Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud
of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops "Good riddance to
bad rubbish!".
Things are not that Black and White. The churches pervert an original
idea, but don't make it disappear entirely.
> Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most
conservative position in religion? It looks like defending something
stupid just to be able to say "I don't believe in it".
I think the ultimate nightmare would be to be tortured to give
information that you simply did not have, that's what would happen to
me if the Gestapo demanded I explain what you were talking about in
the above.
The fact is that you act th same toward free will and theology, and
probably toward the mind-body problem, each time by pointing on some
popular discourse without ever addressing the question behind. You
confuse concepts with their plausible misconception of it.
And so if you tell me "Bob is a theologian" I know absolutely
posatively nothing about Bob because now the word "Theologian" has
joined "atheist", "theist", "God" and of course "free will" as words
that mean absolutely positively nothing.
Do you have an answer for what we can expect through death? Can you
justify it, and in which theory?
If yes, you have a theology.
If no, either you make research, and believe in theology, or you don't
make research and are not interested in theology.
When I addressed that "mortality" question and showed that
computationalism makes the question just more difficult, but partially
formulable in arithmetic, I was told that it was "theology", as it is
with the large defiition I gave, because assuming comp, it is related
with non provable truth (by the machine, for itself).
And so if you tell me "X is a religion" you have told me nothing about
X because meaning needs contrast and everything is a religion is
equivalent to nothing is a religion
But nobody ever said that everything is religion.
OK, with comp "correct human science is included in correct human
theology" (as G is included in G*), but 1) the inclusion is strict, and
2) from a human point of view, there is necessarily an act of faith if
he want to apply that theology in practice (like when accepting the
surgeon's proposition).
May be you were just confusing "theory of everything" (which includes
the question of afterlife, existence of souls, persons, gods, etc.)
with everything. Of course those are different.
Bruno
and "religion" has now joined "theologian" "atheist", "theist", "God"
and "free will" as words that mean precisely nothing. At this rate of
word extinction soon we'll have nothing but grunts to communicate
with.
John K Clark
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
