On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> There is no "field" of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.

> To say that there is no "field" of theology is equivalent to say "I know the answer to the fundamental questions",

It is equivalent to saying that the "field" of theology has never once in its entire history explained anything about anything.

It led to monism and science. You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. The religious feeling starts when you develop faith, like when you believe that you have parents and that things occurs for a reason. Without spiritual faith there is no science at all, nor even technic.


What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Hi Jason,

Nice quote which illustrates well what I try to convey to John Clark.
It is important to get this to be open of how comp makes this even "scientific" (that is, deductible from hypotheses made clear. It does not mean true).

The greeks, it seems to me, were quite aware of this double-way dependency at the start. The problem is that we have completely separated science from religion, with the automated result that many confuse science with a new kind of religion, even unconsciously. You can guess this with the way most popular media abuse of the term "know" when describing scientific results.

And symmetrically, others will confuse religion-fairy-tales with another kind of science (like the creationists for example.

Science is nothing more than curiosity, clarity and modesty. It is the necessary attitude in both religion and science.

And I have said once that science is the tool and religion is the goal, and I am glad that Einstein agrees that religion is the goal. It is rare to hear that from a scientists, for the obvious reason that many religions have been used as a perverted political tools to manipulate the people since a long time.


From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to