Le 14-févr.-06, à 16:20, uv a écrit :

Bruno said

For me, all questioning is amenable to science, or put in another
way, we can kept a scientific attitude, in all fields, including
asking for faith.

Fair enough, as long as we all know what a 'scientific attitude' is.
Kuhn, Popper, Wittgenstein, Derrida ???

Popper. Or best (but compatible), the lobian machine, which is humble and modest. I have already argue that scientific attitude, after Godel, is the attitude of being able to conceive that we can be wrong, so that we are invited to listen to the other. popper says similar things, and in some text he based that metatheoretical issue on the incompletenbess phenomena.

Correct machines can tapped into a truth that transcends machines
reason, but not into a truth that "contradicts" machines reason.
Unless the machine suffers from some bad faith. The same for humans;
scientist or believer alike. In the (ex) Soviet Union, Lyssenko has
defended a crazy biology contradicting more and more the evidences,
leading to one of the worst famine.

So basically machines are a 'good idea'. But a different idea this
century to last century or the one before.

Let us say that I consider that the discovery by Post and Turing (mainly) of the Universal Machine is an event which really force us to reconsider the very meaning of the word machine. Now we know some are universal, and that notion of univerality is very well founded empirically and conceptually.

The problem is that as long as we discourage rationalist to study
theology and doing research in theology, we are abandoning it to the
"irrationalists" or to the dishonest people, like those who will use
some natural human fears to manipulate people and get power.

The most annoying example of this is creationism. I think USA has
now been led to great clashes over 'creationism', which most
scientists do not see as scientific at all..They see, probably
correctly, creationism to be a threat, not part of a dialogue.

I agree with this. Creationist does not build part of a dialogue.

In fact
the point where they would rather creationism did not exist.
Enthusiasm can thus bring problems. But Americans are basically
at heart enthusiasts and Babbits, to generalise. The old Krio saying
is "dog na dog". (Americans or dogs will remain as Americans (or
dogs)). I only use USA as an example, the Middle East is far worse.

There is no contradiction in the existence of a 100% scientific
theology, still  letting the religious attitudes to any personal
individual choice (example the yes/no doctor attitude in the comp

But scientists take the view that creationism and the like are not
science. There are not so much contradictions but basic
problems. Scientific theology would be a lot of fun.

Good point :-)

But a detailed
theology (and by detailed I mean roughly 'at least one book') is
always tainted with dogma or has been so far AFAIK.

Read Plotinus, and if you find just one dogma, just tell me. Actually I think that the use of dogma in theology is a rather recent event (about 500 after C.). Read all the "neoplatonist" from Pythagoras tp Proclus, you will not see any dogma. You will see "fundamental principles" and things like that, but this is the case in all rational approaches in any subjects. OK, sometimes you will see talks on personal mystical experiences. This can be considered as going out of science, but the neoplatonist see them as personal tools to figure out by oneself some ideas, and none of what they conclude from them need to be taken as dogma.

Latest Headlines: "Two more die over cartoons in Lahore"
"Paris Hilton to be Mother Teresa in new film". Tub
thumping attitudes like this do not suggest that anyone will
compromise effectively.

You point on very difficult problems which does not admit simple solutions. Humans are complex. Intellect has weakness emotions can work upon, a little like democracies have weakness that fanaticism can used, a little like LIFE *is* fragile (nothing new here).



Reply via email to