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>
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>
> 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
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."
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at