Continuing from my previous post, I was surprised by the questions Susan James was asked. Mainly because they seem more relevant to my Spinoza paper on Spinoza and Teleology, which tracked this topic from Pre-Socratics to Darwin and beyond to present day genetics. This was a paper that was very broad in scope because I wrote it in response to a call for papers sent to me by email for a Summer School in 2016 at the University of Groningen. This 2016 summer school seems to have mysteriously evaporated off the university's website and other websites but luckily I have paperwork to show it did happen and that I presented a paper there as well as presenting a paper at a workshop there earlier in Spring 2016.
This Aristotle to Darwin paper was subsequently expanded (2016-2017) and included in my first volume on Spinoza (published January 2018, see Part 3 from intro-chapter 12). I would never choose to write anything as broad as this paper (which I could have narrowed down but I found it fascinating to track the topic through the ages) because it can become unwieldy and leave you open to difficult questions at Q&A due to its sheer breadth, meaning I had to cover philosophers and areas which were not my research speciality but were for many around the table. For example, I included Aristotle and Maimonides in my paper, even though I'm not an Ancient or Medieval philosophy scholar. Equally, I discussed Darwin but I've never been a philosopher of Science although I had recently taken a postgraduate module in genetics (and other science courses after my degree) and generally just enjoy discussing science.
Consequently, I could have had a very tough time at Q&A but I didn't. The questions I was asked matched up with the content of my paper that I was giving there and then, so that made it easy. Point being, they didn't even, for instance, ask me about topics I had covered in my previous paper (political philosophy and true worship) only a couple of months before at the same university. Whereas the questions Susan James was asked were not tight to the paper she had just presented, despite the zoom attendees receiving her paper in advance. Whereas my paper was not distributed ahead of my talk. I did give out a handout but that was only passed around just before I began my talk so there was no time to read it in advance.
The questions during my Q&A session were constructive ones that I could answer, build on and discuss. Some didn't ask a question but preferred to chat to me afterwards about my paper, ranging from a lecturer who wanted to discuss pantheism (so I explained my thoughts about Spinoza being more similar to a panentheistic approach than a pantheistic approach), to a postgraduate in Biology who wanted to talk about the scientific aspects of my paper over lunch. I had a great time discussing what I love doing, which is talking about my philosophy research!
At all of my talks, I found that, if attendees wanted to ask me questions that were more off-piste, they left it until after the talk on a one-to-one basis in more relaxed surroundings eg break time, lunch or dinner and they were very friendly and happy to broaden out and discuss it with me. Interestingly my panentheism topic in Spinoza has become a big thing since I discussed it in the summer of 2016.🤔 I've spotted two funded projects on it: Jan 2017 - Sept 2019: 'The Pantheism and Panentheism Project'1; and 'Panentheism and Religious Life'2 Jan. 2020 - Dec. 2021, both funded by Templeton.
As for me, I have always maintained (since early 2016 and I checked/discussed panentheism in relation to Judaism {but not Spinoza} with an Orthodox Rabbi) that Spinoza was a panentheist in a way which coheres with Judaism. To be a pantheist he'd have had to be an atheist, which he certainly was not.
As an aside but still relevant to the backstory to my research on Spinoza:
Templeton funding was suggested to me for my Spinoza research by a male lecturer over breakfast at the Aristotelian Society Annual Conference 2016. So I created a profile with them in all innocence, not realising what I was doing. After all, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks received a Templeton prize in 2016 so I assumed that my Jewish interpretation of Spinoza would be in their wheelhouse. However, I never actually used my profile to apply for any funding and just as well. Because I later discovered to my horror that the founder was an US-born ultra-conservative billionaire and that the foundation is known for being the top funder of rightwing popularism in the UK, according to the Guardian newspaper in this article and another. In the latter article, they call this foreign interference in British politics. Of course, Templeton exploited a loophole by living in the tax haven of the Bahamas thereby making himself also British which led him to be eligible for a knighthood from the Queen (1987). Templeton, therefore, affects British policy by donating to UK think tanks and pressure groups, such as the Centre for Policy Studies, founded by Thatcher and Keith Joseph, which promote a conservative ideology. 😱 (Liz Truss gave a speech at the CPS in December 2020).
Unfortunately, I didn't come across this academic journal article until recently which clearly states who they are, rather than who they pretend to be. That is, they like to give the appearance of being open-minded and pro-science when they are actually a zealous, rightwing Christian group who are evangelical about their religion and anti-science so quietly skew research they fund accordingly. Anyway, this very long article by Bains in Evolutionary Psychology titled 'Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation' discusses this and demonstrates how the research they fund has little credibility, as a result.
Much as I have done the topic of religion and science in my Spinoza/Darwin paper and later in my Spinoza volume 1, I in no way agree with the aims of the Templeton foundation or with the way they go about realising these aims. Both politically and religiously they have never fitted with who I am. But I didn't know that at the time because there wasn't much on them on the internet and, besides, I rather trusted that this lecturer wouldn't make an unhelpful suggestion! Moreover, they are anti-gay marriage, as this article shows, so, since I am gay, that makes them completely off my radar! No way am I going to support or be linked with any anti-LGBTQIAPD2S+ organisations, institutions etc.
Furthermore, I am a philosopher not a theologian. I am also not a philosopher who wishes to push a religious agenda. Religion is, or at least should be, a personal matter not something foisted on others and certainly not something you should try to convert people to or convert them to a specific religion. For me, philosophy and theology are two separate, distinct disciplines that do not mix well, and indeed should not be conflated with each other.
I have tried to remove my profile on the Templeton website but cannot find a delete profile button to do so. I'm not sure why not, it's a standard feature for all sites and profiles and usually clearly visible. I also haven't found any instructions on how to delete my profile. I and other researchers should not be stuck with a profile on a website of an organisation with which they do not wish to be associated.
1For more information on this 2017-2019 project, see:
For more information on this Jan 2020 - Dec 2021 or Jan 2022 project, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.