This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Winner of 1m pound Templeton prize attacks 'fundamentalism' of Dawkins

Winner of 1m pound Templeton prize attacks 'fundamentalism' of Dawkins - Comments

JoeT's Avatar Comment 1 by JoeT

"£1 million Templeton Prize for scientific thought"

I missed the scientific thought part. He got 1 million pounds for what exactly?

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:55:00 UTC | #452369

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 2 by huzonfurst

And here I thought Ayala was okay. Fuck him!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:08:00 UTC | #452371

Phasic's Avatar Comment 3 by Phasic

Heh, he dissed Richard!

Ritual combat is the only rational next step. I'll get the ceremonial Lirpa staves.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:08:00 UTC | #452372

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 4 by robotaholic

What a prick! Richard isn't fundamentalist anything. So much for 20 years of friendship. Looks like 1.5 million dollars is all that man cares about.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:11:00 UTC | #452373

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 5 by Cartomancer

"once science has had its say" eh? And when will that be exactly?

I wasn't aware there was an estimated date for when science is going to stop. I do so look forward to the announcement of that day, because then we will know everything it is possible to know and our lives will be complete. We can all wear T-shirts with the equation for the Theory of Everything on them, while enjoying the limitless energy provided by our portable cold fusion reactors. Perhaps a special commemorative life-form could be constructed from scratch using our DNA design computers, and we could then send all our findings out via faster-than-light transmitters to every intelligent species in our comprehensive catalogue of the cosmos. At this point there will be nothing left to do with our millennia-long disease-free lives but spout untestable bollocks about spirits and gods, so it'll be Templeton Prizes for everybody!

I hope it's before 2035 when the brain-eating aliens are supposed to get here and kill us all...

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:26:00 UTC | #452374

Janus's Avatar Comment 6 by Janus

I find it a useful exercise to substitute the actual meaning of words like "religious" in articles like these. It's a good reminder of what it is these people are defending: Self-delusion and intellectual dishonesty.

Professor Francisco Ayala, who won the £1 million Templeton Prize for accomodationism, said that attacking self-delusion and ridiculing the self-deluded provided ammunition for cult leaders who insisted that their unthinking followers had to choose between an imaginary friend and reality. “Richard Dawkins has been a friend for more than 20 years, but it is unfortunate that he goes beyond the boundaries of honest, rational inquiry in making statements that offend the self-deluded,” he said.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:33:00 UTC | #452375

pkruger's Avatar Comment 7 by pkruger

'Scientific fundamentalst' is an oxymoron, and so is Ayala for saying it.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:37:00 UTC | #452376

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 8 by prettygoodformonkeys

I'd like to join the chorous; this guy's a twat. A sleazy, unapologetically opportunistic apologist.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:40:00 UTC | #452377

Prieten's Avatar Comment 9 by Prieten

My congratulations to Richard Dawkins! I think you rained on the Templeton parade!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:40:00 UTC | #452378

Mr. Davies's Avatar Comment 10 by Mr. Davies

@ Carto:
Thanx for the laugh!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:41:00 UTC | #452379

ozdivergt's Avatar Comment 11 by ozdivergt

"Richard Dawkins has been a friend for more than 20 years, but it is unfortunate that he goes beyond the boundaries of science in making statements that antagonise believers." But it's OK to make this statement and therefore antagonise me as a none-believer.

"The scientific fundamentalism proposed by Dawkins implies a materialistic view of the world." And your million dollars doesn't so I suppose you won't be accepting it then - being a none materialistic person yourself!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:50:00 UTC | #452380

DaveDodo007's Avatar Comment 12 by DaveDodo007

I now hope he joins the exalted company of the stupid, I'm sure Ruse and Mooney will welcome him, after all they need the reassurance.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:59:00 UTC | #452383

TheVirginian's Avatar Comment 13 by TheVirginian

NOMA is nonsense. A religion only can have its own magisterium if it can offer some credible evidence to support its claims. Instead, if you get representative members of the majorities of each of the world's many religions or their sects, you won't get a shred of evidence, just a lot of shouting (and shooting, if you let them come armed).
"I'm going to Heaven, you're going to Hell."
"NO! I'm going to Paradise. You'll end in Hell!"
"You will all be reincarnated as cockroaches, which I will be able to step on!"
"My bones and flesh will reassemable one day, while your bodies will be mere dust!"
"The Great Spirit will reward us. You all get nothing!"
And so on.

As for "fundamentalism":
Anyone who talks about fundamentalist atheists automatically loses any argument because they either have no clue as to what fundamentalism is or they are lying.

I suppose someone could be a scientific fundamentalist if he/she argued that science can solve everything, a modern version of Plato's Philosopher Kings. But I don't know of anyone who argues that. Certainly not Dawkins. He simply argues that science, broadly, and evolution in particular refute many specific concepts about gods. He leaves a small gap for some type of Deist or Unitarian concept, but that's so vague and useless that there's really no point to it.

Shorter version: Ayala is full of it!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:06:00 UTC | #452384

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 14 by robotaholic

Here is Ayala talking to Richard Dawkins at Beyond Belief conference

@4:25 Ayala is saying we cannot ignore religion -"if we think we can persuade people to live a rational life based on scientific knowlege we're dreaming..."
he is acknowledging religion is not rational -I wonder if the Templeton foundation ever heard that

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:07:00 UTC | #452385

George K's Avatar Comment 15 by George K

I got a chuckle when I clicked on the arrow by the image. The picture of a wide-grinning Ayala is replaced with one of Dawkins looking stern and serious. Click again and it's back to Ayala.

It struck me as funny because it seemed to suggest (inadvertently or just in my imagination) something along the lines of, "See the difference? You decide."

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:30:00 UTC | #452393

William T. Dawkins's Avatar Comment 16 by William T. Dawkins

Congratulations! Professor Ayala.

I wouldn't mind attending. I won't get all dressed up though, like when I go to Walmart.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:34:00 UTC | #452394

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 17 by Alternative Carpark

I am seriously tempted to devote the next few years of my life to winning the Templeton prize.

For a million quid, I'm prepared to say anything they want. Is a PhD a prerequisite?

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:54:00 UTC | #452399

Kmita's Avatar Comment 18 by Kmita

"he goes beyond the boundaries of science in making statements that antagonise believers"

Because dawkins is a scientist, and a well known one, he's not allowed to make any statements outside of science which are based on reason... because this guy doesn't like it

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:05:00 UTC | #452404

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 19 by prolibertas

Religion addresses different questions... yeah, except when it doesn't. Religion makes claims about the way the universe actually is. If it didn't, it'd be no different from atheism. And how does religion answer any question in any way that doesn't just involve making stuff up?

'Scientific fundamentalism' is just a play on words. They're basically of an attitude that we're fundamentalists just for disagreeing with them about the roles of science and religion, an attitude which I find to be genuinely fundamentalistic (in the sense of dogmatic). How rude.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:07:00 UTC | #452405

DaveDodo007's Avatar Comment 21 by DaveDodo007

Alternative Carpark.

Stop reaching into my dark thoughts.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:10:00 UTC | #452408

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 20 by SaintStephen

"Richard Dawkins has been a friend for more than 20 years, but it is unfortunate that he goes beyond the boundaries of science in making statements that antagonise believers."
Unfortunately, Ayala is mistaken here. In reality, Richard's mouth doesn't go beyond the boundaries of his own face, and therefore his statements couldn't possibly be "beyond the boundaries of science."
"The scientific fundamentalism proposed by Dawkins implies a materialistic view of the world. But once science has had its say, there remains much about reality that is of interest. Common sense tells us that science can’t tell us everything."
Reality IS science's domain. Everything in reality is of interest to science. After science "has had its say," there is no reality left to ponder.

Ayala's last remark about "common sense" is just shameful pandering to the religious and uneducated.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:10:00 UTC | #452406

davidanaxagoras's Avatar Comment 23 by davidanaxagoras

"science can’t tell us everything"

As opposed to religion, which can just make up all kinds of crazy stuff to explain everything from the heavens to your hemorrhoids.

For a guy who is supposed to bring religion and science together, he seems to be failing on both fronts. Well done, prize winner.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:11:00 UTC | #452411

remijdio's Avatar Comment 22 by remijdio

Richard Dawkins has been a friend for more than 20 years, but it is unfortunate that he goes beyond the boundaries of science in making statements that antagonise believers,

Just about any statement in the area of science about religion is offensive.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:11:00 UTC | #452409

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 24 by mordacious1

Then there is Grigori Perelman, who really deserves the $1 million prize that he won, but refused the money, telling them that he just wants to be left alone so he can pick his mushrooms:

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:15:00 UTC | #452413

lewis.breland's Avatar Comment 25 by lewis.breland

Wah, wah, wah! NOMA NOMA NOMA! Piss.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:17:00 UTC | #452414

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 26 by helen sotiriadis

NOMA... that's all what the winner of the templeton prize has to offer.

why did i ever expect more?

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:42:00 UTC | #452415

Raiko's Avatar Comment 27 by Raiko

I would win the Templeton prize, wait until it's securely in my bank account and the publically donate it to the RDF. Except that I can't bring myself to that level to please the Templeton Simpletons. Sorry, Richard.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:58:00 UTC | #452416

sbooder's Avatar Comment 28 by sbooder

Man’s “flawed” design made evolutionary theory more compatible with the idea of a benevolent creator than intelligent design. “Because of the flawed design of our reproductive systems more than 20 per cent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion,” said Professor Ayala. “Do you want to blame God for that? No, science has provided an answer. It is the clumsy ways of nature and the evolutionary process.”

errr!...this is so full of holes, I do not know where to start.

So if god created Nature, then he is imperfect, because Nature is imperfect. But if god did not create Nature even? Then where dose he come into it?

Please Professor Ayala, take the next logical step…there is no god/gods.

I could be more cynical, and say that £1M is his price, but I won’t say that…oops!

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:04:00 UTC | #452418

andersemil's Avatar Comment 30 by andersemil

17. Comment #472671 by Alternative Carpark

I wanted to post a similar comment but you beat me to it. Apparently, you don't have to understand anything in order to receive a million pounds! It's practically a lottery, the downside is you would have to tell the world it's ok to base your science on mumbo jumbo.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:12:00 UTC | #452420

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 29 by prolibertas

Do these people ever actually read criticisms of their position? Because all they ever do is just play the same old record without ever addressing our criticisms. It's like they've just DECIDED we have no retort.

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:12:00 UTC | #452419