On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the question of
whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for this list, is that "God" is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the
unprovable truths of arithmetic".
How do you know that? How could you know that.
I read the interview. For example
/D.G.: I'm not a believer, so I'm not in a position to say. First of all, it's worth
noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don't come from science but from
common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case for believers is the Problem of Evil:
The question of how a benevolent God could allow the existence of evil in the world, both
natural evils like devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always
been a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history of responses
to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like me) consider this a major
problem, believers have, for the most part, figured out how to accommodate themselves to it./
It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he were referring to some
abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there would be no "problem of evil" for
that god.
Brent
IF comp is true, and if Christianism is true, the meeting with St-Ptere and the "dogma"
of the Church might well be among the unprovable truth (unprovable by you and similar)
of arithmetic.
I doubt this, of course, but we just don't know. What is true and even provable, is that
if we are consistent, in that case the discourse of the christians should be mute on
this, and the Christians should just trust God for the advertising. So the behavior of
some Christians might be inconsistent with arithmetic, but not necessarily the doctrine.
But then the behavior of most institutionalized religion is already inconsistent or
unsound with arithmetic, and the institutionalization is consistent like the provability
of the false is consistent (but unsound) with arithmetic. That would mean that
institutionalization *is* the theological trap that the machines already warn us against.
Bruno
Brent
-------- Original Message --------
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that
I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a
professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science
in the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I'll conclude with a wrap-up
column on the series."
...
Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny that the
arguments for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my
impression is that proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of
serious discussion outside of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And
even there, my sense is that the discussions are largely a matter of academic interest:
The real passion has gone out of the question."
--
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.
