On 27 Apr 2014, at 01:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
atheism/materialism? Hmm.... :)
The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of
the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere,
like notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap
root?) where science, magic, and religion were all the same thing.
Modern atheism, since the Elightenment is mainly an embrace of
science and a rejection of the revelatory religion and so would
branch off around Galileo.
I am not so sure. I think we have already discuss this, but strictly
speaking The Church was right on Galileo, he was proposing only a
theory. Of course the church too, and with Galilee what comes at last
is a more serious counting of the genuine evidence, and the abandon of
some argument per authority.
But all this is made in a context where both party the Aristotelian
creator+creation framework. Before them, the greeks were aware of the
possibility of other frames, and there did have a more scientific
attitude with respect to the fundamental questioning.
As I said often, the Enlightenment was only half Enlightenment. For
the fundamental questions we have still dogma-against-dogma, and no
real research. There are progresses though, the mind body problem is
still under the rug but less and less so, the physicists understand
also that the nature of reality is not an easy problems, computer
science justifies notion of of machine personal perspectives, etc.
Magic is still around and connects to Voodoo and some other
"religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", but science has
been even more corrosive of magic than religion. It just works a
lot better.
Religion is the only goal, personally and collectively.
Science is the only tool.
I think.
To me, the opposition between science and religion is akin to a
disease, like a failure between the corpus callosum.
Religion is a bet on truth, a sort of trust, and science (corpus of
representable valid beliefs relations) is the only vessel we have to
explore the realm toward (and only toward) the possible truth.
Just to accept the opposition between science and religion entails a
sort of tolerance of the authoritative arguments in the fundamental
questioning.
The problems arise from those who pretend to know the truth, and from
those (more numerous) who pretend that someone know or knew the truth.
Opposing science and religion can only lead to pseudo-science and
pseudo-religion.
With computationalism we get a rational justification of why we cannot
completely get rid of some magic, which is not a problem because there
is a lot of magic in mathematics, when looking close. Infinite sums,
unexpected morphism, universal relations.
Human (or X) theology extends human (or X) science, like with
classical (platonist) computationalism, G* extends G. True beliefs can
exist, but truth always extends (a lot) the (correct) beliefs. We
don't know the truth but we are still confronted to it, as much as
with our beliefs.
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/d/optout.
