Good Morning Nexians!

Anyone familiar with the Templeton Prize? Its awarded annually by a panel of judges to someone, who in their opinion has "made an exceptional contribution to affirming lifes spiritual dimension whether through insight,discovery or practical works"?Its purpose is not to 'push' any particular notion of God or faith but instead aims to celebrate 'the quest for progress in humanity's efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine'.

Interesting mission statement.Heres the link: www.templetonprize.org.

Any thoughts on this?

I wonder how its esteemed recipients would view matters after 50mg of vaporised material in a single inhalation.........?

Also note how big the prize pay-out is for the winner.Nobel Prize-take your place at the back of the queue!!

A shameless attempt at buying credit for pseudoscience. Another tool employed by intelligent designers to confuse and blur the public's education and perception of science.

You have got to be kidding me... How is exploring spirituality any threat to science? Your standpoint is exactly what creates an inability for society to explore spiritual phenomena in a good matter. Both people consumed by their belief in spirituality and people consumed by their belief in science creates this inability, which in its very nature is irrational.

Why is it so hard for anyone of these two groups to accept the possibility that the truth perhaps is to be found somewhere in the middle? Broaden your perspective! This goes out to anyone consumed by their belief system, no matter what it is. A total and full belief that the current science is everything there is to reality is a belief system just like any other. And as any belief system, it is irrational.

Can you explain what is irrational about believing science can comment on "spirituality"?

What do you mean that truth is found in the middle? Let's take astrology or the existence of God. Are they propositions that are true, not true, semi-true or both true AND untrue?

So, if having a "belief system" is irrational, can you explain the platform from which you are speaking? Do you believe in anything?

You've used two paragraphs to say very little, which is typical from proponents of the pop-philosophy Pro-Unicorn side of this entire debate.

That is not irrational, not at all. What is irrational is believing that the current science hold all answers, and that everything else is just rubbish. That will make it impossible to explore spirituality in a good manner, which is the manner of the scientific method. It will make it impossible for science to comment on spirituality, thus creating an inability to merge the two most vital sides of the understanding of human existence.

All I said was that there is a possibility that perhaps the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle. That is far from saying that that in fact is the case. All I am asking is that people are open to the possibility. To my mind, science is as correct as science technically can ever be, which is pretty damn close to the truth, but never the ultimate truth.

What I mean by a belief system is that one accepts the package of one system, and ignores the possibility of any truth in any other packages. This can be Christianity or Islam as well as science or some obscure new-age religion. To me, a pillar of the scientific method is to be open to the possibility of every imaginable theory. If one is totally consumed by the belief that today's science have all the answers, one is totally and utter irrational, just as one is irrational if one believe in every word written in the Bible or in the Qur'an.

Because you were asking, my belief system may be closest to that of an agnostic. I accept the tremendous wealth of advancement the scientific method has provided us and salute this. I also accept the possibility that some spiritual phenomena may have truth to them, and work with experiencing this on a daily basis. To great luck, I must say. So that is my belief system, that science and spirituality can complement each other. By saying that science is always correct and spirituality always is wrong, the possibility of exploring spiritual phenomena with the scientific method diminishes. I believe the future will see a merging of the two, but again, that is just my belief system. Irrational as it is.

And you have used two posts to portray the image of a very close-minded person that have no regard for the fact that science often have been wrong and will continue to be, which is typical from your side of the debate. The reason I write the way I do, many words without much content, is because people from your side of the debate tends to need to be fed with a tea spoon when talking about anything else than numbers. You might also like to note that I perhaps am not on the side you initially thought I was.

Well we have nothing to debate about because you've misrepresented me from the start.

Where did I say that "the current science hold all answers, and that everything else is just rubbish."?

Where have I claimed scientists have never been wrong?

I have never claimed that modern science holds all the answers. If that were the case, there'd be no scientists.

I do however hold the belief that it is the most effective tool we have for exploring the nature of the Universe.

If the neurochemical basis for "enlightenment", "hearing the voice of God", "connecting with the spirit" was ever identified and elucidated by geneticists, biochemists and neuroscientists, would you still call it "spirituality"?

The most recent award winner on that site is apparently very outspoken against pseudoscience and regularly rails against intelligent design. It's reported that while he is a man of faith, he's an ardent proponent of keeping religious influence out of science and does not express his own particular faith publicly. He is also a proponent of stem-cell research. A little reading on him makes me think of him as a sort of deist, which though I find contention with, isn't so bad in light of his track record in the matter.

The award itself seems fairly benign, looking at its purpose and recipients. Perhaps there's something I'm not seeing or am not aware of? This is the most I saw:

What you percieve to be possible, becomes your belief in what is possible.