On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 20:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
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

I have also always thought that trinity is completely illogical. I guess that even now I do not see the logic. Yet, the claim is that it is somehow allows us to take intelligibility for granted.

Do you know another reason to believe in intelligibility?

A plausible reason, though I don't know how to work it all out, is that the universe started in a state of very little (1bit?) information and this was unstable so that it decayed into regions with information horizons so that, although the total information is small the entanglement across the horizon can make the available information (complexity) large. This leaves a lot of symmetry from which the regularities we describe by the 'laws of physics' derive. Vic Stenger has written about this in his book "The Comprehensible Cosmos".

I am no an expert on Newton, but I would say that he did believe in trinity.

No, he wrote a lot about it.  He was an Aryan.

According to Prof Hoenen, the logic of trinity was at that time basically in the blood. He gave several examples including even Marx. According to Prof Hoenen, the logic in Marx's Capital is the same as the logic of trinity.

?? Which is to say murky, ambiguous, and contradictory? I think Marx is a lot clearer than the trinity.

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).

For the world to be intelligble, for there to be creatures who create models of it to evolve there must be a quasi-classical world where information can be cloned.

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.

I guess that the reason for the fall of Rome was not Christianity. By the way, there is a nice book

I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized Christianity and Christianity like any dogmatic religion is in conflict with the skeptical, inquiring, testing nature of science. When the reformation broke the intellectual monopoly of the Church, science flowered and for a time it was regarded as an adjunct to theology: discovering the creator through nature. But that only lasted up till Darwin.

Lucio Russo. The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why it Had to Be Reborn

where the author claim that there was another scientific revolution indeed. Yet, Rome was the reason for its fall. Lucio Russo says that Rome as such was not interested in scientific revolution.

Let me repeat however what Collingwood has presumably done. His goal was to find absolute presuppositions related to the statement God exists.

What's his definition of God? Does he really mean "presuppositions", or does he mean "entailments". I wouldn't think you'd need any presuppositions to simply assert, "God exists."


I have to read the book but I expect from lectures of Prof Hoenen that this was a normal logical analysis. One takes some assumptions and then gets results accordingly. Then Collingwood has analyzed science and its absolute presuppositions. It might be that his analysis was biased, I do not know. I have to read the book.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to