On 05 Jan 2011, at 20:02, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 04.01.2011 11:43 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 03 Jan 2011, at 19:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you mean that some time ago the times were less
obscurantist? If yes, could you please tell me when?
From -500 to +500. Roughly speaking. From Pythagorus to the
closure of Plato academy. In intellectual circles, of course.
This is not supposed to be taken too much literally. Since 523,
theology has been abandoned by the academics (against their will
of course) to the political powers. Nothing has changed. We have
the choice between fairy tales theologies or the idea that
theology is necessarily BS (and then the dogma of materialism,
which is a pseudo-theology which tries to make us believe it is
"science", making science an authoritative argument in the
fundamental matter). Science and religion are inseparable, and
when you separate them you get pseudo-science and
pseudo-religion, and you get the ten thousand manipulative tools
of the powers driven by the special interest, etc.
I would agree that science is impossible without belief. Yet, in my
view there is a big difference between science and religion as
well. Science is inseparable from a question "How do you know". On
the other hand, in religion such a question would be inappropriate,
as religion is based on the authority. Science is driven by
anarchists, to this end I like what R. B. Laughlin says in his book
A Different Universe, Chapter Star Warriors. A couple of citation
I agree with you, and with Laughlin. But I would not simply say that
religion is based on authority. This is a contingent fact due to
historical circumstances, but also fear-based mammals subroutines,
which have promoted the surrender of theology and religion to
authorities, like in Occident when Plato academy has been closed by
the Romans when they became christians.
The tendency to use authoritative arguments is human and very old,
and appears in both science and in religion, but science tend to
fight against it, and modern religion have institutionalized them.
Exactly like genetics has been captured by the authority for a
(short) period in the Soviet Union, theology, the science, has been
captured in Occident by the Church, unfortunately for a long period.
But theology is a science, like biology, zoology, physics, etc. By
abandoning theology to the authoritative church, not only we have
lost the most fundamental science, but we have erect automatically
another science, physics, into a pseudo-theology, that is a science
which acts as a theology without saying. That is why if you humbly
try to explain that today science have not yet solve the traditional
question on the after-life, the meaning of life, or the mind-body
problem, people can look at you as if you were crackpot, because,
they pretend, science has shown that such question are meaningless,
which of course is not the case.
Science is belief, that is doubtable or falsifiable belief. It is
always hypothetical, and always with an intention of clarity so that
we can say clearly "we were wrong". Theology should be done with that
same modest attitude, with the assumption put clearly on the table,
and then it will evolve accordingly. We have to reintroduce theology,
non confessional theology, in the academic curriculum, but that will
takes time, given more than 1500 years of constant general
brainwashing in the field.
The true mystics know that religion is by its very nature at the
complete opposite of the authoritative argument, and most religions
have originally accept that principle at the start. "God" has no
name, cannot be used for any public purpose, and has to be a matter
of private conviction or feeling/inspiration only, exactly like in
Churches and religious communities are not necessarily bad things,
provided that no authoritative arguments are ever used, and that
*all* questioning and doubts are permitted.
Science is sleepy since 1500 years. In a sense, science has not yet
really begun, because humans still count on the authoritative bloody
argument instead of calm reason in the most fundamental science
among all: theology. And unfortunately this is reflected in the whole
human science field including medicine, where fuzziness makes people
swallowed many form of insidious authoritative arguments.
Things will change with the discovery that the ideally correct
universal machines have already a thoroughly formidable precise and
100% testable theology, actually very close to the non authoritative
discourse of (eastern and western) mystics and of the rational (but
open to mysticism and consciousness) greeks.
Things will *have to* change when biotechnology will lead to (many
and very different sorts of) theotechnologies.
"The practicalities of responsible adulthood are arguably the
reason discoveries tend to be made by the young. It is not that
young people are smarter, although they often are, but that they
have fewer promises to keep."
"There will always be scientists – real ones – for the simple
reason that there will always be a steady trickle of anarchists
generated by responsible and good families doing their level best
to avoid this outcome and produce only bankers, doctors, and soccer
coaches. As the older ones are killed of by the practicalites of
life, newer ones rise up to take their place like new grass in
spring, in a cycle of creative rebirth that transcends the
generations and is older than history."
Now a citation from the chapter The Emergent Age, where indeed
Laughlin shows similarity between religion and science:
"Greek creation myths satirize many things in modern life,
particularly cosmological theories. Exploding things, such as
dynamite or the big bang, are unstable. Theories of explosions,
including the first picoseconds of the big bang, thus cross
Barriers of Relevance and are inherently unfalsifiable,
notwithstanding widely cited supporting “evidence” such as isotopic
abundances at the surface of stars and the cosmic microwave
"The analogy with Greek religion also applies to the humbler end of
the research spectrum, where warring among scientists to see whose
emergent god is more powerful is an everyday reality. A case in
point is ordinary semiconduction. Back when I was in grade school,
it was said that the tribe of semiconductor physics lived in piece
in the Silicon Valley and worshiped crystallinity, the daughter of
which, the gods of valence band and conduction band, caused
transistor actions and prosperity. But then they were invaded by a
hostile tribe of chemists, who worshiped not the crystal but the
molecule and who believed its offspring, the lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital and highest occupied molecular orbital, were the
true cause of transistor action, and that the worshipers of the old
gods wre inferior and unclean. The two tribes engaged in bloody
combat – fought with disinformation, dirty tricks, and refusal to
speak the name of the other tribe’s god – each hoping to starve the
other tribe of research dollars and thus to annihilate it. The war
resulted in stalemate, the vestiges of which persist today. As
often happens in conflicts of this kind, the war was not really
over conceptual matters at all but money, for these warring gods
are actually different names for the same thing. Similar wars occur
routinely in biology, although they are vastly nastier on account
of the greater resources involved."
-- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at