390) Conciliando ciência e religião?
The Edge é um site científico dedicado à popularização da ciência, algo elementar nos dias que correm. O que vai transcrito abaixo é um debate, extremamente controverso, sobre as tentativas, por parte de uma fundação privada, The Templeton Foundation, de conciliar ciência e religião, o que foi recebido com extreme ceticismo por vários dos cientistas convidados para um evento comemorativo dos 30 anos da publicação do livro de Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (darwinista radical, se ouso dizer).
O debate pode ser acompanhado em sua integralidade neste link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
----------------------------------------------------
THE REALITY CLUB
---------------------------------------------------
On "The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic's Take" By John Horgan
Daniel C. Dennett, George Johnson, Freeman Dyson, Richard Dawkins, Marc D. Hauser, Dan Sperber, Jerry Coyne, Leonard Susskind, Lee Smolin, Scott Atran, Dan Sperber, Daniel C. Dennett
DANIEL C. DENNETT: John Horgan closes with a modest proposal to the Templeton Foundation:
"To demonstrate its open-mindedness, the foundation should award the Templeton Prize to an opponent of religion, such as Steven Weinberg or Richard Dawkins."
That made me smile, but I burst out laughing when my wife quipped "That would be a miracle! [...more]
GEORGE JOHNSON: The danger of accepting that fine hospitality is more subtle. From now on, whenever I write about a Templeton-funded project, a little voice somewhere in my head will be second-guessing me. Anxious to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, am I being a little nastier or nicer than I might otherwise have been? And if I am troubled By the possibility, how can I expect that a reader won't be? [...more]
FREEMAN DYSON: Thank you for sending the Horgan piece, which I think expresses quite well the prejudiced attitude of some scientists toward religion in general and Templeton in particular. As a Templeton beneficiary, I do not feel that my freedom of speech is in any way limited. [...more]
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the fact that religion keeps coming back gives us not the tiniest smidgen of a reason for thinking that any of its supernatural claims are true. Freeman Dyson, By accepting the Templeton Prize, sent a powerful signal to the world which, whether he likes it or not, will be taken as an endorsement of religion By one of the world's most distinguished physicists. The great Freeman Dyson is a Christian! [...more]
MARC D. HAUSER: I decided to publish with Science and Spirit as a way to get "inside" the system and go at it. It is in this spirit that I think Horgan's piece is important, and that Richard's comment is relevant. Taking money from the Templeton foundation presents a Faustian choice for many. Given the lack of funding in many of our disciplines, it is tempting to be seduced By an organization brimming with money. But I wouldn't do it! Selling your soul is irreversible, so I hear. [...more]
DAN SPERBER: Isn't it obvious that committed atheists, for whom there is no "boundary between theology and science" where "new insights" could be pursued, should abstain from applying for, or accepting funding from this foundation (even if - or, rather, particularly if - as do some participants in the debate, they feel respect for the foundation)?
JERRY COYNE: I absolutely agree with Sperber and Dawkins that the Templeton Foundation corrupts science. It does this in two ways. First, it involves us in a dialogue that is designed to have a predetermined result: the reconciliation of science and religion. But when doing our own research, we are not committed to a specific outcome. Thus, if you're one of the many scientists who doesn't think that such a reconciliation is possible - at least not without mendacity, self-delusion, or cognitive dissonance - then it is unethical to take money from the Foundation. [...more]
LEONARD SUSSKIND: I don't understand the idea that a convergence between science and religion is taking place. I don't believe in any such convergence. Throwing huge amounts of money at scientists who claim to see such a convergence can only lead to a dangerous blurring of boundaries. [...more]
LEE SMOLIN: I have to say that I found a much more open minded, engaged and respectful discussion between people with different views at Templeton meetings than I have, for example, at string theory meetings. [...more]
SCOTT ATRAN: I find it fascinating that brilliant scientists and philosophers have no clue how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. Makes me embarrassed to be an atheist. [...more]
DAN SPERBER: When we do take monies from less than optimal sources (for instance because otherwise our students are not funded), let's, as I suggested, be cynical - or if you don't like the word, lucid - about it rather than pretend that all is well and that Templeton money smells of hallowed roses. Let's be cynical however with some sophistication, and not pretend that all money is impure and that all sources of funding stinks equally: some stinks more than Templeton, and other less. [...more]
DANIEL C. DENNETT: I'm surprised and disappointed that Freeman Dyson views the open-minded curiosity of Breaking the Spell as prejudiced. I'm sure he doesn't think that it is wrong to try to learn more about a natural phenomenon, so I suspect he is just being lulled by the ancient tradition that demands that religions be honored first, studied later or never.
[...more]
http://www.edge.org
http://www.edge.org/discourse/templeton_index.html
O debate pode ser acompanhado em sua integralidade neste link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
----------------------------------------------------
THE REALITY CLUB
---------------------------------------------------
On "The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic's Take" By John Horgan
Daniel C. Dennett, George Johnson, Freeman Dyson, Richard Dawkins, Marc D. Hauser, Dan Sperber, Jerry Coyne, Leonard Susskind, Lee Smolin, Scott Atran, Dan Sperber, Daniel C. Dennett
DANIEL C. DENNETT: John Horgan closes with a modest proposal to the Templeton Foundation:
"To demonstrate its open-mindedness, the foundation should award the Templeton Prize to an opponent of religion, such as Steven Weinberg or Richard Dawkins."
That made me smile, but I burst out laughing when my wife quipped "That would be a miracle! [...more]
GEORGE JOHNSON: The danger of accepting that fine hospitality is more subtle. From now on, whenever I write about a Templeton-funded project, a little voice somewhere in my head will be second-guessing me. Anxious to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, am I being a little nastier or nicer than I might otherwise have been? And if I am troubled By the possibility, how can I expect that a reader won't be? [...more]
FREEMAN DYSON: Thank you for sending the Horgan piece, which I think expresses quite well the prejudiced attitude of some scientists toward religion in general and Templeton in particular. As a Templeton beneficiary, I do not feel that my freedom of speech is in any way limited. [...more]
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the fact that religion keeps coming back gives us not the tiniest smidgen of a reason for thinking that any of its supernatural claims are true. Freeman Dyson, By accepting the Templeton Prize, sent a powerful signal to the world which, whether he likes it or not, will be taken as an endorsement of religion By one of the world's most distinguished physicists. The great Freeman Dyson is a Christian! [...more]
MARC D. HAUSER: I decided to publish with Science and Spirit as a way to get "inside" the system and go at it. It is in this spirit that I think Horgan's piece is important, and that Richard's comment is relevant. Taking money from the Templeton foundation presents a Faustian choice for many. Given the lack of funding in many of our disciplines, it is tempting to be seduced By an organization brimming with money. But I wouldn't do it! Selling your soul is irreversible, so I hear. [...more]
DAN SPERBER: Isn't it obvious that committed atheists, for whom there is no "boundary between theology and science" where "new insights" could be pursued, should abstain from applying for, or accepting funding from this foundation (even if - or, rather, particularly if - as do some participants in the debate, they feel respect for the foundation)?
JERRY COYNE: I absolutely agree with Sperber and Dawkins that the Templeton Foundation corrupts science. It does this in two ways. First, it involves us in a dialogue that is designed to have a predetermined result: the reconciliation of science and religion. But when doing our own research, we are not committed to a specific outcome. Thus, if you're one of the many scientists who doesn't think that such a reconciliation is possible - at least not without mendacity, self-delusion, or cognitive dissonance - then it is unethical to take money from the Foundation. [...more]
LEONARD SUSSKIND: I don't understand the idea that a convergence between science and religion is taking place. I don't believe in any such convergence. Throwing huge amounts of money at scientists who claim to see such a convergence can only lead to a dangerous blurring of boundaries. [...more]
LEE SMOLIN: I have to say that I found a much more open minded, engaged and respectful discussion between people with different views at Templeton meetings than I have, for example, at string theory meetings. [...more]
SCOTT ATRAN: I find it fascinating that brilliant scientists and philosophers have no clue how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. Makes me embarrassed to be an atheist. [...more]
DAN SPERBER: When we do take monies from less than optimal sources (for instance because otherwise our students are not funded), let's, as I suggested, be cynical - or if you don't like the word, lucid - about it rather than pretend that all is well and that Templeton money smells of hallowed roses. Let's be cynical however with some sophistication, and not pretend that all money is impure and that all sources of funding stinks equally: some stinks more than Templeton, and other less. [...more]
DANIEL C. DENNETT: I'm surprised and disappointed that Freeman Dyson views the open-minded curiosity of Breaking the Spell as prejudiced. I'm sure he doesn't think that it is wrong to try to learn more about a natural phenomenon, so I suspect he is just being lulled by the ancient tradition that demands that religions be honored first, studied later or never.
[...more]
http://www.edge.org
http://www.edge.org/discourse/templeton_index.html
posted by Paulo Roberto de Almeida at segunda-feira, maio 01, 2006
1 Comments:
Essa fundação há anos oferece premios milionários a quem consiga o impossível: juntar ciência e religião. Já premiou muitos pesquisadores de honestidade duvidosa.
Abs.
Postar um comentário
<< Home