Le 02-févr.-10, à 22:29, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2010, at 12:07, w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
<mailto:w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote (FOR list) :
> The problem with both groups is that both have a tendency to forget
> that both Science and Religion are constructs
They are not. Religion is a construct, science is a method.
Human religion is a construct of humans.
Human science is a construct of humans.
Machine religion is a construct of machines.
Machine science is a construct of machines.
Science concerns the communicable part of the common truth.
Religion concerns the non communicable part of the common truth.
Both are driven by truth, and both are perverted by any one (or many)
pretending to *know* it.
One has to take Bruno's pronouncements on religion with a grain of
salt since he assumes an esoteric definition of religion
I take the word theology (extended on religion) in the sense of the
greek, where theology is a branch of scientific inquiry.
The main reason for doing that is the "modern discovery" that such form
of theology reappear in the study of what machine can and cannot prove
such that rather important phrases, such as, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion" and the writings of
most of those who have studied religion incomprehensible:
You know that I consider theology in the sense of those who have define
it, and propose theories. I am not using it in the sense of those who
have mix it with politics. This is perverted religion, like Lyssenko
pseudo marxist genetics was perverted biology.
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural
piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides
to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but
religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an
absolute monarchy in the minds of men."
--- Francis Bacon
I may understand this sentence with "atheism" replaced by
"agnosticism". Modern atheist believes dogmatically in primitive
matter, physicalism, etc. They also believe the notion of Christian God
is so full of sense that, as John Mikes said once, they can disbelieve
Atheism is really just a variant of Christianism. They believe in the
same Aristotelian Gods. But many atheist, unlike Carolyn Porco, are no
aware that they have a religious belief, and try to make us belief that
science is on their side.
"The truths of religion are never so well understood
as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
--- Voltaire, 1764
This makes sense. In everyday life we have to develop irrational
belief. All correct universal machine can know that. Since Gödel we
know that (ideally) correct machine can discover the gap between truth
"The religions were believed "by the people, to be all equally
true, by the philosophers, to be all equally false, and by the
magistrates, to be all equally useful"
--- Edward Gibbon
Meaning the people are open minded (which I doubt in general), the
philosophers are studborn and the magistrates are dishonest.
Well, I certainly doubt all this.
But again, it is a confusion between the religion as inquiry and the
religion perverted by temporal powers. If we don't come back to serious
theological study, we will continue to give power to those who misuse
the idea. Atheist are the objective ally of those who misuse
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral
principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this
day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one
--- Thomas Jefferson
Of course. In some place and period atheist sand christians (and some
other) have tortured those who witness skepticism.
I doubt that Scott Atran, David Sloan Wilson, or Loyal Rue would
recognize Bruno's definition. Discounting mystics and mystical
theologians, the other 99.9% of the world takes religion to be not
only communicable, but to have been communicated by revelatory books
and visions which are not to be questioned.
But this has been made possible, in Occident, by the closure of
Athene's academy, and the lasting persecution of free thinkers and
Those who are opposed to authoritative forms of religion (and
philosophy, and science) should encourage the coming back of the
scientific attitude in theology (and philosophy, and science). By
mocking the whole field of theology, they are developing a religion
which is as bad as the one they criticize. Even worst, because they
pretend not having dogma, but they are unable to doubt the existence of
primitive matter, and they are forced, consequentially, to put the
mind-body problem under the rug, if not the notion of person. A pity,
because that results from a simple error: forgetting that atheism is a
religion or philosophy. Science is agnostic and does not commit
ontological commitment (other than the referent of the scientific terms
used in their *assumptions/theory/hypotheses*.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at