Hi Roger,

On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:08, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Applying science to religion can be no more successful than
applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be
experienced if they are of any use at all, and science
is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge.

It might be true for an experiential part of the spiritual experience, but this one is not supposed to be shared.

I can accept somewhat telling me in private he made some experience, but I cannot accept, or will not be convinced, even disbelief anyone making factual religious statement, like saying that mister x or missis y is a nephew or daughter of some divinity and that all they say has to be taken for granted.

Poets does not pretend to make assertive statements, but some religious people does, and actually, you have already do it yourself. What am I suppose to think? That was just poetry?

I appreciate Alan Watts when he says that a priest makes only a show, and that he should blink sometimes to remind the audience of this.

Then theology, (perhaps religion I dunno) can make factual *hypotheses* and reason on the fundamental questions from there. I don't see why not, unless you want to confine religion in the absurdities.

With computer science, a machine A, having much stronger arithmetical provability power than a machine B, can study scientifically the theology (the true but non provable by B) of the machine B, and the act of faith, like "yes doctor", and its first person experience, by the machine A, can be used to lift that theology of B on herself, but that is a personal non sharable act made by A.

Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology?

It has been,

Nice to hear that.


its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with.

I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone "believing" in God cannot have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can only ask question and suggest temporary theories.

Not answering about the step3 ---> step4 makes you looking like a devout atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem.

Bruno

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to