On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 18:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 11:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal footing, but
I think it's a just-so-story to account for it by assuming that
religion must be easier to master and therefore more attractive.
Who has mastered religion? Are there any 'laws of religion' and
theorems, any experimental results (well a few which tend to show
religion is imaginary). Is the Pope an exemplar of clear thinking and
I have already mentioned about Colligwood. He starts with a statement
that God exists and analyses what are hidden assumptions (absolute
presuppositions) that makes sense for such a statement. Then he
considers a statement that there are physical laws and again he
analyses what are hidden assumptions (absolute presuppositions). His
conclusion was that the absolute presuppositions in both cases are
quite close to each other.
I have ordered his book and when I read it, I could report more on
this subject. Right now some findings are here
One needs to consider what it would mean for the contrary to be true.
What would it mean for the universe to NOT be mathematical? Would it
mean events are self contradictory? Yet that is exactly what has
happened if QM in it's MW interpretation is true. Yet we have
accommodated it in a rational mathematical description that includes
randomness. Aristotle, and many later thinkers, would have denied QM as
impossible by pure reason. When faced with contradictions scientists
change their descriptions.
I do not think that quantum mechanics changes something in this respect.
No, but it provides an excellent example of how pure logic and reason can be upset by
empirical facts that logic said were impossible, e.g. no thing can be two places at the
I should say that I have just heard this in the lectures by Prof Hoenen, but I try to
express briefly my current understanding.
So first if to look at different societies, modern science has started in Christian
Europe. Not by Arabs, although a lot of knowledge went into Europe through them. Not in
That's a good question and I don't know that there is a comprehensive answer. Partly the
Arabs inherited and kept alive many Greek ideas while, except for Aristotle, they were
suppressed by Christianity in Europe. Then when the europeans reconquered Spain and the
balkans they recovered libraries from the Muslims. That was when science began (again) in
europe and it was mostly outside the universities which were still dominated by
scholasticism which consisted of comments on comments on comments on Aristotle and the
bible. But there must have been other factors too since the Arabs, after a period of
intellectual development and investigation stagnated and failed to develop science.
According to Collingwood (as Prof Hoenen has told) one can find a reason in
Christianity. First, it is monotheism and this is quite important to infer inexorable
scientific laws. Second trinity. For example Islam is also based on monotheism but it
does not have trinity.
So logic and unified laws are important, but so is believing in logically contradictory
things like the Trinity!? Newton never believed in the trinity - and I doubt anyone else
ever did either since believing in a contradictory proposition can be no more than paying
lip service to it.
I should say that I am bad with trinity (I have to learn more about it yet) so I will
just repeat what I have heard. Science needs a belief in the inexorable scientific laws
but also another belief is important, that is, we are able to learn the scientific laws
(the intelligibility of the world). The neuron spikes not only obey physics but then can
also comprehend it. Somehow the trinity brings us the intelligibility of the world (and
hence may help us to understand the trick that allows the neurons to comprehend physics).
Sounds like Collingwood is just a Christian apologist. If it had not been for the rise of
Christianity when Rome fell the thread of Greek and Roman science might have carried
forward and the dark ages might have been avoided. Christianity probably delayed the
renaissance and the enlightenment by a thousand years.
Hence my decision to read Collingwood by myself and to think it over. The difference
with Bruno is that Collingwood referred to such a study as metaphysics and not theology.
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