On 7/19/2012 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-juil.-12, ą 20:48, meekerdb a écrit :
On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition
that
Matter (primitive matter) exists.
Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly
believer as
they verify, with B for "believes": B~g and Bm.
Science is or should be agnostic on both ~Bg and ~Bm (and ~B~g, and
~B~m).
This is wrong in two ways, which you muddle by not defining God.
Sure. I do it on purpose, but atheists I met can agree, with some instanciations of
"God"'s meaning. But we are scientists, and we search explanation which should not
depend on definition restricted by political power.
I don't think the publishers of dictionaries are politicians. They record usage and usage
is important because it tells you what meaning will be given to your words. If you don't
care what meaning will be conveyed then you can just write gibberish.
I could say that earth do not exist, if you take the definition of some
community.
Let g be the proposition that some god(s) exist and let G be the
proposition that
the god of theism (a creator who judges and wants to be worshipped) exists.
Why to restrict to such definition? Why, if not to keep the notion in the hand of those
who sell feary tales to control people by fear (cf hell).
I'm not restricting the definition. Language is for communication and so words mean what
most people think they mean and most people think "God" means a being who created the
universe, judges people, and wants to be worshiped. I would be happy to have all those
people change their mind and say that God doesn't exist and henceforth we just mean
whatever is fundamental when we say "God" - but I don't have the power to change the
meaning of words. I do have the power to chose words that are not misleading though, or
even to invent new ones if none exists. You invent words like "comp" and you use words
like "Turing machine" that were invented for a new concept. So I'm puzzled as to why you
want to use a word like "God" that has so much irrelevant baggage - unless you're going
for a Templeton.
Why does atheists, who does not believe in the God of the theist, want to keep that
definition?
Because they want to be able to say what it is they don't believe in. If you don't
believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden does that mean you must change the
definition of "fairies" so it applies to something you do believe in? Do you criticize
a-fairiests because they use the definition of fairies in order to say they don't believe
in them?
The reason, is that they does not want to admit that they believe in a God, when they
believe in "the third Aristotelian God", which is primary matter.
I don't know any physicist who "believes IN" primary matter. They speculate, hope,
hypothesize that they can find something that is more fundamental (strings?) and that they
will be able to define it with mathematical precision. They may think that some kind of
matter is the best bet; because that is how progress has been made in the past. But many
also consider the possibility that information is more basic or even just relations (c.f.
David Mermins "relations without relata").
Let m be the proposition that matter (tables and chairs and atoms) exists.
Hmm... That is not the Aristotelian primary matter, which I was mentioning. I tend to
believe in atoms, chair and tables, yet I tend to not believe and remain agnostic on
primary matter (but I know, or I am pretty sure, that the concept is non sensical in the
comp theory, which I interrogate only).
Then atheists B~G and ~Bg and all sane people Bm.
OK.
So then in parallel let M be the proposition that...what? I don't know
what it
would mean to say M="matter is fundamental" because there is no definite
boundary on
"matter". Nobody thinks table and chairs are fundamental. Some physicists
think
that the Standard Model of matter is sufficient to explain all ordinary
experience,
but they know it doesn't include dark matter, dark energy, or gravity. So
they may
hypothesize that some better mathematical model will describe a more
comprehensive
'matter' that will be a theory-of-everything - but then 'matter' is just an
honorific bestowed on whatever exists according to the current best theory.
It is
only 'fundamental' in the sense that we haven't been able to explain it
further,
yet. No one stops looking for the better theory because they have faith or
because
it would be heretical.
Sure, but you avoid the real question: is the physical universe primary (physicalism,
Aristotelism) or is it the shadow of a vaster reality (platonism, computationalism)?
You show your theological bent here. A scientist doesn't ask, "Is this the final
theory?", he only asks, "Is there a better theory?" That's the big question. But the
question in this thread is just why use "God" and "theology" when you could use or invent
words that didn't have lots of different meanings contrary to yours? I even pointed out
that there were excellent words of Greek derivation that much better express your ideas:
Altheia - the spirit of truth
Aletheology - the science of truth.
Brent
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.
