, accidental and meaningless. Those two points are diametrically opposed to each other. d'Espagnat feels that the quantum world hides the true nature of reality from human understanding because quantum reality is not a sense reality. God is not a sense reality either so the approach to investigating and discovering the truth of either lies beyond the ability of science attain. God is not a physical object in the universe like a star or galaxy so he can not be grasped by science. Those who view science as the end all and be all of discovery can never codify the Creator. He is not a piece of funiture in the universe to be located and identified. That is the error of atheistic thinking. Their thinking processes are too limited and small when compared to what they are trying to understand.

The Night Owl
03-17-2009, 09:54 AM
I have always been of the opinion that, assuming we don't kill ourselves into extinction, that someday science will advance far enough to pull back the curtain and to their great surprise, meet God face to face.

If a god exists and is omnipotent then when we see it is entirely up to the god.

The Night Owl
03-17-2009, 09:55 AM
Dawkins, however, believes that all things are random, accidental and meaningless.

Natural selection is not random.


Those who view science as the end all and be all of discovery can never codify the Creator.

Did you watch the video? The main point of the Richard Dawkins lecture is the idea that the Universe is not just queerer than we suppose but queerer than we can suppose. In other words, Dawkins is saying that there may be aspects of the Universe which humans will never be able to grasp no matter how far science advances.

palerider
03-17-2009, 10:14 AM
If a god exists and is omnipotent then when we see it is entirely up to the god.

Of course, but all parents know that it takes a while and much learning before you can begin to speak to children in a language more complex than babytalk.

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 11:45 AM
Natural selection is not random.

Natural selection is absolutely random. Random mutations occur that are not predictable and their effect on the host is indeterminate. Positive mutations give the host a better chance at survival, negative ones lower the hosts chances of survival. What is more random than that?




Did you watch the video? The main point of the Richard Dawkins lecture is the idea that the Universe is not just queerer than we suppose but queerer than we can suppose. In other words, Dawkins is saying that there may be aspects of the Universe which humans will never be able to grasp no matter how far science advances.

Dawkins, however, is unable to attribute to God the ability for Him to understand all aspects of the universe. Dawkins is just stating the obvious when he claims that mankind can not grasp the underlying reality of the universe. He is arrogant enough to assume that since he can't understand everything then no one can and there is nothing that exists that can comprehend the universe as a whole. I also don't believe that he grasps what some theoretical physicists are starting to grasp and that is reality may actually be defined by man's awareness of it. The question that arises is one of the nature of 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?'

Dawkins when unable to explain the start of life on Earth would rather attribute it to aliens rather than God. This amazes me because for someone with his intelligence he would rather deem something possible for which there is less proof than the existence of God. It is amazing who some people who claim to represent the apex of rational thought will choose the irrational when rationality points to something that they are unprepared to consider.

The Night Owl
03-17-2009, 03:53 PM
Natural selection is absolutely random. Random mutations occur that are not predictable and their effect on the host is indeterminate. Positive mutations give the host a better chance at survival, negative ones lower the hosts chances of survival. What is more random than that?

Mutation and natural selection are two separate things. Mutation is random but natural selection is a sorting process. This fact is fundamental to understanding evolution.


Dawkins when unable to explain the start of life on Earth would rather attribute it to aliens rather than God.

The idea that life on Earth was started by extraterrestrials is more plausible than the idea that a god did it but there is no evidence for either being the originator.


This amazes me because for someone with his intelligence he would rather deem something possible for which there is less proof than the existence of God. It is amazing who some people who claim to represent the apex of rational thought will choose the irrational when rationality points to something that they are unprepared to consider.

There is no proof for the existence of a god. Do your faith the honor of not making out to be anything more than it is... faith.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-17-2009, 04:26 PM
Mutation and natural selection are two separate things. Mutation is random but natural selection is a sorting process. This fact is fundamental to understanding evolution.

But Natural selection is simply the weeding out of bad mutations.

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 09:17 PM
Mutation and natural selection are two separate things. Mutation is random but natural selection is a sorting process. This fact is fundamental to understanding evolution.

Mutation drives natural selection. If there was no mutation then natural selection wouldn't be an on going process would it? Explain to me how natural selection would work if there were no genetic mutations.



The idea that life on Earth was started by extraterrestrials is more plausible than the idea that a god did it but there is no evidence for either being the originator.
There are plenty of clues to the existence of God. We have gone over them before but since they are contrary to your world view you reject them. You accept the irrational because you must reject the rational when it points to a creator.



There is no proof for the existence of a god. Do your faith the honor of not making out to be anything more than it is... faith.

I never said proof. I said clues to that point to a creator. Do yourself a favor and except that there is more to the world than you five senses tell you.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 09:20 AM
Mutation drives natural selection. If there was no mutation then natural selection wouldn't be an on going process would it? Explain to me how natural selection would work if there were no genetic mutations.

Mutation does not drive natural selection. Mutated organisms are at the mercy of natural selection which is driven by conditions on Earth.


I never said proof. I said clues to that point to a creator. Do yourself a favor and except that there is more to the world than you five senses tell you.

You wrote...

This amazes me because for someone with his intelligence he would rather deem something possible for which there is less proof than the existence of God.

If you think there is less proof for aliens than for the existence of a god then you must think that there is proof for the existence of a god. No matter, though, if by proof you meant clues.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 09:21 AM
But Natural selection is simply the weeding out of bad mutations.

Hey, where the heck have you been? How did you rack up over 7,000 posts without me knowing you're here? Are you still in touch with Liberal Guy by any chance?

FlaGator
03-18-2009, 11:03 AM
Mutation does not drive natural selection. Mutated organisms are at the mercy of natural selection which is driven by conditions on Earth.

How does the conditions on Earth force a genetic change on an organism. Say it gets really cold, how does the fact that it is cold cause a some with in a species to grow a thicker coat?




You wrote...

This amazes me because for someone with his intelligence he would rather deem something possible for which there is less proof than the existence of God.

If you think there is less proof for aliens than for the existence of a god then you must think that there is proof for the existence of a god. No matter, though, if by proof you meant clues.

I miss spoke... sort of. By less proof and more proof I meant less and more evidence. Proof is proof and it doesn't come in quantities. Proof of something is absolute. I assumed that you would understand what I meant.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 11:30 AM
How does the conditions on Earth force a genetic change on an organism. Say it gets really cold, how does the fact that it is cold cause a some with in a species to grow a thicker coat?

The process of natural selection does not cause a species to grow a thicker coat of fur. Natural selection weeds out the animals which lack sufficient protection from the cold and the ones which have it survive to pass on their genes.


I miss spoke... sort of. By less proof and more proof I meant less and more evidence. Proof is proof and it doesn't come in quantities. Proof of something is absolute. I assumed that you would understand what I meant.

Fair enough.

FlaGator
03-18-2009, 12:25 PM
The process of natural selection does not cause a species to grow a thicker coat of fur. Natural selection weeds out the animals which lack sufficient protection from the cold and the ones which have it survive to pass on their genes.



Fair enough.

So a random mutation that happened earlier drove the process of natural selection. If the random mutation had not occurred then there would be no new trait to benefit from natural selection. Natural selection seems to be more random than mutations because it is as dependent on random environmental changes as it is on as it is on
random mutations.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 02:01 PM
So a random mutation that happened earlier drove the process of natural selection. If the random mutation had not occurred then there would be no new trait to benefit from natural selection. Natural selection seems to be more random than mutations because it is as dependent on random environmental changes as it is on as it is on random mutations.

A process which favors beneficial mutations which arise from a series of random ones is not random. Randomness is a factor in natural selection but it is not the guiding principle.

marinejcksn
03-18-2009, 06:00 PM
Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.

palerider
03-18-2009, 06:50 PM
Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.

What they don't seem to understand is that since there is no proof eiither way, it takes exactly as much faith to believe that there isn't a God as it takes to believe that there is a God.

The Night Owl
03-19-2009, 07:16 AM
Interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it. You know, I don't necessarily hate Richard Dawkins; the guy seems like a very inteligent person. I just hate the snide, dickhead attitude he exudes. If he presented his arguements without the arrogance I think a lot more people might be willing to listen to him objectively. Thats an issue I notice with many Athiests; I personally believe in a Christian God but never would shove my belief down someone's throat but the Athiests I know don't give the same option most of the time, it's a sort of arrogant, talking down, snippy attitude which I don't understand.

Richard Dawkins isn't arrogant. Opinionated? Yes... but not arrogant. I think the reason why Dawkins comes off as arrogant to a lot of believers is that they aren't used to hearing Christianity talked about in the same way they talk about belief systems they don't hold sacred.

The Night Owl
03-19-2009, 07:28 AM
What they don't seem to understand is that since there is no proof eiither way, it takes exactly as much faith to believe that there isn't a God as it takes to believe that there is a God.

Would you say that it takes as much faith to believe that leprechauns exist as it takes to believe they don't exist? I wouldn't. I'm completely comfortable saying that I'm convinced that leprechauns don't exist... and I say so simply because there isn't any evidence they exist. Of course, the absence of evidence of a god isn't proof it doesn't exist but it's a good reason to doubt it exists.

FlaGator
03-19-2009, 07:42 AM
Richard Dawkins isn't arrogant. Opinionated? Yes... but not arrogant. I think the reason why Dawkins comes off as arrogant to a lot of believers is that they aren't used to hearing Christianity talked about in the same way they talk about belief systems they don't hold sacred.

Richard Dawkins is arrogant. That who dims and brights thing reeks of intellectual snobbery.

FlaGator
03-19-2009, 07:53 AM
A process which favors beneficial mutations which arise from a series of random ones is not random. Randomness is a factor in natural selection but it is not the guiding principle.

The whole process is based on random events and the outcome can not be predicted. That is the definition of random. Chance occurrence leads to chance occurrence. Multiple genetic changes may occur but you can't even predict which of these changes will be benefical and allowed to be cared forward and which will cause the host to be non-viable. All the events are random and the outcome is random.

Now to complicate the matter, from my theist world view nothing is random and the outcomes are are understood bythe Creator beforehand. When we use the word chance what we really mean is that we don't know enough about the initial conditions of a series of causes and effects to understand the outcome.

palerider
03-19-2009, 10:26 AM
Would you say that it takes as much faith to believe that leprechauns exist as it takes to believe they don't exist? I wouldn't. I'm completely comfortable saying that I'm convinced that leprechauns don't exist... and I say so simply because there isn't any evidence they exist. Of course, the absence of evidence of a god isn't proof it doesn't exist but it's a good reason to doubt it exists.

Are there stories suggesting that leprechauns actually exist or is it a given that they are mythical creatures? Being a scientist, it seems a larger leap of faith to me to believe there is no force that has brought such order out of chaos.

wilbur
03-20-2009, 02:53 PM
The whole process is based on random events and the outcome can not be predicted. That is the definition of random. Chance occurrence leads to chance occurrence. Multiple genetic changes may occur but you can't even predict which of these changes will be benefical and allowed to be cared forward and which will cause the host to be non-viable. All the events are random and the outcome is random.


The question to you should be, is why do you shove the random=meaningless canard onto Dawkins?

As far as we know, there is no such thing as 'random' in the general chaotic sense that we usually think in laymens terms.

We could talk for pages on the nature of 'randomness', but it generally means is that something is simply outside the limits of our computational capacity... so with that in mind, how on earth do you conclude that if something is outside the limits of our computational capacity, that it must be meaningless?