On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Why should that necessarily have anything to do with a judgmental god? Theories about
what happens after death might be part of a science called "thanatology", but only some of
those theories would overlap with theology. I expect that we don't exist after death -
that's contrary to all theologies.
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).
You use the word "theology" but you don't define it. You only say it includes all science
(which is contrary to any dictionary definition) and that applying it takes faith (which
is obvious since applying something ill defined takes a lot of faith).
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.
