Le 05-oct.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :

<x-tad-bigger>To be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i ”nature”.</x-tad-bigger>

Fair enough.
My "confusion" (it is still debatable) comes from the fact that I have never met a "real" atheist (as opposed to an agnostic who believes to be an atheist) who does not take the primitivity of "matter" for granted. If you have references I am very interested. Most atheist I read are ardent defender of materialism, up to the point of being often "eliminativist", "consciousness" would be an illusion (a statement which I have never understand). I am sensible on this point because such hard materialism negates the first person existence, and in europa we know where such philosophies can lead.

Now, if you are open to an "objective idealist atheism", then I am open to the idea that comp could be the most atheist doctrine: it denies the Nature-God. But I think this could be very confusing, if only because, as the "yes doctor" problem illustrates, comp needs a sort of act of faith by itself (in technology, in numbers, ...).
And the comp reasoning guaranties that such an act of faith is not blind, it does not kill the doubt. Actually I should perhaps not use the word "faith" which could be a sort of "false friend" (not exactly the same meaning in french and english, or worst, not the same meaning according to your most fundamental beliefs).


<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>

<x-tad-bigger>Från:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>För </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>Bruno Marchal</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Skickat:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> den 5 oktober 2006 17:07</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Till:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> everything-list@googlegroups.com</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Ämne:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia</x-tad-bigger>

Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :

Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in "nature" is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith).


That is the most absurd statement so far…

Unless you are confusing atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should explain why you find this absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that the "modest scientist" should not take "nature" for granted. Of course by nature, I mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something primitive, i.e. which is at the root of everything else. This does not necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of physical theories.
And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology, theology, number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite name, they are all imprecise enough.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to