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

Reply via email to