Award to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws of universe

John Barrow, a leading proponent of the anthropic principle and who has helped develope the multidisciplinary perspectives on the limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and infinity, believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation offers a better explanation than anything else, including most science, of how the universe works (because the universe did not create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself). "... life on Earth comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by "stellar alchemy" before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying stars...So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller."

======================================================================================

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home

God's scientist receives supreme award
Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws of universe
MICHAEL VALPY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the universe.<snip>


<snip>"The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. while there may be life, even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support one lonely outpost of life."

Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of pinpricks of life -- have "transformed the simple-minded, life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers.

"It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning.

"We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical.

"There are some who say that just because we use our minds to appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. That is a serious misjudgment."

Such a deal!

RAMEN, let it be done!

Bless the coming and going of him. May his passage cleanse our plates.

From the Press Release - and now on the Web:


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

NEW YORK, MARCH 15, 2006 — John D. Barrow, a noted cosmologist whose writings about the relationship between life and the universe, and the nature of human understanding, have created new perspectives on questions of ultimate concern to science and religion, has won the 2006 Templeton Prize. The prize, valued at 795,000 pounds sterling, approximately $1.4 million, was announced today at a news conference at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York.

Barrow, 53, who serves as Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge, has used insights from mathematics, physics, and astronomy to set out wide-ranging views that challenge scientists and theologians to cross the boundaries of their disciplines if they are to fully realize what they may or may not understand about how time, space, and matter began, the behavior of the universe (or, perhaps, “multiverses”), and where it is all headed, if anywhere.

His work — including 17 books translated into 27 languages and written in accessible, lively prose, hugely popular lectures, and more than 400 scientific papers — has illuminated understanding of the universe and cast the intrinsic limitations of scientific inquiry into sharp relief. It has also given theologians and philosophers inescapable questions to consider when examining the very essence of belief, the nature of the universe, and humanity’s place in it.

As Thomas Torrance, himself a Templeton laureate (1978), wrote in his nomination of Barrow, “The hallmark of his work is a deep engagement with those aspects of the structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible and which shape the views that we take of that universe when we examine it. The vast elaboration of that simple idea has lead to a huge expansion of the breadth and depth of the dialogue between science and religion.”

In particular, Barrow’s engagement with frontier science and mathematics, developing multidisciplinary perspectives on subjects such as the mysteries of nothingness and infinity, and the potentially intelligible realms of the laws of Nature and the limits of scientific explanation, has jarred religious and scientific perspectives in such a way as to open pathways of understanding which may allow both to comprehend each other more fully. <snip>

<snip>Barrow’s most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless (2005), which might be considered the reciprocal of his earlier Book of Nothing (2000). It considers all aspects of the infinite and explores its similarities and differences in the realms of mathematics, science, and theology. These two studies reveal how the concepts of infinity and nothing — in all of their various manifestations — played distinctive pivotal roles in the development of mathematics, physics, astronomy, logic, theology and philosophy.

In 2002, Barrow was appointed Gresham Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College in London, a position once held by Sir Christopher Wren. Founded in 1596, it is the world’s oldest science professorship. Barrow also has the curious distinction of having delivered lectures on cosmology in such unexpected venues as the Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing Street, Windsor Castle and the Vatican Palace.

John Barrow and his wife of 31 years, Elizabeth Mary (East), have three children ranging in ages from 21 to 27. They live in Cambridge.

Fact Sheet for
John D. Barrow http://www.templetonprize.org/barrow_factsheet.html

Reflections on Key
Articles and Books by
John D. Barrow http://www.templetonprize.org/barrow_books.html

Read all about it here. Barrow's honor, though spiffy enough (I guess), should not be confused with actual scientific endorsement of his mythology.

;)

:)

:-)

:toast:

John Barrow's science is among the best out there - so is it a problem that he has conclusions not in line with the DU atheist?

LOL :-)

Have at it friend - I am done with this thread.

But when Barrow or anyone else makes the leap from empirical observation to "therefore God must have done it," he has essentially forfeited whatever credibility he might have had on the subject.

Show me the evidence that leads to this conclusion. Hmmm? What's that? You don't have any? Well, neither does anyone else.

Instead, Barrow succumbs to the famous (and famously debunked) "God of the Gaps" fallacy, wherein he reaches a point when he says "Gee, I can't figure this out," and he says "Let there be God."

Sorry, but that ain't science.


By the way--I am sick to death of the "you're being closed-minded" mantra that superstitious folk typically put forth to defend their nonsensical claims re: psychic phenomena, energy healing, and the like. When the charge is leveled by a defender of whatever religious notion, the mantra is no less vapid.

Open-mindedness does not mean "accepting any bullshit claim made by anyone about anything." And when a new claim is simply a rehashing of a long-debunked assertion, it's up to the claim's proponents to defend it. Instead, the proponents demand that those who do not believe Happy Explanation X must disprove the Explanation.

Sorry, but that ain't science, either.

:-)

no - don't get back to me. Religion is an individual decision - whatever floats your boat is OK with me - including doing a dump on something you appear to be afraid of (just my phrasing - no offense intended)

Use a strawman argument if discussing Barrow and his work is too difficult. no problem!

peace

:-)

If Barrow believes with all of his heart that the universe has a purpose and a divine entity guiding its destiny, that's entirely his business.

And if he asserts that there is evidence for this purpose or entity or destiny, then he's moved from science to faith. That, too, is entirely his business.

But it is a mistake to confuse his achievement in apologetic work (relevant in this case) with his scientific work (irrelevant in this case).

That's the point I'm trying to make. If he's got evidence of God, beyond his own assertions, then let's see it.

You lie.

on Dr. Barrow in order to be able to succinctly condense his work. I'm impressed! I can barely get through a few pages and my brain explodes. Just the concept of infinity is enough to make me immobile.

The problem with infinity is that it's too tempting to wring any answer out of it that one may need.

And as far as summarizing his work, here's how to do it: the essence of his claim (in this regard) is indistinguishable from modern creationism (an oxymoron, I admit): The universe looks so nicely designed that there must be a designer.

This claim has been debunked for centuries. Not contested, not debated, but DEBUNKED. All by himself, Hume is sufficent refutation of creationism, but countless others have written on the subject, many of them even more eloquently than the esteemed Dr. Barrow.

You obviously have studied this fellow's work and that really impresses me because I find him virtually inscrutable.

I've read some but not all of his work. The subject greatly interests me, and perhaps this has facilitated some understanding.

See, I figured you had studied his work in order to be able to condense it.

What do you think of the global consciousness project?

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

(I asked this in another part of the thread, but I'm asking you directly because I find it so fascinating)

strictly personal. They are not scientific. Yes, his work is scientific but the conclusions he jumps to are not any more testable just because they come from a man doing real science.

Science has nothing to say about religion. If his point is simply that the nature of the universe is compatible with a belief in God then good for him. I totally agree. It is compatible with a lot of beliefs. But the question is , which kinds of beliefs (hypotheses) can we do science on? But then , this wasn't a science award it was a religion award so I have no problem that his unscientific conjectures were given an award.

provide?

me to answer your question fairly. The only thing I could find was a few pages from the Amazon "look inside" feature. From that brief introduction it would seem that "proofs" is a pretty strong word to use and not quite accurate. If the excerpt and the book reviews are accurate I would say it probably makes for an excellent read in philosophy though. That science has limits should be a surprise to no one. That theories are often incomplete models that have boundaries of usefulness in which they can operate is well known. Some times the limits are inherent in the theory; some times they are limits simply due to the practicality of using them given limited available computing power. He seems to focus on the former. Important info, but not new to me.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/


Have you ever heard of it? Fascinating stuff, but a lot to read.

But, since you asked :)...
Yes I have heard of it. I have read many things on the site and some off site stuff they link to. This includes the peer review they link to. I agree with the peer review. Their techniques are clearly and deeply (and fatally for their theory) flawed. They do a lot of hypothesizing after the fact. They go looking for "significant events" after they find a spike instead of vice-versa. Not always but that is one technique they have used. They also manipulate their "windows" in order to get a significant result. The size of these windows isn't the same from one prediction to the next. And , finally, even if one gives them the benefit of the doubt, and accepts their data (despite these incorrect manipulations) very strange results occur. For example, the 9/11 attacks cause a much smaller "disturbance" than events that aren't even in the same league as the attacks . If I am not mistaken a trip by Oprah Winfrey abroad caused a larger disturbance than 9/11... but I may be wrong here. I simply remember the examples given of events that caused a greater disturbance than 9/11 made the whole thing fairly laughable.

And THAT, my friends, should settle the matter.

But for those so desperate they need proof their beliefs are true, it won't.

when we discover life on another planet and find they DON't believe in God?

Clearly we'll invade, in order to bring democracy and freedom to those Godless savages. And perhaps General Boykin, with his "bigger God" can lead the holy assault.

had this on his blog http://www.uncommondescent.com/

I prefer http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

ID is fascinating because of the struggles that exist in the Camps of the IDers themselves. You get the Biblical Literalists 6000 yr old earth types versus the Everything is as Science observes it (except for the caveat of who started the whole thing). Then you add in the Chariots of the Gods alien seeding of earth types and the now the prospect of non X-tian ID backers (I can't wait until the Hindu Brahamaists jump in, by numbers their are more of them than X-tian ID proponents). I will never waiver in my Wotan ID theory and his destruction of Thyrm Creation Facts!

Of course, the issue that no ID proponents are conducting any experiments into the origins of their "theory" doesn't deter them.

Although the Chicago Field Museum just released Evolving Planet which consists of a dark room, followed by a great booming voice "Let there be light" and then all the flora and fauna are shown in their present and perfect form. So neat!

:-)

that's all. And so I included the link for those who may have an interest along with my feeble attempts at humor in my post!

:toast:

it is so nice to get some affirmation from somebody, somewhere.

Thanks for posting this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

atheist buddies around here make me wonder if I am a squirrel or something, so to know that there are some thinkers who think like I do, and can articulate it better, is comforting to me.

No one doubts your intelligence. The fact that you didn't pull the red lever in the last election is proof enough that you're a thinking person!

At issue is not relative intelligence or sophistication of thought. Instead, it's a question of evidence and one's passion for critical analysis.

No one should infer that a disagreement in this regard is an accusation of stupidity.

but it does have some basis!

I am not a complex thinker. I am plenty intelligent, but almost totally right-brained and logic sometimes whooshes over my head, so I am often out of my element in these discussions. It comforts me to find someone who can state what I have sensed.

My belief in a higher power of some sort is rather minimalistic. It comes from three sources. 1) my culture and upbringing. No proof THERE, huh? 2) a sense I have inside me that I am not alone, and quite a few life situations that have hardened that belief; and 3) the fact that when we get down to the basics...the quarks and the other end, the black holes and the universe, that I can get with the big bang, but where did the bangers come from?

Sometimes I think our faith v. atheism discussions are like five blind men feeling an elephant and trying to figure out what it is. We are, I think, arguing names and symbols. I don't believe in God in a nightgown. I don't believe God is a man. If he made us in "his" image, well, maybe he is a single cell and that's how he started us out. I think that "God" is such an immense force and power and intelligence that we cannot describe it. Maybe it is the life force. Maybe it is subconsciousness. I don't know. But I feel something is there. And so I go with that.

And I have no problem living with and loving folks who don't have that certainty, as long as they are gentle about mine.

It has become quite important to many in the religious community to give awards to scientists who happen to write on theology or religious matters. That association with science gives them a sense of validation. The Templeton Prize is one example.

I know of no science awards aimed at preachers who happen to do science. Some preachers do science, of course. But they have to go through the same gauntlet as every other scientist, when it comes to publishing their research and earning notice for it. There is no "Chardin Prize" prize aimed at the religious who happen to do something scientific.

That asymmetry is quite telling.

:hippie:

I mean, it is interesting that there are no reciprocal awards (that I know of) but what does it tell us, in your opinion? Can you elaborate?

Also, do you equate "religious" with "spiritual"? Because the website for the Templeton Award uses the word "spiritual."

Finally, I am currently reading Charlotte's Web to 3rd graders and the rat is named Templeton. Which has nothing to do with anything.

For validation.

"Spiritual" is a word that makes sense mostly within a religious context. That doesn't mean it is a synonym for "religious." But without some religious assumptions, what most people take to be "spiritual" starts to look mundane.

because I just wasn't making the connection. I agree with you that obviously this award is looking for validation.

But that's okay. So am I.

If you think this a religious award for scientists, you are mistaken.
Previous award winners include Mother Theresa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

I sympathize with his beliefs and appreciation of the necessary unity of religion and science(necessary more for religion since science mainly has the advantage of hardcore reality). So why do I find this rationally embarrassing?

it is too glowing, too self affirming and well, neat. You have to painfully give up a lot when science enlightens away crusted fantasies temporally patched in over mysteries. And since when does religion have chiefly the main goal of answering curious and bloated "questions"? I still find several incontestable
facts and future progress jarring or at least unknown in its relationship with religious beliefs. The future of humanity as a species, much less THE favored unchanging species is an unknown despite all glowing optimism and presumption. And if we all go poof! without some dramatic mission above all others in the universe it might be a vast relief to the aforementioned universe. Taking sides with reality and progress allows one to be optimistic but not too sure. Surety and comfort seems to be what is being sold and an all too familiar logical fallacy of circular affirmation and ignored perspective. The human mind colors by perception then, sometimes unfortunately, molds the environment according to those perceptions.

I seem to hear people all gooey inside lapping up this conversion of science to missionary quest, the Great Synthesis when we still don't even have that Unified Field Theory nailed down. We just might be a tad insufficient to grasp enough of the great Synthesis to be all that great and might endanger our own species in the process of defining everything from our own perspective and mammalian desires. Mammals hate stress and fear death. That makes the Mark's Passion, nearly devoid of the comfort of the Resurrection, a remarkable discord. But in this latest Music of the Spheres exhortation something seems too much and something too little in its very emotional foundation.

How do you feel about his proofs on the limits on the answers science can
provide?


:-)

how can we miss you if you won't leave?

:)

Sid

when a scientist. It means that having arrived personally at one's peak of knowledge, one stops and says, well that's it then.

And it never is and tradition becomes fixed, the new discoveries even opposed. That is establishment thinking, not science. The expanding theories admittedly are pushing beyond the limits of possible experiential proofs, but that is ever the case.

It would be interesting to hear the response to this religious award from working scientists.

They won't say a thing, they are just as blighted.

:evilgrin:

"One of the main activities of the Foundation is the disbursal of prizes; in 2004, for example, John Templeton on behalf of the Foundation presented the makers of the controversial movie The Passion of the Christ with a $50,000 "Epiphany Prize for the Most Inspirational Movie"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Foundation

Was Barrow given the "Epiphany Prize for Most Comforting Postulation"?

From Sean Carroll, a physicist at the University of Chicago in his blog
http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#111474882628287274

"The point is that the entire purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking. It's all about appearances. You have a splashy scientific conference featuring a long list of respected participants, and then you proudly tout the event on a separate web page for your program to bring science and religion together."

This is religion latching onto science in order to give itself credibility. In not making clear the the nature of the award, or the award sponsor in the OP, the poster is doing the same thing as the foundation. I thought religion was all about faith, and didn't need science for justification.

Sid

Edit: forgot the wiki link for the first quote