On 06 Oct 2014, at 23:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/6/2014 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2014, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
<snip>
You can define God by whatever you like; it's just a matter of
showing who is the master, you or the word.
Me, of course. It is probably part of my trust in god, and in
humans,
You don't trust them to know what they mean by their own words.
I trust them to understand exactly that.
Then ask them what they mean by "God" and use it that way in the
future.
That is what I do, both with many christians (which are non literalist
in europa), and by studying comparative theology.
Only atheists remains focuses on christianity, and on their
contradictions, which was predictable from the theology of the greeks
and the mystics.
The subject is just difficult, and contains many trap, but that is the
acse with any subject, like biology and astronomy. We can progress
though, but more quickly when the field are back in the academy.
Avoiding this for theology will make the field keeping its unsound
mixture of popular superstition and argument-per-authority.
Language is a social construct and words mean what most people
think they do - and most people think a god is a person. And they
don't think matter is a person.
If theology did ever have left the academy, all children would have
been taught the most trivial thing about God, which is that we
don't know if it is a person or not. But there are theories, and
with computationalism it might be that God is like in Plotinus (a
very bizarre status, not really a person, not a being (it does not
"really" exist), it is not conscious, yet makes all soul conscious,
(like comp makes all universal numbers conscious and in front of
the maximal arithmetical FPI). If you study the greeks, you see
they tried many different ideas to tackle that difficult question.
It makes even sense to say that "god" might be an intent, a "model"
for you to believe in, in some sense, and to follow. Like dogs can
inherit the character of their master, people can inherit the
character of their god(s).
and in machine, and in the mystics, that is the correct use of
the term. It is very reasonable, and it prevents at the start the
confusion between the serious research and the political/social
brainwashing or the popular superstition.
It continues the confusion that the established religions rely on.
The exact contrary. The established religions continue to support
that confusion, because they fear the questioning.
Somehow I appreciate the catholic church, because it has shown that
it can revised its opinion,
Though it may be 400yrs late.
Sure. But that's better than never. And again it would progress more
quickly if theology comes back to reason.
and even makes into its principle that the interpretation of the
bible is a complex matter, for theologian, historians, scientists
to work on, and to exclude the fairy tale literal interpretations
on it. For example it revised most of its anti-semite statements
under Jean-Paul II. It revised its statement on Galilee, too
(although the Church is wrong on this, actually, and was correct at
the time of Galilee, as the Church asked him to accept that his
idea was only a theory (!).
You sound like an apologists: The Church not only wanted to Galilee
to say his idea was only a theory, they wanted him to accept that
their idea was THE TRUTH -
Implicitly, you are right. Galilee should have answer: OK it is just a
theory but so is yours. Obviously that would have been risky for him.
My point here is that the church apology is non sensical. It was not a
progress, but the pursue of obscurantism.
and they were willing to torture him as their argument.
Note that Al Gazhali, a 10th century muslim who was not much keen
on Neoplatonism, already tried to explain that theology should
never contradict scientific observation and logical conclusions.
Then why is it any more than science? Why suppose it has a separate
domain?
That is a good question, and is related to the fact, in comp, that a
machine can make the full theory of the theology of a simpler machine,
but can only lift it up to itself by making some act of faith: like
the "yes doctor" or comp itself.
That is the wonderful lesson of Gödel's theorem: once Löbian, we can
study or own limitations and get some picture of what is beyond them.
I agree it looks paradoxical, as it shows that science can study the
limitation of science, and this gives meaning to the neoplatonist so-
called "negative theology". Theology is both a science, even if it
concerns something which is separate for science. It works if we are
cautious enough, and never assert that we have the truth, as all
scientists (should) know.
It is not the notion of God which is dangerous. It is the abandon
of reason in the studies which is dangerous.
But the notion of God (not your idiosyncratic notion) is dangerous
precisely because it says to abandon reason and obey God out of faith:
That is the case with any power by coercion. It happened for all
science, even genetics with atheist/materialist coercion.
The fact that most people have believe that flat is earth does not
make ridiculous the science of earth. Only the humans doing bad science.
Why could it be not the same with the fundamental questions and
theology?
"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
--- John Calvin
"When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything
else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we
have to believe.... I warn people not to seek for anything beyond
what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek
for. In the last resort, however, it is better for you to remain
ignorant, for fear that you come to know what you should not
know.... Let curiosity give place to faith, and glory to salvation.
Let them at least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know
nothing against the Rule [of faith] is to know everything."
--- Tertullian
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
--- Martin Luther
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
--- Martin Luther
And note that Luther and Calvin were reformers. They were not just
supporting the political rulers of their time.
I have a serious jaw problem, and once I said to a doctor that "I
think ...", and the doctor interrupt me by saying "you don't have to
think ..." I do the thinking ...", ...
yes, some people want to think at our place. It happens in all field.
But by deciding that theology is BS in all case, you are the one
making both theology, and the fundamental science into pseudo-religion/
pseudo-science.
And you can't avoid that if you don't use reason in that field.
It is a like the medication. It is not dangerous, but become so
quickly when made illegal.
So you think opium and heroin only became dangerous when made illegal?
Indeed. This has again be tested in some part of my country. Once
heroin is legal, then like morphin (all coming from opium), it is
prescribed by doctor, and the consumption of it diminish steadily.
I don't believe at all in the danger of heroin. Obviously, we should
not sell it in candy to the children (its first use!), but is the type
of medication needing a prescription. But for this, it must be legal.
When prohibited, it is *the* drug to hook people and make them into
lucrative zombies. When legal it is the last sort of medication you
need in the bad chance situation where other non toxic nor addictive
products can't work (which is very rare).
In life and in religion, the choice is between logic and war.
Between question without answer and answer without question.
What is your problem with the consequence of computationalism,
beyond it looks quite shocking from the aristotelian perspective
(but then quantum mechanics is arguably as much shocking)?
I don't know what you mean by "have a problem with"? Do you mean
fail to believe in?
Failing to see that there are consequence of comp, and that they offer
a consistent rational view of reality closer to Plato than Aristotle.
And the point is that it is testable. It already explains (and
enlarge) the quantum weirdness, the existence of the
person and all the ineffable about them, their lack of names, etc.
It explains the rôle of mathematics or arithmetic, and the
discourse of the machines already illustrated they can access their
own non justifiable annulus G* minus G, and its intensional
variant, plunging the theory of quanta in a more general theory of
person qualia.
But those things may have other explanations and it may be that it
explains too much...and predicts too little.
The point is that we have no choice in the matter if we want stay
rational about this. It cannot explain too much, or predicts too
little, for logical reason. It can predict something wrong, but that
is what remain to be seen, and then if that is the case, we abandon or
improve the theory, like always.
It is better than putting the interesting question under the rug, and
present the existence of something (be it God, or the Universe,
whatever) as a dogma.
Bruno
Brent
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--- Stephen Henry Roberts, historian (1901-71)
--
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.
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.
