Templeton 2011

IS: Why don't you believe in God?
MR: Um. Which God?
IS: A God.
MR: I don't think I can answer that.
IS: Really?
MR: Mm.
IS: You must have thought about it.
MR: Yes. But there's nothing very much I want to say about that. I suppose
one thing I would say, from my BBC lectures, I think doing science makes
me realise that even the simplest things are pretty hard to understand
and that makes me suspicious of people who believe they've got anything
more than an incomplete and metaphorical understanding of any deep
aspect of reality. And also I see human beings as not the culmination,
but only a stage in the marvellous unfolding of evolution, because the
timeline ahead is as long as the time that has lapsed up to now. Those
are respects in which my professional interests affect my response to
dogmatic religion.
But as I say, I participate in occasional religious services which are
the customs of the society I grew up in. I'm not allergic to religion.


IS: What do you make of the approach to science and religion issues taken by Richard Dawkins and those of his ilk?
MR: I won't comment on him, but I'm not allergic to religion. I would say
two things. One is that I think all of us are concerned about fanaticism
and fundamentalism and we need all the allies we can muster against it.
And I would see Rowan Williams et al as being on our side. I admire
them more than want to rubbish them. Another point is if you are
teaching Muslim sixth formers in a school and you tell them they can't
have their God and Darwin, there is a risk they will choose their God
and be lost to science. So those are two respects where I would disagree
with the emphasis of the professional atheists, as it were.




IS: Do you think science and religion can have a constructive dialogue?
MR: I'm sceptical about that. I tend to avoid getting into these sorts of
debates, because I'm not sure how much productive interaction there can
be between them.

Ates ha scritto:Secondo me è un furbone che tiene il piede in due scarpe. Il premio viene assegnato a chi avvicina la scienza alla religione, ma lui dice che le due cose sono nettamente distinte e che non si potrà mai raggiungere un compromesso, però non sono incompatibili.

Rasputin ha scritto:Secondo me la vera chiave è scoprire chi ha istituito il premio

Istituito nel 1972 dal cristiano presbiteriano John Templeton come Prize for Progress in Religion ed attualmente rinominato come Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities (premio per il progresso nella ricerca o scoperte sulle realtà spirituali), è assegnato annualmente alle personalità che hanno dato particolari contributi nell'ambito della religione o della spiritualità, nella convinzione che «le rivelazioni scientifiche saranno una miniera d’oro per rivitalizzare la religione nel XXI secolo».
Riguardo al valore monetario del premio, John Templeton, «nominato Sir dalla regina Elisabetta II nel 1987», ha voluto che fosse superiore a quello del Premio Nobel, giustificandolo con il fatto che in quest'ultimo «la spiritualità viene ignorata».

Ates ha scritto:Muriel, ti sei fatta bionda?

Muriel ha scritto:

Ates ha scritto:Muriel, ti sei fatta bionda?

ahah ti piace la mia nuova acconciatura?
che poi fondamentalmente la posa è uguale alla tua ora che ci faccio caso