In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it... then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic either, you're what is called a believer...
Quentin 2015-01-21 19:30 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:40, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/20/2015 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> The more I think about it, the more I doubt that these subjects were >>>> simply "abandoned" in an innocent fashion. The problem is that beliefs >>>> about fundamental reality are at the foundations of political power, and >>>> the powerful know this, even if only intuitively. >>>> >>> >> Read Craig A. James little book, "The Religion Virus" for a history of >> religion from that standpoint. >> > > > The term religion is too large for such analogy. > > In a recent article of the french journal "La Recherche" there is a paper > which shows that historians debunk Ernst Mach idea that science progressed > *against* christianity, and that on the contrary, the root of modern > science might relied in the idea that nature was a mechanism made by God. I > already knew the more obvious relation between computationalism and > christian's self-finiteness belief. > > With the greek One, religion is what science is for. The goal is going > near truth, the tool is science. The goal evolves as much as the tool in > the process. > > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, since always. That is why we are mucky to be in a place where >>> scientists have regained some freedom in some domain, but clearly not in >>> all (theology and human science are still not done with the scientific >>> attitude). >>> >> >> We're in a mucky place because a lot of theologians promote mucky >> religions. :-) >> > > And you can expect this will continue if we don't let theology going back > to academy. > > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> When atheist politicians say that we must respect the Vatican, they are >>>> agreeing on some border of power. They are saying, ok we can't have >>>> absolute power but we can negotiate peace with the Vatican. >>>> >>> >>> Vatican and bishops love atheism, because atheists are their allies in >>> preventing seriousness in theological matter. >>> >> >> Incidentally, I went to a lecture by a theologian last night. He gave a >> definition of theism, the same as mine: Belief in a supernaturally powerful >> person who cares about human behavior and wants to be worshipped. And he >> went on to say that all serious theology is a-theistic. >> > > > No problem with that. Science by itself is agnostic, but as much about > primary matter than any reality, we can only try religion, and change of > religion, or change religion. A religion is a conception of reality, and it > is based on the belief that there is a reality, that we can share some > aspect of it, and discuss about the way to unify all the views and > reflexion we can have on it. > > Now, you frighten me a bit about which theologian you are listening too, > and I give you a tip, go back to the time theology was a science, that is > before +523 in occident (and of course, if you study the theologians since, > you will see many "saying sentences like above, but only in context of > being able to develop other interesting ideas: that is, not all modern > theologian believe in such naive theist god). But officially: the field is > sick (authorianistist) since +523 in Occident, and about the eleventh > century in Middle-East. > > Strong-atheism is a religion, and is dishonest when not saying so, as it > is the belief in a primary physical universe or matter, object of the laws > described in the book of physics. > > That might be true. We don't know. But we can know that this view is > problematical if we assume there is no magic in the brain or in matter. > > It is nice because it illustrates the existence of a realm, a simple one > conceptually (a tiny part of arithmetic), where the laws of physics > originate. > > The difficulty to accept this is similar with the difficulty some accepted > evolution. Perhaps. > > Read history of science. Humans pervert science all the time, for short > run purpose, or for power purpose. For all of them we must distinguish the > object of study from the humans theories which can always be wrong, if not > escape the well guided practice (laic academy, laic school, agnostic > presentations, encouragement of doubting, even mocking, *all* authorities, > etc.). > > > Bruno > > > > > >> Brent >> >> -- >> 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
