On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:10, meekerdb 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.

Like genetics has been in the ex-USSR.
That's a reason to come back to the seriousness in the field. By refusing this, you just perpetuate the 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'.

Can you cite any physicist interested in the mind-body problem. Physicists does not care about the distinction between primary matter and matter, because they usually take Aristotle theology for granted. It is comp and logic which forces us to realize that science has not yet decide between Plato and Aristotle, making us obliged to be aware that matter might not have a primitive existence and might need to be derived from something else (like arithmetic).

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."

Indeed. Wheeler was aware that physics might be originating from something non physical. he was well inspired by the bits, and even by self-reference.

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 trapped, as they encouraged me to do so, in the name of the free- exams. Some were sincere though, but others seem to have planned the refusal in advance. In "Conscience & M├ęcanisme" I define theology by "modal logic". Indeed Aristotle invented logic and modal logic to handle tricky metaphysical and theological question. Also, during my studies, when I suggested that modal logic might help for the study of provability and consistency (before Solovay), the atheists was used to dismiss the whole thing as "theology". So it was a way to remind them of the free- exam, and indeed that's why some encouraged me to do so: to prevent easy dismissals.

(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.

I don't know what is a liberal theologian. In science we have no dogma (ideally). Of course the existence of math and physics supports the idea that there is a reality and so can be seen as evidence that some transcendent truth might make sense. Then computer science explains that if a machine posit a truth it will have transcendent aspect. I use "theology" because I have read tuns of book in "theology" (from East and West) and they helped me to find the right question to ask to the universal machine. I define the theology of a machine by its G*\G arithmetical content (G and G* themselves are more "meta-theology). It works fine as it makes possible to stay neutral on many approaches, and it helps to remind that science has cease to be scientific on those questions. Many people accept that once we talk on possible forms of after-life we do theology, and not necessarily abramanic theology. It helps some people to get the point that atheism (at least the non- agnostic atheism) is a religion. It has a notion of God, and a proposition of it (it does not exist), and it has another notion of God (Primaty Matter, the third Aristotelian God) and a proposition about it: it exists and is responsible for our existence. That might be the correct theology, but for them it is undoubtable and that makes it into a dogma. I don't know, and I show this does not work once we assume mechanism.



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