On 2/18/2012 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2012, at 17:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
but I don't see the point.
The point is to come back to the scientific attitude in the field of theology.
Except the effect is to drag the baggage of the Abrahamic religions into
science.
What are your evidences for that. See "Conscience et Mécanisme" and my papers, machine's
theology is close to the Abrahamic religion as far as they have succeed to keep the most
of Platonism. It is more easy to get arithmetical interpretation of Lao-Tseu, the
philosophia perennis (Aldous Huxley) and the platonists than the mainstream part of the
confessional religions, except for the sufi and the Kabbalah, which is unfortunately
hidden (mainly because those could be considered as heretic).
You might be to quick on this. The mainstream religion, including atheists, have
adopted Aristotle's metaphysics, not Plato's one.
They've also adopted and defined "God" and "theology", so I think it is foolish to think
you can use them in a sense they haven't had in a millenium and not be misunderstood.
Assigning private meanings to words, even if they were once public meanings, is no
different than inventing words with private meanings - something you've criticised Craig for.
Brent
--
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
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
