On 19 Feb 2011, at 20:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
And nobody, except Bruno, uses the word "religion" for the serious,
unconstrained inquiry into what's true.
What's true? No that pseudo-religion, or pseudo-science. I guess you
mean "inquiry into what could be true".
Everybody else calls it science or philosophy. But that's why Bruno
can easily get a Templeton grant.
The only thing I say is that there is no reason to be as modest in
theology than we should be in science.
I want just people to be aware that pretending 'sciences' knows that
there is an (implicitly subsumed primary) physical universe consists
in taking an Axiom of (a simplification of) Aristotle's theology. Many
scientist sells this a fact, when it is an hypothesis, an
extrapolation. There are other theories.
In science we have to be modest. In religion or in fundamental
inquiries we have to be super-modest.
I am not sure that the Templeton foundation would appreciate that
theology should come back in science, with the admission that science
has not yet decided between Plato and Aristotle, except that quantum
and especially comp provides a solid hint.
I am not sure they will appreciate the idea that the universal machine
has an interesting theology. We might send my Plotinus paper to see?
About religion per se, I don't know. Like Plotinus, I don't think that
neoplatonism needs theurgy. Like Alan Watts, I don't see a problem
with a theurgy if the priest can do a blink, and if all questions are
permitted, and if corporatism is prevented (as far as possible, that's
true for all societies and communities, even the academic).
Neoneoplatonism can have many branches, it is open to a very large
spectrum of beliefs and practices. You can say "yes" to very different
sort of doctors.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at