Anyone familiar with him? He recently won the Templeton Prize (Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize - opinion - 16 March 2009 - New Scientist) for his work attempting to assess philosophy based on quantum physics.
Bernard d'Espagnat
- Thread starter dauer
- Start date
The (Templeton) prize has been criticized by:
British biologist and antireligious atheist, Richard Dawkins[7] [8], who said in his book “The God Delusion”, the prize was handed out to "any scientist that is willing to say something nice about religion".
Sean M. Carroll, a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, also criticized the prize.[9]
Ref - Templeton Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dauer, I think it is fair to assume that Einstein would not have won the Templeton Prize !!!
British biologist and antireligious atheist, Richard Dawkins[7] [8], who said in his book “The God Delusion”, the prize was handed out to "any scientist that is willing to say something nice about religion".
Sean M. Carroll, a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, also criticized the prize.[9]
Ref - Templeton Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dauer, I think it is fair to assume that Einstein would not have won the Templeton Prize !!!
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Wish someone would give me a million for saying "I dont know", as I fail entirely to see that he said anything relevant or meaningful. It seems to me that writing a science paper with a sprinkling of possible inclusions of a supernatural entity may be a profitable line of endeavour tho.
Point taken. I ended up researching the Templeton Prize only after creating the thread. I found this bit on the implications of QM for philosophy far more interesting than d'Espagnat:
Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
edit: btw and OT, Avi, what type of engineering do you do?
Dauer,
Yes, the quantum mechanical issues are much more interesting than d'Espagnat's approach. Actually, Einstein spent most of the latter part of his career wrestling with these issues. He could not accept the non-deterministic aspects of QM. The SEP article that you linked is a nice update on this issue. Walter Issacson wrote a very nice bio of Einstein last year which is written for a general audience.
Templeton has a history of awarding with a hidden agenda. It seems that they are associated with the creationist and now the intelligent design folks.
Yes, the quantum mechanical issues are much more interesting than d'Espagnat's approach. Actually, Einstein spent most of the latter part of his career wrestling with these issues. He could not accept the non-deterministic aspects of QM. The SEP article that you linked is a nice update on this issue. Walter Issacson wrote a very nice bio of Einstein last year which is written for a general audience.
Templeton has a history of awarding with a hidden agenda. It seems that they are associated with the creationist and now the intelligent design folks.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Part of my interest is in the unification of science and religion through cosmology. I see that he is in the same group of extraordinary thinkers along with Basarab Niclolescu who I admire and all with the same interest. Nice to see that at least there is a healthy minority open to these questions from which I can continue to learn:
CTNS--Science and the Spiritual Quest
CTNS--Science and the Spiritual Quest
N
Nick_A
Guest
Yes I am a believer in intelligent design. It is a shame that only a few of the young will ever have the chance to experience the depth of it only because of liberal prejudice in these institutions of lower learning. Fortunately, some of the young can stumble on people like this.
If the concept is good enough for Einstein and Simone, I figure I'm in good company regardless of all these expressions of naive intellectual snobbery.
Hi Nick, I haven't gone through the ID thread in detail, but I can tell you my concerns and we can discuss further if you are interested.
I believe that ID is about neither science or religion. It is about power, money and control.
If someone wants to teach their children about their religious beliefs they are more than welcome to do it in their private Church schools.
If they want to use tax payers funds they should not try to hide creationism behind ID in public schools.
There is a nice review of this issue on this website:
Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover | NCSE
I would be interested in your thoughts about this organization.
Incidentally, Einstein would never have been an ID'er. He was much too ethical. More about Einstein, he was one of my heros
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Nick, I haven't gone through the ID thread in detail, but I can tell you my concerns and we can discuss further if you are interested.
I believe that ID is about neither science or religion. It is about power, money and control.
If someone wants to teach their children about their religious beliefs they are more than welcome to do it in their private Church schools.
If they want to use tax payers funds they should not try to hide creationism behind ID in public schools.
There is a nice review of this issue on this website:
Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover | NCSE
I would be interested in your thoughts about this organization.
Incidentally, Einstein would never have been an ID'er. He was much too ethical. More about Einstein, he was one of my heros
Hi Avi
If you'd like to begin a thread on ID so as to seriously discuss its implications, I'm willing. Remember one thing:
I do believe in ID and also am astute enough to know that people take advantage of it and distort it for various agendas.
If you believe that mechanical universal laws that sustain the universe could not have been initiated without conscious intent, then you believe in ID. If you believe in the reality of objective "wisdom" which is the understanding of the basic interactions of consciously created objective universal laws as they pertain to Man's psychology and evolution, then you believe in ID. It is as simple as that.
Hi again Nick,
As an engineer, I definitely believe in the mechanical universal laws. But these laws have nothing to do with ID.
As I mentioned on a parallel thread, my own views of evolution are based very much on an underlaying random component which has superimposed on it a vector in the direction of natural selection.
Thanks for suggesting a new thread. I notice there have recently been several threads about ID, I will review them and if I have anything to add, I will start a new thread.
In the meantime, perhaps we can continue the discussion about Einstein's remarkable insights, which it appears we agree on.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Avi
I must admit to being curious as to what determines the laws of natural selection without a conscious intent. Why does natural selection exist if the laws are not there that determine it. Since they do exist, then what is their source? How can laws come to exist through natural selection?
Yes we could add that on to Bruno's Einstein thread since he seems interested as well.
The universe is born and dies in cycles. I agree with the Buddhist conception of this time span as a kalpa:
I sincerely believe that if the unification of science and religion is to happen before we either destroy ourselves or are destroyed by a natural catastrophe, it will be because of the recognition of "cosmology" or the levels of reality that sustain the involution and evolution of essential life forces that sustain the universe. Man has its origin within this cosmological framework and his conscious possible evolution also is within these levels of reality.
These things are hard to understand when unfamiliar with the basics. If you are interested, try reading Chapter One of Jacob Needleman's "Sense of the cosmos" It isn't that long. But if you are open to these ideas, you will get a feel for cosmology and what it offers
F. Michael Wells: Paintings
Click on Library" on the upper right corner. Scroll down a bit and you will find "Jacob Needleman's Chapter One: The Universe." If you do you will better understand where I am coming from and the logic of ID before being captured by agendas.
I must admit to being curious as to what determines the laws of natural selection without a conscious intent. Why does natural selection exist if the laws are not there that determine it. Since they do exist, then what is their source? How can laws come to exist through natural selection?
Yes we could add that on to Bruno's Einstein thread since he seems interested as well.
By the way Nick, I meant to ask, how old do you believe the universe is ? And what model do you believe best explains the origin of man ? I am just trying to get a sense of which paradigm we are in
The universe is born and dies in cycles. I agree with the Buddhist conception of this time span as a kalpa:
I sincerely believe that if the unification of science and religion is to happen before we either destroy ourselves or are destroyed by a natural catastrophe, it will be because of the recognition of "cosmology" or the levels of reality that sustain the involution and evolution of essential life forces that sustain the universe. Man has its origin within this cosmological framework and his conscious possible evolution also is within these levels of reality.
These things are hard to understand when unfamiliar with the basics. If you are interested, try reading Chapter One of Jacob Needleman's "Sense of the cosmos" It isn't that long. But if you are open to these ideas, you will get a feel for cosmology and what it offers
F. Michael Wells: Paintings
Click on Library" on the upper right corner. Scroll down a bit and you will find "Jacob Needleman's Chapter One: The Universe." If you do you will better understand where I am coming from and the logic of ID before being captured by agendas.