British Scientist Wins Religion Prize(for progress in spiritual knowledge)

[papau]

John D Barrow is a member of the United Reform Church, created in the 1970s by the merger of Presbyterian and Congregational traditions in Britain.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-prize16mar16,0,5421432.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
British Scientist Wins Religion Prize
$1.4-million Templeton award goes to John Barrow, who has written on life and the universe.
By K. Connie Kang
Times Staff Writer

March 16, 2006

John D. Barrow, a Cambridge University cosmologist who has researched and written extensively about the relationship between life and the universe, on Wednesday was awarded the 2006 Templeton Prize, worth about $1.4 million, for progress in spiritual knowledge.

Barrow, 53, a professor of mathematical sciences who once held research fellowships in astronomy and physics at UC Berkeley, is the sixth scientist to win the award, considered the Nobel Prize for religion.

In a statement prepared for Wednesday's news conference in New York, where the announcement was made, the British scientist said astronomy has transformed the "simple-minded, life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers" into something profound.

Astronomy, he said, "breathes new life" into so many religious questions that arise from humanity's quest for meaning.<snip>

[papau]

1. More detail from the press release - and now on the web.

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

[KittyWampus]

3. Thoughts on the word "Universe". It means One-Word. And So We

instinctively use a term, when considering Reality and our Observable World, that implies an innate capacity for Expression, Intelligence and Communication.

Somehow, we KNOW that the world around can speak. And Science, when it is free from dogma, can be very useful in translating what the world around us is saying.

We needn't burden the Universe, Nature or Reality with cumbersome, limited structures such as Personalities... especially since we tend to use our own incomplete personalities as models.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. No, it means "turned towards one"

Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/universe

[KittyWampus]

37. Thank You so very much for the correction! The actual definition

gives me something to contemplate today while doing chores!

I owe you a debt of gratitude :hug:

[KittyWampus]

2. The "Quest For Meaning" Need Not Ever Be Divorced From Science

Neither scientific theory or practise.

[papau]

5. How do you feel about his proofs on the limits on the answers science can

provide.

I had not realized the large number of peer reviewed papers on this topic.

:-)

[BiggJawn]

4. Better than just a blue ribbon for "soul winning", I guess.

"simple-minded, life-averse, meaningless universe..."
Really? Is the Universe a more amazing place only after you religous-ize it?

"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 — perhaps just one law — that are symmetrical and intelligible," Barrow said."

"ONE" Law?

[Miss Chybil]

11. One law? Good question. I think I'll read his books so I can understand

what he is saying before I make any judgements. It sounds very interesting to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. "spiritual knowledge"

Now there's an oxymoron.

Knowledge is the provable. Spiritual is the un-provable. You cannot conflate the two without debasing them both.

[papau]

9. I disagree - but no problem. You have every right to your point of view

:-)

[manic expression]

16. Please...

Spirituality is, at the very least, a state of mind, a way of thinking about something. That is provable. Secondly, spirituality may not be completely empirically proven, but it is very reasonable and accurate to see beyond the physical world, and with rational thinking and logic one can do so.

[Ben Ceremos]

25. Spirituality is a non-empirical

quality. As such, the spiritual may carry personal meaning but to this day there is no proof that such a quality exists, as bricks exist, cats exist and irrational arguments also, unfortunately, exist.
To believe is to sidestep knowledge for the ease of certitude. Beliefs are generally encoded in the limbic brain and are emotional in essence. Knowledge of emotions is helpful, but it reveals very little about the physical world...Knowledge is demonstrative and empirical, belief is emotional and personal.

[onager]

31. Thank you, Ben Ceremos!

Excellent post. I'm keeping this one handy!

[dave29]

32. actuality "spirituality" has been described as something hard-wired

in the human brain. It does not get more empirical than that. You can "measure" it by asking how many people out there claim to "be spiritual". You can no more prove a brick exists on a quantum level than a person believes in God in his/her mind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/03/07/ecgod07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2006/03/07/ixconnrite.html

Spirituality, like us, has evolved over time. Why it exists is a mystery. Is it a survival mechanism? Is it something we created for our own benefit? Or is their a more "spiritual" reason?

These things have not been answered by science yet, and therefore should not be dismissed.

As a side discussion... I have tinnitus... a sound generated by my brain that play 24/7. Again we're in the limbic world, but it is empirical, measurable and something I can certainly NOT prove exists to anyone other than a sympathetic doctor.

[dave29]

35. And yet another thing

talk to Schroedinger about cats existing

[KittyWampus]

38. Are you saying Consciousness cannot be studied empirically?

[fshrink]

7. There is no "quest for meaning".

We hold meaning, we create it from anything. Even from passing clouds. This is what makes us human. There is nothing more profound than that. In addition, there is no "progress in spiritual knowledge", because spirituality has strictly nothing to do with knowledge. The logos is knowledge, the mythos is spirituality. The two are not miscible. I accept 1.4 million dollars for the above statements.

[papau]

12. I disagree - but you are entitled to your opinion. Logos is Greek - and

I do have a bit of Greek - has traditionally meant word, thought, principle, or speech. Indeed it covered the discussion of the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, and human reasoning about that principle.


Mythos is the pattern of basic values and attitudes of a people, characteristically transmitted through myths. If you'd like, one could say logos thinking about mythos is mythology. Or you can just go with a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture.

While Plato were highly suspicious of mythos, for most Greeks of the time mythos and Logos were synonymous (see Joseph Campbell's Four Functions of myth: cosmological, sociological, psychological, metaphysical)

The idea that the two are not "miscible" is interesting - and you are entitled to your opinion.

As you may - or may not know, The Eastern Church in Istanbul was called the Church of St. Sophia - where Sophia was the Greek for "wisdom of God" - meaning inspirational basis for guidance. Indeed the Greek concept is similar to "Holy Spirit" - and therefore the name of the Church.

[fshrink]

18. Believe as you please. I choose knowledge.

And "sophos" means wisdom, not "wisdom of god". Hence "philosophos", who loves wisdom. Philosophy which, as opposed to what is "believed" in this country, has nothing to do with religion. It is in fact the exact opposite since it systematically questions everything, whereas religion requires belief, which itself, by definition requires the renouncement to systematic questioning.

[papau]

30. renouncement to systematic questioning refers to something other than

that which is not subject to scientific disproof or scientific proof?

sophos does indeed mean wisdom - which is why there is a "st" added to the name of the church - making St Sophia the wisdom of God.

"philosophy has nothing to do with religion" is ONLY a partial truth - IMHO.

[Ben Ceremos]

26. Notice, please, that the history

of thought/knowledge/epistemology does not include the discipline of spiritu-ology. "Nous" and "logos"are roughly comparable, but even within these traditions, the only nearly spiritual concern is tied up with the notion of the good, ie: with matters of personal ethics and belief.

[papau]

29. true - but the word God is not missing from the discussions.

:-)

[dave29]

34. Anselm of Canterbury might disagree

n/t

[manic expression]

17. Yes there is

meaning is subjective, but at the same time it is objective. When you look at a cloud, what does it mean? It may mean rain, it may mean a dangerous storm, it may mean the end of a drought, it may mean beauty. This is what a cloud can mean, and all of them are right in their respective situations.

On another level, a cloud is also a mixture of different elements, the collection of water and other materials; this will eventually lead to some form of precipitation. This is an integral part of the cycle of life. That is yet another meaning of a cloud.

There is quite a bit of meaning in everything, and again, it is both subjective and objective. There are an infinite number of radia (plural of radius?), but the center of a circle remains the same. The same one thing can lead to different expressions and meanings.

[fshrink]

19. You miss the point.

The ability to extract and create meaning is what defines us. We look at a cloud and we can see a face. Therefore the "quest" for meaning doesn't exist more than the "quest" for, say, language or mammal reproduction.

[manic expression]

20. Well,

it doesn't define "us", exactly. If you look at a mouse, and a cat looks at a mouse, the connotation is different. Different meaning is applied. However, it's still a mouse.

If we understand what a certain entity's place in the world is, that is a quest for meaning. If we see beauty in a mountain, that is also a quest for meaning. The latter may be subjective, but that connotation takes nothing away from other objective and important meaning, such as the former. Just as a passing cloud can show a face to one person and not change the fact that it is a cloud with a place in the world, meaning on one level does not change the objective meaning.

I don't think we are really disagreeing. I think that certain meaning is taken from an entity and is correct in its situation, but that more ultimate meaning remains the same. Perhaps you wouldn't define the "ultimate meaning", as I call it, as "meaning", but that's irrelevant; we can express the same thing with different words and not change that thing at all.

[sweetheart]

21. Yes, the frame of self

Meaning implies a self that "knows" it.
"questing" meaning means a self exists that frames the quest,
and i agree, there is no self. If there is no self,
then there is no quest for meaning.
The question is subjective to its context in the frame of self consciousness.

When direct awakening to knowledge is innate and not learned,
how can anyone quest knowledge and find it without discovering,
the absence of the quester, and the absent whistling of the wind.

[Ben Ceremos]

27. The self

is real. Proof is the letter you posted as yourself. Self is variably defined, but generally it is accepted that it is something that is tied up with identity, is generally consistent and develops a set of characteristics/character. Based in bio-chemico-electro exchanges, it serves as the unifying concept for all beings. If there is no self, then who are you? (I do NOT imply the existence of a soul.)

[sweetheart]

36. real but is it personal

no self, i abused the term from yoga. There is
only "the Self", and i was inferring that "the self"
is not personal on inquiry, and that myself does
not really exist as a separate consciousness from
its framing self.

Language dances around this so badly, as to
"understand" intellectually invariably suggests an
ego-self that is learned and educated in a dualistic
frame of language and knowledge (seeking).
That dualistic frame does not carry the nondoing of
unity very well. (but is very much liked for corporate
marketing consumption, propaganda and population control)
It is both too impersonal and not
able to express intimate awakenings, but as well too
personal and crude with the sacredness of life.

As much as i love english, sanskrit is better for
subtle words that english has not discovered. Dharma
is much more than "truth", "dukkha" is much more than "suffering".
Samadhi is not comprehensible as thought. The arrogance
of english that the words claim to understand what
they infer, when perhaps they themselves are
just placeholders to knowledge of that Self.

[Nevernose]

22. Ouch. How painfully ... biological.

Which poses the questions: even if it is all some sort of biological quirk or imperative, like language or reproduction, does it really matter? Perhaps "questing" or "extracting and creating meaning" is the very definition of spirituality; this would make us, regardless of the cause, inherently spiritual. Does it make a difference if it's the result of evolution?

And who really wants to live in a world where beauty isn't truth, and truth isn't beauty?

(and correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're getting at is that there is no greater truth, there is only our own biological imperative to form relationships between unrelated things, that human beings are not special and just doing what our biology tells us, and thus "spirituality" is an illusion?)

[fshrink]

23. Spirituality is not a quest

It is an answer that negates the quest. My wonder only comes from not knowing all. Our ability to extract and create meaning is our survival advantage. Without that we can't even compete with a cockroach. Our fragile body put us on top of the food chain because we developped this brain, this ability to extract, create and communicate meaning. So where's the "quest"?

[Nevernose]

24. But getting there is half the fun!

;)

[Ben Ceremos]

28. Truth is beauty,

beauty, truth. Quest is a dramatic term that seems to have an affinity with the notion of pilgrimage, even stronger with the shamanic vision-quest notion. I seek out the spiritual in my environment. I mean that I appreciate the beauty and I have a sense of awe about what I see. I quest after nothing, yet what I feel as a spiritual experience is very much what I feel when I admire the beauty and complexity of all systems, natural or of human origin. Perhaps a healthier appreciation for the beautiful would lead us to a better understanding of what we feel as spirit?

[dave29]

39. our advantage comes from our thumbs

the brain came along nicely though to.

[dave29]

40. your point can be argued back to the unanswerable

why did we develop this brain?

A: Evolution

Why did evolution start

A: Because I said so

The scientific method has yet to reach the point of finding a cause for the effects you describe.

Of course maybe there is no "why" - but then, we don't even need the scientific method, do we.

[fshrink]

41. And so? You're in a hurry?

[dave29]

42. I'm stuck on a planet blazing at incredible speeds

towards the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies. It's the ground beneath me that's in a hurry. Understanding why I'm on this oasis in space is a source of great joy for me. I am in no hurry, friend... I'm enjoying the ride as much as I think possible.

[Boojatta]

8. Some past winners

Some past winners who are not popular at DU:

Michael Novak (1994)
Charles W. Colson (1993) (the former Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon)
Rev. Dr. Billy Graham (1982)

At the website
http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html
you can read this explanation of the purpose of the prize:
"If even one-tenth of world research were focused on spiritual realities, could benefits be even more vast than the benefits in the latest two centuries from research in food, travel, medicine or electronics, and cosmology?

However, don't quit your day job to do research in spiritual reality, because you almost certainly won't win. Some more past winners (already very prominent when they won):

Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1975) (President of India from 1962 to 1967)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1983) (The Nobel Prize in Literature 1970)
The Rt. Hon. Lord Jakobovits (1991) (Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth from 1967 to 1991)

If you have already earned an impressive reputation in science, then you might win if you start writing about religion.

[megatherium]

10. Freeman Dyson was a recipient in 2000.

He of course is an eminent physicist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/740688.stm

[papau]

13. Thanks for posting the list from the Templeton web site. :-)

:-)

The award was started in 1972 by global investor Sir John Templeton to remedy what he saw as an oversight by the Nobel Prizes, which do not honour the discipline of religion. The award is always set at an amount that exceeds the value of the Nobels.

Previous winners include physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1989), and Benedictine monk and professor of astrophysics Stanley L. Jaki (1987). The first winner was Mother Teresa in 1973.

Interesting that you missed those names while Michael Novak (1994),Charles W. Colson (1993), Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1975) (President of India from 1962 to 1967)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1983), The Rt. Hon. Lord Jakobovits (1991) (Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth from 1967 to 1991), and the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham (1982) caught your eye.

I would have thought Dyson might be more of interest to the science minded folks at DU.

[daleo]

15. I have read several of his books

A sort of advanced physics deism is the most you can get out of his material, and he makes no greater claims than this.

[papau]

33. true :-)

:-)