$1.5M prize for spiritual research goes to Canadian

[Praxius]

$1.5M prize for spiritual research goes to Canadian

A Canadian philosopher has won a $1.5 million US prize for his theory that the world's problems can only be solved by considering both their secular and spiritual roots. Charles Taylor was announced as the winner of the 2007 Templeton Prize Wednesday at a news conference in New York. The 75-year-old university professor is the first Canadian to win the prize. "For nearly half a century [Taylor] has argued that problems such as violence and bigotry can only be solved by considering both their secular and spiritual dimensions," said a news release from the prize organizers. "Key to Taylor’s investigations of the secular and the spiritual is a determination to show that one without the other only leads to peril," said the release. Taylor, in an interview with the CBC's Alison Smith, described the essential idea behind his work. "I think the thing that caught the attention of the people giving the prize is that I've always thought that we've had a social science and philosophy that were much too narrow … that hasn't recognized the importance of the religious and spiritual dimension in peoples' lives," he said. "And the result is, it's not been good for understanding in the world."

So do you agree about his theory?

I personally think he's on the right track, but not on the same level.... he's not looking at the bigger picture.... he's looking at the big picture, but not the bigger one.

[Zhavric]

The Templeton prize exists for the sole purpose of getting scientists & other thinkers to write something positive about religion.

Think bribery.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Yeah, and what's his thesis again? That religion and spirituality are important in our lives? Hmm...not much of a thesis if you ask me. What are his main points he uses in his "research?" Actually, questions makes we also wonder what "research" was actually performed.

[Praxius]

I think he was gearing at the point that when we have to look at problems, we have to look at them with both spiritual and scientific approaches to get a more accurate observation.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secular seems to mean not to observe something with spiritual or supernatural reasoning, and he is stating that if you combine the two, you will get a better solution.

Myself, I have always considdered that in order to solve problems, find answers, and the meaning to most things, one must combine the common factors that each religion, science, philosophy, and common sense hold to, to get a more accurate solution to a problem.

In my opinion, religions have some correct answers, but many incorrect, but if you combine the most common things agreed to, a more simple solution can be found.

I just find it interesting this guy is somewhat along the same thinking as myself..... almost...... (I feel kinda smarter, lol )

[phoenix_fire]

I haven't read up on it, but my first thought when I read the OP was that he meant that historical events may also be viewed in the context of the ongoing battle of good and evil superimposed upon them, considering that humanity is the battlefield of this war. In other words, looking for the demon over Hitler's shoulder.

[Praxius]

Here's another news article posted today about this:

Philosopher Charles Taylor first Canadian to win Templeton Prize

The author of 23 books that have been translated into 22 languages, and with another book soon to be published, Taylor has long argued that wholly depending on secularized viewpoints blots out crucial insights that might help the world address many of its most pressing problems. "The deafness of many philosophers, social scientists and historians to the spiritual dimension can be remarkable," he says in text he had prepared for the reception. "And this is the more damaging in that it affects the culture of the media and of the educated public opinion in general." Michel Robitaille, Quebec's Delegate General in New York, said Taylor is "one of our most distinguished penseurs (thinkers), and Quebec's best known philosopher worldwide." He too emphasized how growing up in a French-English home had helped Taylor "always try to see each position, and find common ground." Daniel Sullivan, Canada's Consul General in New York, described him as "one of the greatest social thinkers in the English-speaking world in our era."

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Praxius I think he was gearing at the point that when we have to look at problems, we have to look at them with both spiritual and scientific approaches to get a more accurate observation. Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Secular seems to mean not to observe something with spiritual or supernatural reasoning, and he is stating that if you combine the two, you will get a better solution. Myself, I have always considdered that in order to solve problems, find answers, and the meaning to most things, one must combine the common factors that each religion, science, philosophy, and common sense hold to, to get a more accurate solution to a problem. In my opinion, religions have some correct answers, but many incorrect, but if you combine the most common things agreed to, a more simple solution can be found. I just find it interesting this guy is somewhat along the same thinking as myself..... almost...... (I feel kinda smarter, lol )

Well then please define for me the "spiritual approach" to a problem, any problem, in which that approach is combined with a secular solution. Or just use what Taylor said. Either way, I don't see spirituality having a single expression for how to approach a problem. Even then, it's all how/what/why about your spiritualism.

I agree that we need to LOOK at all sides of a problem to determine a proper solution, but this is certainly not always necessary. And in regards to religion, 99% of what we know and use in our lives can be without religion. So like I said, I don't see his argument nor his main points that support what it is.

[Praxius]

I think what he means about spiritual, is more along the lines of "Imagination" or just thinking outside of the scientific box... go with the feeling you get with something.... which is what I do. I can speculate on something and come out with a semi-decent solution/explination without having enough evidence to support the idea, but with logical+scientific+Past religious Beliefs+Human Imagination+Phylosophy=a balanced logical solution (Of course not all the time)

This form of thinking doesn't nessicarily mean it can solve all the problems in the world, and in fact can be wrong sometimes, but putting out this kind of thinking helps bring out questions that normally wouldn't be considdered, which at times can fill in some blanks that otherwise would be left out, due to relying on 100% scientific fact.... even science needs to be corrected at times, as our research evolves in things.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Praxius I think what he means about spiritual, is more along the lines of "Imagination" or just thinking outside of the scientific box... go with the feeling you get with something.... which is what I do. I can speculate on something and come out with a semi-decent solution/explination without having enough evidence to support the idea, but with logical+scientific+Past religious Beliefs+Human Imagination+Phylosophy=a balanced logical solution (Of course not all the time) This form of thinking doesn't nessicarily mean it can solve all the problems in the world, and in fact can be wrong sometimes, but putting out this kind of thinking helps bring out questions that normally wouldn't be considdered, which at times can fill in some blanks that otherwise would be left out, due to relying on 100% scientific fact.... even science needs to be corrected at times, as our research evolves in things.

For the most part, you're avoiding the question. For one, spirituality and imagination may have ideas in common, but that is a terrible definition for spirituality. Speculation is a tool of science, not spirituality. This time, give me an example of where spirituality is involved, not your self logic solutions or innovative ideas versus scientific evidence. Basically, SHOW me HOW a reasonable spiritual explanation can provide a dimension to a problem that secular ideas cannot, thus requiring a mixture of the two.

[Praxius]

Wicca, Native Spirituality, Hinduism all have their own explanations of the world around us that follow along similar lines as scientology and science itself.

Secular ideas can give you the closest logical solution given known facts, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer.

I shouldn't have to list all the things that secular thinking can not explain completely..... the universe around us has plenty.. an easy one would be when people goto jail for crimes they did not commit, due to not having all the proper evidence. Due to the supplied evidence, logically by the facts, they are guilty, although they are not... there are plenty of debates and arguments in here that can not be easily answered by the same methods.... or they just wouldn't be a debate now would they? You have those here who come from a secular background and those who come from a spiritual background..... pointing fingers at who's right and who's wrong isn't going to solve anything.

But at the same time, religion and spiritual explanations don't answer everything either..... which is why I live my life with a combination of it all. I am not one particular follower of any religion, nor any scientific explanation. I read them, I am taught them, and I learn them, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I just take what I know and add it to the pile of what I already know, re-evaluate what I understand, combined with the different methods of thinking I have gathered from all these areas in question, and I balance it all out with how each one would logically explain the situation at hand, in their own ways, and then combine the common factors of each and add a dash of imagination to it all....... pop it in the oven for about 45 minutes, at a temperature of about 450f, and poke with a fork in the centre and see if it is still moist after time has passed. Sprinkle a bit of sugar on the top and there you have it...... a more plausible answer.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Praxius Wicca, Native Spirituality, Hinduism all have their own explanations of the world around us that follow along similar lines as scientology and science itself.

Most of what ideas like these tangibly do is provide some additional secuirity in the minds of certain individuals- that's fine, I can dig that. However, I'm tired of one person taking what was originally a source of security and bringing it into the intellectual discourse with the delusion that it should be given equal practical footing to science.

All I wish is that people would keep thier religion and starry-eyed personal revelations to themselves and not to bring them into science- is that too much to ask?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Praxius Wicca, Native Spirituality, Hinduism all have their own explanations of the world around us that follow along similar lines as scientology and science itself.

What does this even mean? Do you know what scientology is...compared to science? And no, I disagree that Wicca, Native Spirituality (whatever that is?!?!), and Hinduism have roots in science. That made me laugh a little, though.

Quote by: Praxius Secular ideas can give you the closest logical solution given known facts, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer. I shouldn't have to list all the things that secular thinking can not explain completely..... the universe around us has plenty.. an easy one would be when people goto jail for crimes they did not commit, due to not having all the proper evidence. Due to the supplied evidence, logically by the facts, they are guilty, although they are not... there are plenty of debates and arguments in here that can not be easily answered by the same methods.... or they just wouldn't be a debate now would they? You have those here who come from a secular background and those who come from a spiritual background..... pointing fingers at who's right and who's wrong isn't going to solve anything.

Only your first sentence here really hits the nail on the head. Secular ideas do give us the closest possible answer to "actual truth," and I even agree with you that doesn't necessarily mean our conclusions are right. Facts could be wrong, interpreted incorrectly, biased, etc. However, let me also add that despite that cripple to the secular vision, it is BY FAR the best METHOD for finding "actual truth."

The following paragraph only addresses half of my sentence, so it really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never asked you to describe to me an idea that secular thought has not "solved." That's all you provided, or actually, that's all you thought you "shouldn't" provide. What my question was, and I repeat (capitalizing what you missed): "Show me how a reasonable spiritual explanation can provide a dimension to a problem that secular ideas cannot, thus requiring a mixture of the two.

Quote by: Praxius But at the same time, religion and spiritual explanations don't answer everything either..... which is why I live my life with a combination of it all. I am not one particular follower of any religion, nor any scientific explanation. I read them, I am taught them, and I learn them, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I just take what I know and add it to the pile of what I already know, re-evaluate what I understand, combined with the different methods of thinking I have gathered from all these areas in question, and I balance it all out with how each one would logically explain the situation at hand, in their own ways, and then combine the common factors of each and add a dash of imagination to it all....... pop it in the oven for about 45 minutes, at a temperature of about 450f, and poke with a fork in the centre and see if it is still moist after time has passed. Sprinkle a bit of sugar on the top and there you have it...... a more plausible answer.

Ok, I'll rationalize what you're trying to say:

First, I think we both agree that there is an unreachable (but we try our best, of course) ultimate truth to the universe. Basically, that there is a specific answer to everything, whether we will know in our lifetimes or in those of our second, tenth, or thousandth offspring. Now we know that the ultimate truth is unreachable (in regards to human thought); so no matter how much knowledge we gain pertaining to any theory of how we understand the world, certainty is an absolutely proposition, once again saying that, philosophically speaking, we can't ever prove with 100% certainty a given conclusion.

Secondly, we're addressing two parts of what some think the ultimate truth is the umbrella for, spiritual and secular thought. I think secular thought is the only thought that should be considered, while you prefer a mixture of the two.

Now, according to what you've said in both paragraphs, you've actually slightly contradicted yourself, but apparently didn't realize it. Furthermore, you've provided no coherent reasoning behind your position.

You said: "Secular ideas can give you the closest logical solution given known facts." Now, I hold this opinion, too, so let's make some other conclusions, like how you say when you know x amount of facts, a secular solution is best to get the job done in regards to find the "closest logical solution." Makes sense to me; I mean, if you know a fact, spirituality is unnecessary at best. This leaves only ONE avenue where, in your opinion, secular thought plays less of a role than say, spritiual thought: unknown facts.

So this is what it boils down to, really; when you DON'T KNOW something, what's the better method to find out what you don't know? Let's look at each method.

Secular thought runs along the lines of the scientific method of hypothesizing, experimenting/observing, then drawing probable conclusions. We haven't seen T-Rexes, but by putting the bones together, carbon dating the bones, and using plate tectonics to determine climate patterns of the T-Rex's location, we can determine a lot of probable conclusions about the T-Rex.

Spiritual thought rests upon the idea that a supernatural force, as determined by humans to what that force is (higher power(s) (theism), higher self (scientology), higher nature (Buddhism)). Among these three divisions, plus, technically, as many as man can come up with, spirituality rests on many other assumptions that ALL make up that particular division, such as: characteristics of the higher power, self, or nature; the manmade organization of the higher entities; and most importantly, spiritual thought rests on the credulity of other humans, rather than the natural world, itself. It was other humans who told other humans over thousands of years what makes up the thousands of kinds of spiritual ideas and backgrounds, all of which lacked any substance in the natural world. The number and probability of these combinations that make up spiritual thought would be a mathematician's nightmare.

So, I hope I've pointed out that spiritual thought is nothing more than a predetermined guess, an unfounded, unorganized method (if we can even call it a "method" now) of finding absolute truth. The "method" I suppose is what you make of it; that, essentially, even though secular thought gets us 99% of the way, we'll never get to universal truth, and, IMO the idea of spiritual thought is just a portion of a culmination of all other forms of doubt and skepticism that make up that 1% of what we cannot totally confirm without doubt.

Now in math, for the equation of 1/x, as the value of the variable for the equation approaches infinity, we assume it eventually becomes 0. Replace the equation with our question, the variable with our conclusion, and the answer to the problem as our absolute knowledge, and you have quite a comparison, where the growing values to infinity represent our growing advancements in knowledge, approaching absolute knowledge, but never quite ever getting there. I won't make the same "assumption" for philosophy and science as I do for math, but I'll always understand the heavy, heavy imbalance between the secular and spiritual opinions.

[Praxius]

Now, according to what you've said in both paragraphs, you've actually slightly contradicted yourself, but apparently didn't realize it. Furthermore, you've provided no coherent reasoning behind your position.

That's the point...... I'll respond to the rest shortly, but right now I'm off for a smoke break...... it's kinda hard to explain the method with just typing.... it's kinda one of those 1on1 things where I have to express the explinations..... a combination once again, so to speak.

My below signature kinda also relates to it as well.....

My methods do seem to contradict at times and even seem extremely illogical.... and I'm fully aware of this.... it's on purpose most of the time.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Praxius That's the point...... I'll respond to the rest shortly, but right now I'm off for a smoke break...... it's kinda hard to explain the method with just typing.... it's kinda one of those 1on1 things where I have to express the explinations..... a combination once again, so to speak. My below signature kinda also relates to it as well..... My methods do seem to contradict at times and even seem extremely illogical.... and I'm fully aware of this.... it's on purpose most of the time.

Your point is to contradict yourself? And no, I don't see how seeing me face to face would prove your point...it wouldn't at all unless you started walking on water. So either list your supernatural abilities or just tell me what'd you'd say to me if we were facing each other. I've heard that excuse so many times.

[Praxius]

Oh well then.....

I contradict myself at times, for the simple pleasure of making sure people are listening, and to subconciously make them think.

The following paragraph only addresses half of my sentence, so it really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never asked you to describe to me an idea that secular thought has not "solved." That's all you provided, or actually, that's all you thought you "shouldn't" provide. What my question was, and I repeat (capitalizing what you missed): "Show me how a reasonable spiritual explanation can provide a dimension to a problem that secular ideas cannot, thus requiring a mixture of the two.

See that's the problem.... if some idea or theory was brought about by spiritual means and actually became fact, then it then becomes secular and scientific thinking takes it over as it's own...... because it's true, and a fact, if proven...... science is just another religion when you get right down to it.

The only difference about science to most other religions, is that it's a leech..... forever changing depending on what is issued out by other means of thinking so that it is "always right." How do you suppose scientific thinking came about? What was before it?

When someone first started to try and think scientifically and had no other means to compare his or her research, what do you think he or she compared it to? Religion and Philosophy. Those methods got us through the times so far, so they must have been right about a few things.

Science can not explain the afterlife, why we are on this planet, and our purpose.... why? because there is not enough evidence, proof, or tangible details to follow...... religion/philosophy explains these things.... whether they are right or wrong, only time will tell.... when science or secular thinking tries to do this..... it can't..... when the attempt is made, then you cross the line into non-secular thinking..... thinking otherwise is just an illusion.

All the scientific thinking, religions and philosophers all think their ways are the correct ways..... they are right, but they are all also wrong at the same time.

Each religion and scientific method hold true to known facts and ideas..... but what causes the differences is that they all think they are all right and everybody else is wrong...... Religions in paticular have truths to them.... but they've placed laws and rules, and other things that were personally wanted by those who incorporated the religion..... many of these things are false, but people hold to the known truths and figure that everything else must be right.

You'll never know the whole answer until you take the common known details from each religion, each scientific theory, and each opinion from every individual you come across in your life, as well as your own Opinion, you mix it all together and you come out with the most accurate, common answer that answers the most questions.

You wanted me to show you examples of how spiritual experiences have proven more accurate then a secular way of thinking.... and I can't..... not just because I can't think of one now, but I know that many things have been wrong this way...... but so has science.... the only difference is that religions rarely change, while science does so it appears to always be right. I'm not taking a side on this matter (Spiritual or Secular) because as I said, I use both means of thinking, because I already know neither side is 100% right...... not even 75%.

Oh.... and I don't have supernatural abilities..... they're the same abilities any other human is capable of performing if one was so inclined.

I think the main reason why i find it difficult to explain to you, is because you can't teach someone how to think, they have to think for themselves.

You might get there eventually

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Praxius Oh well then..... I contradict myself at times, for the simple pleasure of making sure people are listening, and to subconciously make them think. See that's the problem.... if some idea or theory was brought about by spiritual means and actually became fact, then it then becomes secular and scientific thinking takes it over as it's own...... because it's true, and a fact, if proven...... science is just another religion when you get right down to it. The only difference about science to most other religions, is that it's a leech..... forever changing depending on what is issued out by other means of thinking so that it is "always right." How do you suppose scientific thinking came about? What was before it? When someone first started to try and think scientifically and had no other means to compare his or her research, what do you think he or she compared it to? Religion and Philosophy. Those methods got us through the times so far, so they must have been right about a few things. Science can not explain the afterlife, why we are on this planet, and our purpose.... why? because there is not enough evidence, proof, or tangible details to follow...... religion/philosophy explains these things.... whether they are right or wrong, only time will tell.... when science or secular thinking tries to do this..... it can't..... when the attempt is made, then you cross the line into non-secular thinking..... thinking otherwise is just an illusion. All the scientific thinking, religions and philosophers all think their ways are the correct ways..... they are right, but they are all also wrong at the same time. Each religion and scientific method hold true to known facts and ideas..... but what causes the differences is that they all think they are all right and everybody else is wrong...... Religions in paticular have truths to them.... but they've placed laws and rules, and other things that were personally wanted by those who incorporated the religion..... many of these things are false, but people hold to the known truths and figure that everything else must be right. You'll never know the whole answer until you take the common known details from each religion, each scientific theory, and each opinion from every individual you come across in your life, as well as your own Opinion, you mix it all together and you come out with the most accurate, common answer that answers the most questions. You wanted me to show you examples of how spiritual experiences have proven more accurate then a secular way of thinking.... and I can't..... not just because I can't think of one now, but I know that many things have been wrong this way...... but so has science.... the only difference is that religions rarely change, while science does so it appears to always be right. I'm not taking a side on this matter (Spiritual or Secular) because as I said, I use both means of thinking, because I already know neither side is 100% right...... not even 75%. Oh.... and I don't have supernatural abilities..... they're the same abilities any other human is capable of performing if one was so inclined. I think the main reason why i find it difficult to explain to you, is because you can't teach someone how to think, they have to think for themselves. You might get there eventually

I feel like I'm talking to a middle schooler. Everything I'm reading just doesn't make sense. What spiritual theories have become fact??? And explain exactly how science is a religion? That's one of the most unfounded statements I've heard you say, among others.

Scientific methods have always existed. Scientific facts have not necessarily changed, only become more reachable by what we know now; only the conclusions we have made with these facts have changed, anyways, not the actual data that makes up the basis of science.

Who says you have to compare your research to think scientifically. Watch, it's pretty easy...ready? I'm thinking scientifically. I watch as ships go into the horizon and how the ships disappear eventually but the masts of the ship are still visible. I now come to the conclusion the Earth's surface is curved. No comparisons...

Who cares if science can't explain the afterlife...probably because THERE ISN'T ONE. There's lots of made up shit science can't explain, because the job of science isn't to address the things we make up to make ourselves feel better. No, scientists don't always think they are right. ONLY religion does. And religion always does. Many scientists, for one, only state they've made reasonable conclusions based on evidence, but none ever claim absolute knowledge of what their studying. Your ignorance is annoying, especially because you talk like you know what you're talking about.

What are the particular "truths" of some religions? Go ahead, amuse me...Maybe that such a thing as people exist? And the sun exists? And a city of Jerusalem, or something, existed? Yeah, no kidding.

Once, you want to reach conclusions based upon a terrible argument that:

a) contradicts itself (which you also noted)
b) doesn't even make sense fundamentally
c) has skewed facts and analysis (you clearly have a little historical and educational background in the fields of science and philosophy)

Quote by: Praxius You wanted me to show you examples of how spiritual experiences have proven more accurate then a secular way of thinking.... and I can't

This is the basis of our entire argument. If you can't do this, then I have nothing else to gain by typing a bunch of words your going to blatantly ignore by responding with contradicting, elementary mumbo jumbo.