> On 21 Apr 2018, at 22:38, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 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. >> You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too >> great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For >> example to relieve suffering and provide meaning. >> Science can help >> relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential >> angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide >> meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address >> these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if >> not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the >> distilled wisdom of our ancestors. >> >>> 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". >> >> The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice >> the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to >> proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and >> believes that people should be geographically organized according to >> the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil, >> that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a >> social construct. > > And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free press. > So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is just to choose > sides?
Only bad faith fears reason and free press. The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a religion for granted without knowing. Platonism was the beginning of the scientific doubt, including in metaphysics. Aristotelianism has been the beginning or the coming back top our animal intuition: real = visible. For a platonism the visible is what is put in doubt. Mathematics is born from this. > >> >>>> 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". >> You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone >> that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth >> in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS. > > A religious myth is only useful in providing comfort, meaning, and order if > most people subscribe to it. Which still might help in some circumstances, which lead to the problem “what if the truth” is nocive when known. Nothing is obvious here, but platonism tend to believe that lying is bad, making truth “good” by default. In fact they mean “less harmful than lies”. > >> >>> 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. >> Yes. >> >>>>> 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. >> Yes, he states that the original meaning is the correct one. I don't >> see how you say that he is not clear on that. > > Yes, he clearly states it. But usage is the standard for language, not usage > millenia ago. In science we take the usual intuitive words, and redefine them so as to make them concept in theories. Theorem matter changes his meaning through Einstein, and even more through EPR. We do theories with the goal of being shown wrong, not being popular. > >> >>>>> 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. >> Yes, and this is a childish view of things. Like all ideologies, it >> proposes that there is a simple solution that would make the world a >> better place, if only everyone accepted it. > > You think it is childish to think people should proportion their belief to > the evidence? Not at all. That is the whole point. There has never been any evidence for primary matter (just not one). But consciousness and dreams are evidences that it might not exists. And today we can do the test, and the evidence are quite clearly in favour that PRIMARy matter does not make sense, and that physics is the result of an arithmetical sort of prestidigitation. Universal Numbers are crazily proficient in deluding the Universal Numbers, even themselves sometime. Even the theory that the truth (and the physical truth) is in our head, needs too be tested empirically. I would not have 30 years of mathematics and physics if that was not the case. > >> Stories are the tool with >> which Homo Sapiens built civilization. Civilization would not be >> possible without these stories. This is still true today. >> Corporations, countries, the financial system, these are all stories. >> Their existence depends 100% in our shared belief in them. Unlike >> trees and the sky, that are still there even if we collectively stop >> believing them. But the stories have the power to cut down the trees >> and pollute the sky. > > You've taken the metaphor of stories and pushed it to encompass everything. > As Muriel Ruckyser, who wrote a very nice biography of Josiah Willard Gibbs, > said, "The world is made of stories, not atoms." But this should not be > allowed to obfuscate the fact that some stories are more factual than others, > some are inventions that improve our lives, some are conventions, some are > comforting, and some are controlling. Just because insurance and racism are > both stories, doesn't make them equivalent. > >> >> Militant atheists seem to think that we can all become Vulkans. Even >> Vulkans could not be Vulkans if they depended on reproduction. If you >> are a good parent you love your children unconditionally, and don't >> give a shit about evidence. > > That's confused. Values are not objective facts and nobody (including > militant atheists) thinks they are. Values, like loving your children, are > inherently subjective. Subjective does not mean it has no intrinsic values, like self-preservation and harmony with the neighbourhood. Everyone agrees on good and bad in most case. Everyone prefer to drink water to being boiled alive. > >> And evidence can only be appraised 100% >> objectively for the extreme and trivial cases. Of course Christ did >> not raise from the dead. Of course there was no Noah'a Ark. Of course >> Persephone did not descend into the underworld. Not literally, at >> least. Once things get messy (e.g. nutrition) you just accept a story >> and hope for the best. > > Do you think that's what the Germans were doing in 1935? Some of them, yes, to just survive. Some saves jews and homsexuals. Some did not, but only by cowardliness. Some hated jews, but only by brainwashing and lies. Some hates jews by pure fear of the other, or by the logical reason when being christians which took the jewish religion, added a big addenda, and hate the jews for not embracing the addenda. But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. > >> >>>>> 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. >> I think that the currently dominant stories create an unfavorable >> environment for Bruno's ideas. Maybe later, but probably not in our >> lifetimes. > > Do you disagree that Templeton would be happy to fund him and give him a > bigger forum? Science needs that people read papers, and refutation or improvement. If they ask me a paper, it will be with pleasure. But they don’t, and I am not sure of their agenda. Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts). Bruno > > Brent > >> Also it takes a lot of effort to follow him, and even academia is now >> dominated by protestant work ethic to such a degree that there is not >> time for deep thought or things that are not seen as immediately >> "useful". >> >> Telmo. >> >>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
