Talk:Templeton Prize

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 1996 winner 2 continued since 2001? 3 ad template? 4 please don't remove the criticism section without reason 5 clarification for the reference system 6 unclear 7 Citing Dawkins' criticism here is hardly NPOV

[edit] 1996 winner

The 1986 Templeton Prize was awarded to James I. McCord, who had been president of Princeton Theological Seminary, and not to Watergate figure James W. McCord.

[edit] continued since 2001?

Why "until 2001" when it has continued since then? someYoungGuy 02:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ad template?

The page was helpfull. I was puzzled by the statement at the top that the item reads like an advertisement. I cannot agree with this statement at all. Don't see what it would be advertising for. ??? G.Nap, Tilburg, NL

[edit] please don't remove the criticism section without reason

an anom user removed the following section: "The prize has been criticized by British ethologist Richard Dawkins, labeling it "a very large sum of money given (...) usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion""

If you want to make a case that this doesn't belong in the article, please do so on the talk page and don't remove it without a comment.

Sirana 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clarification for the reference system

When I first gave the reference (Dawkins 2006:19)I was using the standard Harvard referencing system as layed out in Wikipedia:Citing sources, but I removed the page count, since I don't believe it is really necessary. Feel free to add it again if you think it is important, or use any other referencing system layed out in Wikipedia: Citing sources

Dawkins criticises the prize explicitly or more implicitly throughout The God Delusion. I think giving a single page number would be misleading. I also think that the criticism by Dawkins is notable, and have would added it myself if it hadn't already been there. Metamagician3000 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unclear

"Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims, but no Atheists have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients." this is unclear. does it mean that although no atheists have been on the panel, there have been atheistic winners; or that there have been no irreligous panel members or awardees? Psidogretro 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been neither Atheist winners nor Atheist panel members, I changed it to "Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients of the price. There have been no Atheist panel members or awardees." Sirana 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I removed the part that says there have been no Atheist panel members. While I am confident that that is in fact the case, I haven't actually researched the religious affiliation of every past panel member. Sirana 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Dawkins' criticism here is hardly NPOV

Although I will refrain from editing this article, I completely disagree with Sirana: To include criticism from Dawkins in this particular context is highly inappropriate and in my mind violates the NPOV principle, because Dawkins' poor opinion of a prize awarded for spiritual understanding, often enough to scientists, is entirely predictable and rather frivolous. His views on the Templeton prize, or the Archbishop of Canterbury for that matter, belong only to the article on Dawkins. If you must quote Dawkins' view, for what that is worth in this context, do so in a separate section on criticism and include different views. NDeli 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Unless someone can find a more substantial criticism than a famous atheist (or two) saying he doesn't like the prize (perhaps by summarizing the criticism given by Dawkins in his book, provided it amounts to an actual argument rather than opinion), that section should be removed.--Boffob 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. First of all, the Dawkins quote is in the seperate section entitled "Criticism", so I'm not really sure what you mean with the last sentence.

Second, it is not our job as wikipedia editors to decide what is "substantial" criticism. We are not saying that Dawkin is right with his criticism or that he is wrong. But I think it is essential for the article and the deeper understanding of the Templeton Prize to state that it is criticized by atheist participants in the "Science vs. religion" debate. I believe both Dawkins and Carrol are important enought in this debate that their views on the prize do matter.

Also to say that Dawkin's poor opinion of the price is "predictible and rather frivolous" is an opinion of yours that is not backed by any facts and so is not fit to be the basis of any change to this article.

I'm not opposed to taking another Dawnkins quote if you believe that it sums up his criticism better, but imho it definitly shouldn't be removed without substitute.

Sirana 09:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the section, the Carrol criticism is nicely sourced (as it can be read in its entirety in the link) and should stay. But I do believe a better summary of Dawkins' arguments is necessary. The particular quote used really doesn't provide enough explainations of the reasons why Dawkins finds the Templeton Prize objectionable.--Boffob 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of bias is not a valid way of refuting their criticism--AlexCatlin 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Dawkins expresses his criticism about the Templeton Prize quite clearly in this acceptance speech for the Deschner Price in 2007: [1] "There is a prize called a Templeton Prize, which, as you know, was founded by extremely rich man who gave his money to any scientist prepared to subvert science and betray the scientific ideals. The only specification of the quantity of the Templeton Prize is, that it has to be larger than the Noble Prize in money." I'm sorry for not replacing the quote myself, but my native language is not Englisch (I'm German) and I didn't want to add linguistical wrong sentences to the article. --91.34.237.57 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins criticism is fine, it just shows that he is suffering from the same single mindedness that plagues evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.126.8 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, the Templeton Foundation has a tendency to award its prizes to Christians rather than atheists that put their efforts in to answering big questions. Writing this fact into the article does not undermine NPOV. AFAI, NPOV only applies to opinions, not facts!! Poolofthought (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)