Last month the Templeton Prize was awarded to Charles Taylor.

I think Taylor's perspective is interesting and worthy of discussion - however I also think the idea of the Templeton prize, which is the largest monetary prize to an individual, and which has been offered since 1973, is also worth discussing. It is offered to individuals who are making progress towards research and discoveries in spiritual understanding - and has often been a point at which science and religion can combine.

Previous winners include cosmologist John Barrow, physicist Charles Townes, environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston III, physicist and priest Rev John Polkinghorne, and many more, including some who are both scientists and churchmen.

Are people here aware of it, and is it worthy of discussion?

I'm going to check through some of the bios on the link below and see if anyone else here is interested ...

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

Interesting perspective -- but how do you force spiritual perspective on an agnostice or atheist? Given human history, I suspect religion has caused more deaths than atheism or secularism.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

That's probably because we have had more religious people than secular. I don't think religion itself has caused death although some have used it is a tool to motivate people in conflicts.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Good post, Daisy.

As one who considers herself spiritual, though not religious, I can agree with the idea that it is important to study the role of spirituality in human society.

Up until the age of 14, I believed faithfully in the existence of God. Then two factors combined to plant seeds of doubt in my mind. One was school lessons on the theory of evolution, and the other was my awakening to the terrible problems that afflicted people in many parts of our world.

Gradually I became convinced that the fate of human salvation was in our hands only.

And I loved science, and saw it not just as a fascinating field of study but also as the means to understand and change our world.

But I also felt a need for a spiritual dimension in my life.

When I was at university doing a Social Science degree in the 1990’s, there was little serious discussion of spiritual matters, only some classes on mysticism. In my Honours thesis, I wanted to document the role spiritual factors had played in the identification of a place of Aboriginal heritage. I was advised that such references would be rejected. I know that Charles Taylor’s scope of study is far broader, but this anecdote still exemplifies the disinclination of Social Scientists to accept spirituality as a legitimate branch of the discipline.

I liked this passage on the page you linked:

In view of current events in our world, I think it is important to explore and debate such questions.

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Thanks Tethys

I see things in a similar way. I don't think science alone can solve our problems - there is another dimension that needs to be brought in - whether you call it spiritual or whatever. I have learned that connection with other people is not just about quantifiable interactions. There IS something else.

The way we view our world IS shaped by an understanding which can at times be called spiritual - its about continuity and connection.

But I also think its important to explore the down side of religion. I recently started a thread after hearing an interview with a catholic priest who believed the 'rapturists' followed an ideology of death - like a lot of other ecotheologians, he had more connection with some of the more traditional (animistic, and perhaps pagan) spiritual beliefs than he did with many of his fellow christians. Care for the earth, care for each other all go together.

Science, like hardcore patriarchal religious belief (including, but not exclusive to, christianity) can have a utilitarian approach to the world around us. Social science - whether marxist oriented or influenced by a more conservative belief system - and all points in between - can reduce us to cogs in a machine, economic units, and deny the significance of connection, and deny the 'value' of intangibles.

To value a spiritual dimension there is no need to be religious, there is no need to believe in God. It may be easier to place it in a religious construct, but the same basic values and recognition of the importance of something other than the material world can apply.

Some of the most beautiful, and revealing quotes I have seen about spirituality come from scientists who are not reknowned for their faith in God.

I agree, Daisy.

And another field where I think the spiritual dimension of our existence is undervalued is health and medicine.

The connection between mind, body and spirit is recognised to some degree, but few medical practitioners or mental health specialists are versed in holistic diagnosis and healing.

Yes, to me, continuation and connection are elements of spirituality… as much as we are individuals; we are connected by metaphysical forces to each other, to “time”, to the world, and to the universe.

And I agree that in seeking to understand spirituality, we need to explore both the beneficial and detrimental effects of organised religion, and examine the different factors behind these phenomena.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

There's two types of medicine - medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. Richard Dawkins said something that-ish.

Anyway, I don't think it's anything wrong with "alternative medicine", other than it can hurt alot of people making them believe it can help them. Personally, I'd perhaps try some kind of alternative medicine if usual medicine didn't work. But I would always try medicine backed by science first. Alternative is usually just placebo...

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I think the problem here is that "scientific" medicine and "alternative" medicine are generally viewed as irreconcilable – whereas they should be regarded as components of a holistic discipline.

It comes back to the definition of science.

Also, I think that conventional medicine, and to some extent even alternative medicine, tend too focus on treating the individual, failing to view the individual in a social context, that is, the relationship between societal health and individual health. Societal health is not strictly a measure of the physical well being of a collective of individuals, but rather the degree to which individuals feel contented or alienated in a social setting and/or environment.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman