On 04 Dec 2013, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/4/2013 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them.

That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them.

Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to "God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc." you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power.

I don't credit such things.

So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them.

Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel.

That is a result of having separated theology from science.

I think you have a pollyannish view of history. Theology, the belief in superhuman gods, preceded science as a disciple by millenia. Theology was based on faith and priests and dogma, and it supported the state. Theologians held secret, esoteric discussions of the gods, but if they deviated much from the theology of the state they were punished (c.f. Socrates and your namesake). Science was only able to come into existence as an empirical search for truths when the Church was split and weakened and theology was left to apologetics.

Half of science. The branch of theology was kept by "authorities".




I don't know how you imagine science could have developed if it had separated from theology - nor how it could proceed now by taking up theology.

By not eliminating person.



Note that there have been scientific tests of theology: specifically of the efficacy of healing prayer. So it is not that scientists reject dogmas out of hand.

Good.










But the idea is important because so many people believe it

And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naďve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That.

Which theologians?  There is no agreement among theologians.

There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists.

Not about the experimental facts.

But there are also the first person facts, which, once we postulate comp, get indirectly verifiable. Machine's theology is verifiable by its consequences in physics.





The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open- mind that is needed in science to progress.
Absence of agreement is what makes science possible.

And the testability of theories.

We agree on this.







And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology.

They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would.

By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality.





Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition.

I let God counts the genuine believers :)





- and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different.

Only the "fairy tale" aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion.


I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled "famous theologians" and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur.


Googling might not be enough, or take more time.

Years ago, when I google on "snus" (oral tobacco), the 20 first sites where the one reporting the most fake papers you can find on "oral tobacco". Given that on god we are brainwashed 1430 years more than on drug, it is hardly astonishing that a simple Googling will reflect the lies instead of the serious inquirers.

I think it is your very attitude which helps the bandits to keep "theology" as a manipulative incorrigible machine.

So do you imagine that your scientific approach to theology will displace the priests and imams and rabbis and their holy books.

Probably, and/or change their role and make them blink.



 It has never happened before.

It is a task for millennia.




But what has happened is that science has taken away more and more of their domain,

It was in the domain at the start. Science is only a lamp, not a truth. It is a way to look at any domain. It is just that very often humans get attached to some theory, and are followed by the "don't ask" attitude by those who coerce for some statu quo.




so that eventually they may become irrelevant - little tinpot dictators ruling on foreskins and what to eat. To which I say, good riddance.

If you want your theories considered seriously you present them to scientists - which is what you actually do. And it would help if you stopped calling them theology (unless of course you aspire to a Templeton$$).

I have presented them without the term "theology". It did not help. It was dismissed as "theology", which it is in the greek sense. So I was opposed by theological belief, and I realized it is more honest and it is clearer to not hide this.

Only non-scientists have a problem with vocabulary, and indeed only philosophers and 'atheists believers' get problem with comp's consequences. But it looks like they are influent, and the result are indeed ignored. But I don't think there are controversial for 'genuine' scientists (the kind capable of accepting to dialog).

Bruno





Brent






Your "God" has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky.

I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology.

Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person.

The common points are, that God is a X such that

- X has no name, no description,
- X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the psychology, the physics,

What does 'responsible' mean? It can be simple causality: The wind was responsible for the tree falling. Or it can imply an ethical choice: Madoff was responsible for the deception. The latter meaning slips in the idea that X is a person.

Or it can be a logical reason. Or something else.




- If X get a name, Lies happen and its name multiplies,

Lies happen anyway.

- X is not computable,
- X is not arithmetical,

Those may be true of lots of things.

Indeed, even on Matter. In science we don't fear to extend the concept range. You would have been against naming 0, 1, and 2 "numbers", because "number" meant numerous at the start.

You can always add axioms, if you feel the need, but about God you cannot be serious and hope for a categorical theory. This already does not exist for the natural numbers structure.





- X attracts or repulse Souls,

You're using "souls" in a definition of "God"? Definitions should be in terms of things that are better understood than those defined.

You can use first person. I was just illustrating, and you know the definition used in comp (in UDA and AUDA).





- etc.

Then we can look in arithmetic, and around, if something match and try questioning the (Löbian) machine, like "is God competent (like in Plotinus, and most religion) or is God incompetent (like with the Gnostics)?". And many other questions.

Cantor took the pain to explain to the Pope that, if he did indeed give name to infinities, he was still unable to name the infinity of infinities, and that he was not naming God. I don't think he meant a "big Daddy in the sky".

But you think you're naming God as the unprovable truths of arithmetic.

No, because I explain in detail why arithmetical truth is not nameable by a correct arithmetical machine. At the meta level we have tools to talk about what a machine cannot express, yet can encounter in different senses.





Scientist modesty in machine theology forces us into agnosticism and cautious, about the relation between Truth and Machines.

A TOE is necessary a theology, as it must let open or decide if there is 0, or 1, or 2, ... gods, with this or that definition of gods.

You can call it theonomy (by the assocation theonomy/theology being "astronomy/astrology"). But that would be a sort of error similar to lifting the theology of the correct machine on ourself, like if we could know publicly that we are correct.

Changing the vocabulary would be like taking the words too much seriously.

Then why not use "Zeus"?

If I use "Zeus", people will take time to understand I am talking on "God", indeed: in a large sense of "God". They will think I want say something special to some more particular god.



You seem to argue both ways: Really serious theology should use "God" because really serious theologians use it.

... because everyone use it, already in a very rich and variate number of sense. Note that in most paper I don't use it. I use "One", in general.



But using less misleading language would be taking words too seriously.


A more precise vocabulary on "god" does not make sense, as it would indicate we are taking the word too much seriously. I can call it TAO when discussing with chinese, but if I use TAO with occidental, they will believe that I am opposing it to god, which is not a priori the case. better to use the most common word, and just remind we don't believe in Santa Claus (if that is necessary).

God has no name. Calling it "god" and taking that name seriously is already an admitted error. Then computer science shows that "truth" already obeys that axiom, from the points of view of the correct machine, etc.

I gave some "axioms" on God, and you are the one telling me to avoid using such notion because this or that sect says bs on it since a long time. For me, that fact makes only more urgent to come back to seriousness in the field, as only that will diminish the fairy tale literalist tendency or the sectarian and the authoritative club..

Bruno



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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to