Le 17-nov.-06, à 20:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal wrote:

>> Historically the "theo" was referring to gods, by the greek
>> intellectuals. From their writing you can see that "gods" could refer
>> to "concepts" as well as images to figure out abstract recurring
>> patterns in mind and nature.
> I don't see that in their writings - although I rely on translators, 
> since I don't read Greek.  Can you cite a source for this opinion.

Pythagorus (and disciples) introduces the words "mathematics" and 
"philosophy". Plato introduced the word "theology".

> But it has not so referred for over a thousand years.  So I wonder why 
> you want to use it in this non-standard way.

I told you. Because since 1482 years, the fields of theology (and even 
of science but with less success) has been restricted by authoritative 
means, like genetics in the USSR for a while.
By theology I just mean rational or greek theology.

>> The occidental destiny of theology, unfortunately, has been the same
>> than the fate of "genetics" in the USSR. Being more easily refutable,
>> Lyssenko marxiste genetics has been quickly the cause of one of the
>> bigger humanly caused famine occurring on this planet, so this fake
>> genetics did not survive. On the contrary "theology", after the Roman
>> makes it into an institution, well, it is still taboo today. So the
>> genetics affair lasts some years, but the theology-affair lasts about
>> 3/2 millenia. The result is not only bad for theology, but it is bad
>> for science as well, because it makes science itself partially fake on
>> the fundamental questions. A lot of scientist today still believe the
>> mind-body problem is a false problem, just to give one example.
>> But the situation is not so desperate. Many christian theologians are
>> serious, and the christians, like the jewish and the muslims, will 
>> save
>> a big part of the greek theology and questioning.
> The very fact that you nominate them "christian", "jewish", and 
> "muslim" tells me they are not searches for the truth, but apologists 
> for a faith.

Hmmm.... If that is true, it would be contingent. The fact is that an 
important and influent minority (though) of Jewish, Muslims and 
Christians will develop and somehow save the neoplatonic insight and 
retransmit it (partially and deformed) to Europa much later.

> It doesn't matter how closely you look at most religious texts I've 
> seen here - they very much assume and endorse the big Daddy in the 
> bye-and-bye.

It is not because 99% of my fellows are wrong since 1482 years that I 
will follow them throwing out the baby theology with its 
institutionalized bastards bath.
Especially when the baby theology makes clear that just naming, a 
fortiori institutionalizing it, hides an betrays the very idea.

>> the idea
>> of a nameable pray-able god, is *the* big theological mistake.
> Are you saying that in Belgium the Catholic priests don't teach that 
> there is a name-able, pray-able god because they recognize it's a 
> mistake?  It is my impression that the Catholic church not only 
> promotes the God of Abraham, but has created a whole pantheon of 
> saints who are immortal and to whom one should pray.  There's even a 
> book telling you which saint is in charge of real estate sales and 
> which to pray to when gardening.

I would have prefer you would'nt make me so explicit about this, but 
obviously I tend to think that the Catholic Church is wrong on those 
matters, but again, you cannot infer from that that all Catholic 
theologians are wrong in all they said.

>>> Stretching the meaning to encompass all study of fundamental
>>> metaphysics strikes me as intellectually dishonest; mere appeasement
>>> of the religious powers that be.
>> You would be right if "pagan theology" was still existing today.
> You mean like this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm

I don't think so. I mean like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, 
Hypatia, etc.
Perhaps Augustin.

>> But
>> today, the "scientist" are still appeasing much more the religious
>> power than ever, by letting them, and only them, to address the
>> life/death/mind fundamental questions.
> I don't agree that scientists are letting only the religious address 
> the fundamental life/death questions.  That was the approach of 
> Stephen J. Gould and it amounts to appeasement.  But more and more 
> scientists like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Pinker, and Harris are 
> challenging the moral monopoloy of religion.

... and I have finish Victor Stenger's book you recommand. OK I will 
comment this later.

Note that I tend to separate completely theology, the science, and 
religion the practice, giving those interfering authoritative phase in 
countries which at some time give it a name, and giving the shit (if I 
may say) which follows ... (I am just a theorical theologian if you 

>> Our third person sharable future will be theological.
> Alas, I agree.  I doubt that a majority of people will abandon their 
> myths that make them the center of the universe.  Religion is 
> ubiquitous - science is rare.

With (a)comp this is a theorem. For any machine (or machine state) 
truth is transfinitely bigger than provability.

But there is no problem with "religious" beliefs. There is only problem 
with those who got impossible certainties about those beliefs (actually 
a result of lack of faith, even lack of faith in their own faith).
The problem is not with beliefs. The problem is with authoritative 
beliefs, and yes, concerning modern theology the subject is still taboo 
both for the Church and the Academy, perhaps. I am not sure.

I am not saying everywhere that I am a theologian (only in this list 
:). I hope you take into account the ten thousand posts explaining why 
I say this. This should be transparently clear once you get the 
arithmetical interpretation of the Plotinus' hypostases. A couple of  
<science/theology> is associated to each machine in a natural way, and 
even testable way making some theological points empirically testable.



 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 

Reply via email to