If ‘seem like dark forces’ is the best you can come up with, then it sounds like you’re on no better ground than the theists.
It doesn’t seem to me that they’re “religion in scientific clothing”, but rather an institution that cares about lots of big questions, some of which have traditionally been (and are still) answered primarily by religious sources.
You can’t just excise a whole part of the human experience and not expect to lose something good. Diversity is sometimes far more valuable than optimality.
Right, well, I have limited resources to spend on criticising their particular perversion of science. The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking. It’s an enterprise I find noxious.
If ‘seem like dark forces’ is the best you can come up with, then it sounds like you’re on no better ground than the theists.
It doesn’t seem to me that they’re “religion in scientific clothing”, but rather an institution that cares about lots of big questions, some of which have traditionally been (and are still) answered primarily by religious sources.
You can’t just excise a whole part of the human experience and not expect to lose something good. Diversity is sometimes far more valuable than optimality.
Saying that something is better than optimality is abuse of the term “optimality”. There’s an idea missing—optimal what, exactly?
Right, well, I have limited resources to spend on criticising their particular perversion of science. The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking. It’s an enterprise I find noxious.