On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
No it doesn't. First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
From
Wikipedia:
Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
Right. For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
Yes, I agree. Although it wasn't just Christianity. All organized
religions are developed as instruments of social control. Originally
they were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the
agents of social oversight. When city-states and regional civilizations
like the Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf
of the gods and even became a god on his death. The polytheisms, like
Greek religion, derived from the older animist religions that had
different supernatural agents acting in different capacities in the
world. The Romans, in their conquests, just let local religions keep
their gods. But Judaism had a mythology of putting their god above all
others...typical of a god of war...and later being the only god.
Christianity couldn't quite go all the way to one god though and
invented "The Trinity".
Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"? Have you visited the replica
of Noah's Ark in Kentucky? Is ISIS led by "modern persons". As Seneca
the younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...
Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a
sin worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.
But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.
He is pretty upfront about that.
No he's not. He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's
original "true" meaning.
If he's
just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics. But he likes to take
subtle pokes at atheists.
We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly
stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern
atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have
no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue.
"Modern atheism" adds that it's wrong and dangerous to believe silly
stories, however comforting they may seem. That belief should always be
provisional and proportioned to the evidence.
Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism,
but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even
though it entials and infinity of beliefs.
I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, and I
agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter.
More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say,
I agree, and I've learned some modal logic from Bruno. But I wonder why
his ideas don't get wider discussion. I think he should apply for a
Templeton grant (they'd love him) and speak at the conferences they
sponsor as well as some of the AI conferences.
Brent
unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other
people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think
you are one of the bullies.
Telmo.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
