Hi Bruno Marchal
The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s).
They are exclusively in the fom of words.
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds.
The personal or private part of religion is called faith.
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation.
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/13/2012
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: 2012-09-13, 08:33:44
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers
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 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.
