On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 9:26 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a >>> very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God >>> come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for >>> knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes. >>> >> >> That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to >> Bruno. Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the >> set of unprovable truths", but they respect common usage of language enough >> not to call it "thinking about God", or "theology", as Bruno would have >> them do. >> > > I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged > "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a > few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few > discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered > non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all > sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality, > god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to > distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to. > Same difference. > > And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to > conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more > traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a > problem. > > Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard > should therefore point to some evidence > > > Exactly what I did. I pointed to an interview between academic > philosophers of religion who opined that the the problem of evil was the > most convincing argument against the existence of God. This clearly > assumes that "God" does NOT refer to some ineffable collection of sets or > foundation of reason or all uncomputable truths. > Yes, to people more literal/naive than conservative catholic theologians in Europe, who we all know as the grooviest bunch on earth. So what? That's just bad personal craft. Anyway, who stated this should be subject to some majority vote a la Brent. My point is simply that with this group of academics, that use, particularly property of inconceivable with its limited set of implications, is standard. PGC -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.