Calling what the “tolerate parts of religion” side values in this debate “warm, soft, fuzzies” should be considered rationalist taboo, if it isn’t already. This is a way of diminishing the concerns of the other side by giving them a different name instead of providing reasons why those concerns are unimportant.
We should all stop offering up Tolkien as great literature. He isn’t. His characters are flat and the writing is overwrought and dull. Besides, his audience is niche where the Bible’s really isn’t. Use Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Joyce etc. Mainstays of English lit.
I haven’t read Frank either but I don’t think he thinks any and all mysteries should be revered. Like, Frank isn’t crying about the fact that we now understand how lightning works. Rather, he thinks it is ok to revere the fact that there is mystery. The so-called warm fuzziness feeling doesn’t come from anything in the terrain or on our map… rather it comes from the realization that our maps are inevitably inadequate and likely really inadequate. This doesn’t have to mean revering our ignorance so much as having a sense of awe about the vastness and weirdness of reality.
Now I’m getting pretty far from anything Frank says but a non-realist theological sensibility doesn’t necessarily require submission to mystery. There is a long theological tradition involving humans or humanity becoming God. In most places this tradition was heretical but these heresies still made use of shared myths and rituals but re-interpreted them. I think “Create an super-intelligence and conquer the universe” can be understood in precisely these theological terms. There are also theological traditions invoking the death of God or the eclipse of God. Theological language is fantastically flexible, evocative has deep cultural significance. I really think it would be a shame to give it up.
Calling what the “tolerate parts of religion” side values in this debate “warm, soft, fuzzies” should be considered rationalist taboo, if it isn’t already. This is a way of diminishing the concerns of the other side by giving them a different name instead of providing reasons why those concerns are unimportant.
We should all stop offering up Tolkien as great literature. He isn’t. His characters are flat and the writing is overwrought and dull. Besides, his audience is niche where the Bible’s really isn’t. Use Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Joyce etc. Mainstays of English lit.
I haven’t read Frank either but I don’t think he thinks any and all mysteries should be revered. Like, Frank isn’t crying about the fact that we now understand how lightning works. Rather, he thinks it is ok to revere the fact that there is mystery. The so-called warm fuzziness feeling doesn’t come from anything in the terrain or on our map… rather it comes from the realization that our maps are inevitably inadequate and likely really inadequate. This doesn’t have to mean revering our ignorance so much as having a sense of awe about the vastness and weirdness of reality.
Now I’m getting pretty far from anything Frank says but a non-realist theological sensibility doesn’t necessarily require submission to mystery. There is a long theological tradition involving humans or humanity becoming God. In most places this tradition was heretical but these heresies still made use of shared myths and rituals but re-interpreted them. I think “Create an super-intelligence and conquer the universe” can be understood in precisely these theological terms. There are also theological traditions invoking the death of God or the eclipse of God. Theological language is fantastically flexible, evocative has deep cultural significance. I really think it would be a shame to give it up.