I think it is preferable to introduce a few math in a theology course
(which can be done by making some precise hypotheses like comp or
lobianity) than to introduce theology in math. They are naming and
invoking the unnameable! I know it is not always easy to motivate
people for math, but here they take the risk of making a bit ridiculous
both math and theology, imo.
Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate the
consistency of *little part* of math, but certainly not the consistency
of the whole of math, still less the consistency of the whole of
creation. About that it is better to hope, guess or pray, in some
personal way, without making too much fuss about it (before it gets
institutionalized and thus automatically betrayed).
Le 08-août-07, à 21:06, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking consistency to be part
> of theology. :-)
> Brent Meeker
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at