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, [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
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 [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.
