On 08 Feb 2014, at 17:00, John Clark wrote:
The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the
species called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect
and sometimes the brain can waste a great deal of processing power
spinning its wheels over questions of words rather than ideas. For
example, a recent poll showed that 70% of people in the USA thought
that if a dying patient agreed then doctors should be allowed to
"end the patient's life by some painless means"; however only 51%
thought that doctors should be allowed to help a dying patient who
wanted to die "commit suicide". Another example would be those who
DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being
who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO
believe in "God".
What about those who believe, or assume, a god, or a goddess, but
disbelieve omnipotence, and are agnostic on omniscience?
I am not sure your analogy make sense.
In the interdisciplinary science, the best rule, imo, consists in
using the most standard term in the disciplines. Doubly so in
theology, where changing the pseudo-"name" of the unameable would give
the impression that his "name" has some importance.
Despite this, I have never use the term God in the papers, but have
use Plotinus ONE, or Plato's truth, or the term "theology". In this
forum I have used God in some reply, and this has help to confirm my
feeling that only atheists are annoyed by this, and defend the use of
"God" only for the Christians. In fact atheists, constantly, defend
the christian's concept of God, more than the Christians. This means
something, as indeed atheisms, and christians (especially catholics)
do defend the main point of the Aristototelian theology, through the
importance of primitive matter, and the creation/physical-universe.
It makes the debate between atheism and christianism hiding that
science has not decided between Plato's conception of reality and
Aristote's conception of reality. That is a good fuel for
fundamentalism and the pursue of authoritative argument in both
religion and science. It makes both science and religion into pseudo-
science and pseudo-religion.
Only bad faith fear reason, and only bad reason fear faith.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
