First, the Templeton Foundation’s current president, John Templeton Jr., is an evangelical Christian. The softboiled pantheism you think you’re seeing is Christianity hidden by prodigious volumes of smoke.
Well most of the pantheism I’ve encountered comes from the Christian worldview. And that sounds like an ad-hominem to me… the Foundation doesn’t seem to be coming from an evangelical Christian viewpoint in general, and it’s certainly not its stated mission.
Second, whatever happened to caring about the truth? Would you also say that belief in a cube-shaped Earth might just be the way to cut the knot between angry round-Earthers and angry flat-Earthers?
If nothing really turned on the question of the Earth’s shape, then sure.
To give the classic Pragmatist example, people used to kill each other over the question of transubstantiation of the Eucharist. One side said that the Eucharist is just bread, symbolizing the body and blood of Christ. The other side said that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, but for all practical purposes (and under any scientific scrutiny) is indistinguishable from bread. It seems like insisting that one side or the other was wrong on this question is the wrong way to go, as nothing really turns on it and they’re both saying roughly the same thing.
Better to just ‘live and let live’ and let ‘truth’ go this time, in favor of actually making things better. If people do end up making ‘God’ mean something vacuous, then there’s no harm in letting them say it.
And that sounds like an ad-hominem to me… the Foundation doesn’t seem to be coming from an evangelical Christian viewpoint in general, and it’s certainly not its stated mission.
Taking a person’s most fundamental beliefs into account when trying to figure out what their true intentions are is not an ad hominem, it’s common sense.
To give the classic Pragmatist example, people used to kill each other over the question of transubstantiation of the Eucharist. (...) It seems like insisting that one side or the other was wrong on this question is the wrong way to go, as nothing really turns on it and they’re both saying roughly the same thing.
That’s short-sighted. Nothing may really turn on the question of transubstantiation, but a there’s a lot that turns on the cognitive processes that led millions of people to believe that a cracker is the body a magical Jewish half-deity.
I’m all in favor of “actually making things better”, but the middle-of-the-road solution that the Templeton Foundation is (outwardly, deceitfully) espousing won’t do that. Middle-of-the-road solutions are easy, they allow us to avoid sounding shrill, strident, and militant, but easiness is not effectiveness.
If people do end up making ‘God’ mean something vacuous, then there’s no harm in letting them say it.
There is harm, because people who don’t mean something vacuous by ‘God’ like to give the impression that they do to shield themselves against criticism. And thanks to ‘pragmatism’, it usually works.
There is harm, because people who don’t mean something vacuous by ‘God’ like to give the impression that they do to shield themselves against criticism. And thanks to ‘pragmatism’, it usually works.
If theists need to pretend to be atheists to be taken seriously, then we’ve already won.
I didn’t think that by a vacuous God you meant a non-existent God.
Obviously, theists don’t need to pretend to be atheists: Theism is respected by everyone except a small minority of neo-militant ultra-materialist fundamentalist atheists. To be taken seriously, theists merely need to be (or pretend to be, in the presence of critics) moderates, i.e. believers in a God that acts in a very subtle way and conforms to modern secular morality.
So no, “we” haven’t won. The limited form of insanity we call faith is still the norm and is still respected.
Well most of the pantheism I’ve encountered comes from the Christian worldview. And that sounds like an ad-hominem to me… the Foundation doesn’t seem to be coming from an evangelical Christian viewpoint in general, and it’s certainly not its stated mission.
If nothing really turned on the question of the Earth’s shape, then sure.
To give the classic Pragmatist example, people used to kill each other over the question of transubstantiation of the Eucharist. One side said that the Eucharist is just bread, symbolizing the body and blood of Christ. The other side said that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ, but for all practical purposes (and under any scientific scrutiny) is indistinguishable from bread. It seems like insisting that one side or the other was wrong on this question is the wrong way to go, as nothing really turns on it and they’re both saying roughly the same thing.
Better to just ‘live and let live’ and let ‘truth’ go this time, in favor of actually making things better. If people do end up making ‘God’ mean something vacuous, then there’s no harm in letting them say it.
Taking a person’s most fundamental beliefs into account when trying to figure out what their true intentions are is not an ad hominem, it’s common sense.
That’s short-sighted. Nothing may really turn on the question of transubstantiation, but a there’s a lot that turns on the cognitive processes that led millions of people to believe that a cracker is the body a magical Jewish half-deity.
I’m all in favor of “actually making things better”, but the middle-of-the-road solution that the Templeton Foundation is (outwardly, deceitfully) espousing won’t do that. Middle-of-the-road solutions are easy, they allow us to avoid sounding shrill, strident, and militant, but easiness is not effectiveness.
There is harm, because people who don’t mean something vacuous by ‘God’ like to give the impression that they do to shield themselves against criticism. And thanks to ‘pragmatism’, it usually works.
If theists need to pretend to be atheists to be taken seriously, then we’ve already won.
I didn’t think that by a vacuous God you meant a non-existent God.
Obviously, theists don’t need to pretend to be atheists: Theism is respected by everyone except a small minority of neo-militant ultra-materialist fundamentalist atheists. To be taken seriously, theists merely need to be (or pretend to be, in the presence of critics) moderates, i.e. believers in a God that acts in a very subtle way and conforms to modern secular morality.
So no, “we” haven’t won. The limited form of insanity we call faith is still the norm and is still respected.