On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following:
Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may want
to comment, since his conception of theology might answer the
questions put forward.
I have just finished reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. A
couple of quotes from Chapter XVIII "The Proposition 'God Exists'".
p. 185. "In the last chapter but one I had occasion to comment on the
way in which a 'logical positivist', wishing to recommend the doctrine
that 'metaphysical propositions' not being verifiable by appeal to
observed fact are pseudo-propositions and meaningless, quoted as
examples propositions about God, such as the proposition 'God exists'.
To him the proposition 'God exists' would seem to mean that there is a
being more or less like human beings in respect of his mental powers and
dispositions, but having the mental powers of a human being greatly,
perhaps infinitely, magnified".
p. 186. "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the
meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God
exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it,
and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach
to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length."
p. 187. "If the proposition that God exists is a metaphysical
proposition it must be understood as carrying with it the metaphysical
rubric; and as so understood what it asserts is that as a matter of
historical fact a certain absolute presupposition, to be hereafter
defined, is or has been made by natural science (the reader will bear in
mind my limitation of the field) at a certain phase of its history. It
further implies that owing to the presence of this presupposition that
phase in the history of natural science has or had a unique character of
its own, serving to the historical student as evidence that the
presupposition is or was made. The question therefore arises: What
difference does it make to the conduct of research in natural science
whether scientists do or not do not presuppose the existence of God?"
Then Collingwood shows that the metaphysical proposition 'God Exists'
has played the crucial role in the foundations of classical physics. It
seems to be a historical fact.
I like the idea of bringing history into the consideration of such
questions. This way helps to understand different opinions better.
I have recently finished listening to The Beginning of Infinity and now
I am listening to Grand Design. What strikes me at most is the bad
knowledge of the history of science by authors of both books. They
should have read Kepler, Galileo, Newton and other scientists of that
time. In a way, this remind me Orwell's "Who controls the past controls
the future; who controls the present controls the past."
P.S. Two questions to the discussion on free will raised by reading
Collingwood. Does the Theory of Everything also explain the next two
1) The names of stars that have been given to them by astronomers.
2) The fact that British people like foots and inches and French meters
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at