On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > 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. > > Brent Bruno is too open & honest. Not sure about the other guys you mention. Seems they know how to cut their losses. Richard > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.