On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so
in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about
what I could call an existential force, a reality "maker"...
Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about
dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for
something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super
*being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One
(which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense.
But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic
means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to
them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't
believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt,
question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable
"answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it is just "shut
up and believe".
My point is there are various levels of sophistication in
understanding. A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers,
and so does a PhD mathematician. Their understandings may be
incomparable, but you could say they both have some belief in
numbers. The fact that many people might have little understanding
in certain field is not an appropriate reason to say there is
nothing of any interest in that field.
I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding
can only maintain and spread the misconception.
It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we
tackle theology with the scientific method.
I have used the term "theology" because I have been qualified as such,
by vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like "I am
interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious" (answer:
that's theology), or even just "I am interested in modal
logic" (comment: that's theology). Eventually I think there were
right, and to prevent such easy dismissal I have called that theology.
Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement "science has
shown that we are machine", and a big part of what I have done should
explain why this is not a scientific statement, and why saying "yes"
to the doctor asks fro some act of faith. Then the theory of
consciousness makes it a basic and common mystical experience, which
takes the form of an automated or instinctive bet on a reality.
No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists,
and marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they
were just jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem
that atheists seem to have with the use of the scientific attitude in
theology makes me suspects that they were perhaps more serious in
their religious dogma "no God!". In fact they meant probably no
""God"", (with quotes), but they did not say, as they know this is
only vocabulary. The idea that "matter" is an hypothesis makes also
some people nervous. But in science we should never make any
ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment are
private matter.
Bruno
Jason
Regards,
Quentin
then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some
other notion,
why not call it something else.
The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics.
Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope?
That's not two different meanings any more that king is two
different notions because there is more than one king.
They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods
of various religions. There are some nearly universal
characteristics, but no two are identical. You could even say,
every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what
God is. Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only
consistent or probable, but real. Should science not have some
interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of
reality)?
Why then,
should there be only one meaning of God?
Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant. Of course like many
words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some
variations. "Automobile" refers to lots of different things, but
they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces.
That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile.
So then what are the universal properties of God? You seem to shy
away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-
inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most
comfortably admit you disbelieve in. This is trivial though and I
think we can do better. It is like a mathematician proving there
are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the
mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives
up deciding to advance the field by proving anything else.
In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God
cannot exist, you end up doing science and advancing the field of
theology. You could prove logically some possible properties of God
are mutually inconsistent (e.g., God cannot be both omnipotent and
omniscient, or both omnipotent and omnibenevolent). And with that
advancement in understanding you gain new insight into what God can
be and can alter the notion of it, just as the notion of Earth as a
flat plane has changed.
This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities
between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can
be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether
it is the Platonic God,
Can you cite Plato referring to such a being?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic
God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is
perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief
system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under
Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops
there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism.
Except that all those gods are persons. Arithmetical truth is (a)
ill defined
It cannot be defined.
and (b) not a person.
Bruno says this is not settled.
Brent
Would we be better off had we abandoned the word "Earth" or "World"
merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of
amending our notion of what the "Earth" or "World" really is?
The Earth is defined ostensively. If we could define god(s)
ostensively then it would make sense to say we discovered it's
properties were different than we had supposed.
Which we would if theology were treated with a scientific attitude.
Do you have any objection to a scientific treatment of theology?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
