On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.

Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.

This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists).

Of course it can't displace a field of inquiry. But theology wasn't a field of inquiry, it was apologetics for revelation and dogma.

Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated...

OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific.

Can you cite any physicists who use the term 'primary matter'. I've never come across it except on this list. Of course almost all physicists believe in some kind of matter which is the subject of their study and they may hypothesize that it is primary, that there is nothing more fundamental which explains the matter, but that's just an hypothesis. John Wheeler was not criticized for talking about "It from bit." Max Tegmark is still highly respected after suggesting a mathematical universe. I think you have just been unlucky in running into some close minded atheists who probably suspected that your use of "God" to mean "Truth"(and I'm not sure what that means) was an attempt to slip Christian dogma into science by the back door - it sounds very much like what, as John K. Clark pointed out, liberal theologians do in order to pretend that physics or mathematics supports their dogma.


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