On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:08, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> To reject *all* theologies, you need *a* theology.

Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but not a word;

Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/theory seems absurd, we make the minimal change to keep the most of the theory (the words). The term "God" is typical in that setting, and I find absurd to deny some concept by keeping an absurd theory. You do the same with free-will, by saying it is non sense, but this by deciding to accept the nonsensical definition.
The logicians ways avoid throwing babies with the bathwater.

so "God" becomes "something more powerful than yourself"

This is frequent fro Gof. This means for example that God is not a machine. But This was just one axiom among other, and I use theology in the same sense as any general (non confessional) dictionnary. See my answer to Brent. Theology is concerned with afterlife, soul, deities (non Turing emeulable person), wholeness, fundamental reality, etc.

and now "theology" becomes "any field of study you think is important".

This does not follow from what I said.

If you unilaterally decree that words mean whatever you want them to mean then garbled communication is inevitable.

I insist I use them in the sense of many, and your way to keep definition explains why you reject the whole notion. Like some atheists you seem to take seriously the definition of theologian you decry. You might read Aldous Huxley "philosophia perennis".



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