2013/1/24 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
> On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> In fact it is just the opposite: the position of Luther, like the one of
>> Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern
>> science and were precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism.
> They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be
> arrived at by arm chair cogitation. A 'precursor' to radical positivism
> would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism
that is ahistoric. Rationalism did not exist at that time. You have to know
the mentality of that time and what where their main philosophical
preocupations. That is something that you have not the least intention to
>> Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use
>> of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is
>> Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were
>> against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the
>> knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these
>> matters was called "natural revelation"). But they were not agains the use
>> of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern
>> radical separation between faith and science, between "is" and "ough" .
>> (which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases )
>> Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the
>> independence of God from any natural limitation of moral reasoning
>> stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science
>> in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, the main schools
>> of Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous
> Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God
> is the ground of all being and continuously sustains the world.
> That is not true. With almost as contempt for the details as you, I would
say that the God of Aquinas was limited by reason. That is exactly what
Duns Scotus, Ocham and Luther rejected.
> and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of Allá that
>> would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change
>> at any moment.
>> Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam
>> University in
>> Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that “it
>> was not
>> Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were
>> supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by
>> the will of
>> Allah water was created.’”
> "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an
> atheist deserving of punishment.
> ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of
> Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim,
> The New York Times, 12 February 1993
> Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
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
For more options, visit this group at