Thoughts on Martin Rees and the Templeton Prize
by Salman Hameed
Like many things in life, the issue of science-funding by the Templeton Foundation is complex. I have posted my thoughts on this several times before (for example, see The Templeton Foundation Dilemma and Some Thoughts on the Templeton Foundation). There is no question that they have a particular vision of science & religion interaction. But I think that vision has also evolved over time. They fund a broad range of topics, with many mundane projects that don't make the news.Then they have supported the high profile World Science Festival - which has been fantastic for the promotion of science. But they also made the spectacularly poor decision of funding a prayer study (but to their credit, they were open about the negative results). But then I have also heard of some course-correction after the prayer study debacle.
Then we have the Templeton Prize. There have been some usual criticism against it: They give the prize to those scientists that are working to merge science with religion (a big no-no in the sciences - and I tend to agree with it). But then last year, the prize went to totally non-controversial biologist Francisco Ayala - who actually argues against the "entanglement of science & religion". However, he is a religious scientist - and the foundation still found itself facing some criticism. I thought Ayala was a great choice as he has been fighting the menace of creationism for a while.
Earlier this week, Martin Rees was awarded the Templeton Prize. Nidhal had a post about it on Wednesday and he will have more to say about that tomorrow. I think the choice of Martin Rees is fantastic - and in some ways it addresses some of the usual criticisms. Here is a very very well-respected astronomer, who is not a believer but respects those who believe. When I heard about the news I thought - well, this is one choice that will probably not generate too much controversy. I was wrong. The brouhaha has been limited - but it is there. The criticism now centers on Rees being a sell-out (for example, see Jerry Coyne's article in the Guardian). On the flip side, Mark Vernon, also in the Guardian, argues that the choice of Rees is a turning point in the "God Wars" - and I think he is equally off-base.
The reality is that these arguments will continue even if Dawkins is given this award. I think some of the criticism of the Templeton Foundation has been fair - and the foundation has responded to some of these criticisms fairly. There is indeed a tension here - but if this tension pulls the foundation in the right direction, then we should applaud. The choice of Martin Rees, I think, is a result of this positive exchange. If the Templeton Foundation has indeed been evolving (I think it has been), then we should form our judgement on case-by-case basis.
I think Martin Rees is a fantastic choice for this year's award.
Like many things in life, the issue of science-funding by the Templeton Foundation is complex. I have posted my thoughts on this several times before (for example, see The Templeton Foundation Dilemma and Some Thoughts on the Templeton Foundation). There is no question that they have a particular vision of science & religion interaction. But I think that vision has also evolved over time. They fund a broad range of topics, with many mundane projects that don't make the news.Then they have supported the high profile World Science Festival - which has been fantastic for the promotion of science. But they also made the spectacularly poor decision of funding a prayer study (but to their credit, they were open about the negative results). But then I have also heard of some course-correction after the prayer study debacle.
Then we have the Templeton Prize. There have been some usual criticism against it: They give the prize to those scientists that are working to merge science with religion (a big no-no in the sciences - and I tend to agree with it). But then last year, the prize went to totally non-controversial biologist Francisco Ayala - who actually argues against the "entanglement of science & religion". However, he is a religious scientist - and the foundation still found itself facing some criticism. I thought Ayala was a great choice as he has been fighting the menace of creationism for a while.
Earlier this week, Martin Rees was awarded the Templeton Prize. Nidhal had a post about it on Wednesday and he will have more to say about that tomorrow. I think the choice of Martin Rees is fantastic - and in some ways it addresses some of the usual criticisms. Here is a very very well-respected astronomer, who is not a believer but respects those who believe. When I heard about the news I thought - well, this is one choice that will probably not generate too much controversy. I was wrong. The brouhaha has been limited - but it is there. The criticism now centers on Rees being a sell-out (for example, see Jerry Coyne's article in the Guardian). On the flip side, Mark Vernon, also in the Guardian, argues that the choice of Rees is a turning point in the "God Wars" - and I think he is equally off-base.
The reality is that these arguments will continue even if Dawkins is given this award. I think some of the criticism of the Templeton Foundation has been fair - and the foundation has responded to some of these criticisms fairly. There is indeed a tension here - but if this tension pulls the foundation in the right direction, then we should applaud. The choice of Martin Rees, I think, is a result of this positive exchange. If the Templeton Foundation has indeed been evolving (I think it has been), then we should form our judgement on case-by-case basis.
I think Martin Rees is a fantastic choice for this year's award.
0 comments:
welcome to my blog. please write some comment about this article ^_^