On 07 Feb 2013, at 17:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2013/2/7 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 06 Feb 2013, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:37:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Feb 2013, at 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb


There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.

Two completely different worlds.

That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string christian. Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales. Strong Christian are happy because they feel like they can contradict the scientific evidences, and the atheists are happy so they can continue to mock the christians, and continue to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.

You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly be an idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.

Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the definition keep changing.

Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist?

I would consider Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet idealists, in the sense that the ideal is reduced to function rather than a material.


That is not idealism. That's only the common functionalism.

Idealists believe that matter is a production of the mind.


I think that the common belief of Harris and Dennett is that the function of mind creates the illusion of matter as we know it.

That contradicts what I read. You might give a reference.




Beyond our view of matter, I would guess that both of them would agree that matter is a function of quantum functions, which to me is the same thing as an image of the mind made impersonal.

But that is not what people means by quantum, which need to refer to the *assumed* (not derived like in comp) physics.






Dennett made clear that he is physicalist, naturalist, and weak materialist.

I don't know any scientist being idealist, and even in philosophy of mind, most dictionaries describe it as being abandoned.

I agree in the sense that you intend, but I think that functionalism is the same thing as impersonal idealism.

You can't provide new meaning to terms having standard definition.

As you do with term such as God ?

On the contrary. I use the original sense, which is still used by philosophers today, and in comparative theological studies. "God" is not a technical term, unlike idealism and functionalism.





Most functionalist are weak-materialist today.

Most people that believe in God, believe it is a supreme being/ person which answers the prayer. Do you deny that ?

Yes. This is a feature of many religion, but not all. Some people pray also non-Gods, like saint or even Buddha.

But all religion accept the idea that God is the ultimate truth, and in science sometimes we enlarge the definition, so as to have a first axiom on which everyone agree. And when weak-materialist defend materialism, they defend a metaphysics, not a scientific fact, meaning that they take the physical universe as the ultimate reality, making it into a "god". When they deny this, they impose a religion, and transforms science into psuedo-science.

My knowledge of theology comes from the reading of many book in theology. It is quite typical that only atheists have a problem with this, but my experience in life has shown me that indeed the atheists are extremely pseudo-religious people: they forbid the doubt about their "God", and confirms the fact that as long as theology doesn't go back to academy, we will remain in the obscurantist era with respect to the fundamental questioning.




Do you really think a lot of people use your god = arithmetical truth/existential absolute ?

Do you think many people use the term "universe" in the same sense as quantum mechanician or string theorist? I am not saying that God = arithmetical truth/existencial absolute, I derive this from comp + the large definition of God I provided. Then question like "does God as free will" are just still open. Even the question "does God has white beard" is, to be honest (and provocative) open, even if that is hardly plausible of course.




If you talk about God to people not reading this list, they would never come to your meaning, as such your usage is a misuse and leads to confusion.


No, you are wrong on this. All theologians I met have no problem at all, as they know perfectly well I use the term in his general philosophical sense. They do this also when they compare christians doctrine and neoplatonism. I can give you a list of thousand philosophers, mystics, scientists all using the word "God" in that general sense. Only atheists, of the non agnostic kind, have a problem, which I think is a symptom that they have unconscious dogma, which is worst than dogma.

The God of the atheists is as much a god than the number 0 is a number. A slight generalization of the common conception we all have of the possible ultimate reality/explanation.

Typical sub-branches of theology is the question of the afterlife, and this has become something we do have to address in the TOE, as the quantum suicide question illustrates.

It helps greatly to use terms as theology and God, as it shows that we don't reject known theories, but that we can have serious critics on many points in them. Introducing new word can only been misleading on all points. Not only it would lead to an implicit acceptance of not criticizing some points in religious doctrine, but it would perpetuate the idea that science is itself a form of religion, which it is not as it is only a tool.

It is already hard for many physicists to just understand the difference between primitive matter and matter, because they are not aware that the existence of primitive matter is a theological, or metaphysical, assumption.

Not accepting the term 'theology' is an implicit acceptance that the field remains in the hand of those who have dared to impose metaphysical conception on their contemporaries. It made the debate stick between atheists and christians, which, like a bishop said himself again on radio recently, are basically the same aristotelian theology, and defends the same conception of reality. It is almost a conscious methodology to hide the real debate which is between the platonist conception of reality and the Aristotelian one.

If we want to keep the scientific attitude on fundamental questions, we have no choice than coming back on the discussion which lasted 1000 years, and from which both the natural sciences, and the fake (leader based) religions are born. To oppose science and religion makes both science and religion into pseudo-science and pseudo-religion, and it washed away a lot of serious inquiries made by some scientists and mystics, and usually rejected by dogmatic churches, sometimes in the name of freedom of thought.

I use the terms used by the people who wrote the books in which I learned the most basic notions in the field. Simply.

Bruno





Most scientists believe that comp needs materialism. They are still completely unaware of the first person indeterminacy, and the immaterialist consequences. Functionalism might imply immaterialism, as comp does (comp is that there is a level where functionalism is correct. Functionalism is usually vague on the level, which is implicitly given by some neuro-level, comp is just a much weaker hypothesis).

Bruno





Craig


That explain probably why people take time to swallow the consequences of comp. Comp is the favorite theory of the (weak) materialist, and so it is hard for them to get that comp and materialism, and the usual weak Occam razor, are contradictory.

Bruno

Bruno





Craig


Bruno




Quentin

That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.

Bruno




----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
Subject: Re: Topical combination

On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi John Mikes
�
It says
�
"The Fabric of Eternity is the author's personal view of the Universe that allows for science and theology to explore the wonders of creation in peaceful unison.'
IMHO that is completely misguided, because the worlds they understand燼re separate magisteria, to use� Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical world, and theology deals with
the nonphysical world.

Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world". This sums up physicalism.

A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal with any subject.

Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let the world teach him.� So who was modest and who was arrogant?

Brent

Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.

Bruno

____________________________________________________________________
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking  
www.dreammail.org

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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- l...@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.





--
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.



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.


Reply via email to