On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:16:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Oct 2018, at 03:50, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > The "separation" of science from religion was the invention of > science > > > Not at all. Science is born with Plato, who understood that for having a > fundamental science, we must believe in a reality, and that this need an > act of faith. That reality is GOD, the object of religion. > Of course, the popular religion did have all sort of Gods, from turtles > all the way down, to very personalised sort of reality. Now, when religion > is done with the scientific attitude, which is what Plato did, it is named > theology, and for one millenium it was a science. The Reality was mainly > either Nature, or something else which would be deeper and non natural > (“supernatural”). Plato called it the “world of ideas” (the Noùs). Plato’s > world of idea was inspired by Pythagorus who taught it as being “only > number”. > > That theology has progressed and gave birth to Mathematics, which was seen > as the alternative of physics. > The (Neo)pythagorean and the (Neo)platonist will pursue that line where > the doubt was about the fundamental nature of reality was > immaterial/mathematical. You might read Plotinus' ennead “On number”, to > see how Plotinus foresaw Cantor, and the machine’s discourse. The term > “mathematician” was used at that time to mean “rationalist sceptics about > the fundamental nature of the physical reality”/ The original doubt was > between mathematics and physics as fundamental science. Aristotle will side > with Plato on this, but his interest in Nature will make him to influence > people to opt the idea that physics might be directly about reality. > > For example, in the year 400 Hypatia was teaching both the Mathematics of > Diophantus, and the theology of Plotinus. That was very common. > > But, the christians will separated into intellectual, disputing if Plato > or Aristotle were right, and integrist or radicals which will use religion > to get power, and the history is that, despite Constantin (Roman emperor > converted to Christianity) was rather close to the platonist intellectual, > eventually the radicals will get the power. > After 529, when the emperor Justinian did close Plato’s Academy, the > Church will, by its action separate theology (the fundamental science of > the greek *per* *definition*) from science.The result is that science > will be associated more and more with Aristotle: that is: the belief in > physical primary universe. Science itself became a psedo-religion, with a > sort of dogma: Matter, and this up to the point that today, most people > have completely forget that the original debate was never on the existence > of the ONE (god) but on the existence of a primary (“physicalist”) Nature. > By separating religion-theology from science, religion will keep the > popular superstition, and buried a millenium of science. Theology/religion > will become more and more an instrument of politics (of the non democratic > kind, of course). > The first attempt to separate religion from the state and politics, cale > from religious people wanting to save religion/theology from politics (not > for saving politics from religion!: that will come later). > > Superstition was just popular, in all sciences before the greeks. A > religion is only a conception of reality, and Plato understood that the > belief in a reality cannot be rational (exactly what the universal machine > explain all by themselves, by <>t -> ~[]<>t (<>t = consistency = a reality > exist, by Gödel’s COMPLETENESS theorem). > > The first superstition were on the ONE thing responsible for all the > others, and it became, with Plato, the thing which we need to unify all > sciences. Theology gave quickly birth to mathematics and physics, seen as > alternative. In the 19th century, mathematical logic will born from a > dispute between unionists (mostly mathematicians) and trinitarians (mostly > clergyman, but still intellectual knowing well Plato, to attack his > immaterial and non personal conception of the fundamental reality). > > Todays science is superstitious or dogmatic (or both) in making physics > into the fundamental science, despite there has never been a shadow of > evidence for primary matter. Indeed, we don’t even try to seek such > evidences, contrary to the ancient who tried at least to find one. After > 529, all those doubting the materialist dogma were banished or killed. > Neoplatonism (scientific theology will still continue up to 1258, where, > unfortunately Islam will decide to submit Reason to the Text (the Quran, > then) against Averroes, who defended the idea that the TEXT must be > submitted (interpreted) to Reason (which will influence the Renaissance). > > > > > > > > > > as a way of knowing what was fact and what was superstition. > > > Read Plato. They discuss this in deep. Notably to explain that a fact, as > lived as fact, can be dreamed, and thus cannot be a criteria for any > ontology except a dreamer, but then what is that dreamer. Today at least we > have a very good candidate (arithmetic). Church thesis rehabilitates > completely Pythagorus idea that only numbers exists, and the physical > universe is a superstition, unlike the physical reality, which was the > thing to be explained. > > > > Science was testing beliefs and holding them only provisionally. > > > Exactly, and that attitude was the base of Plato’s theology, and even > Aristotle theology. To be sure, in his “metaphysics” Aristotle mocks Plato, > and clearly did not understood it, but eventually grasped the point to > conclude in a very platonist way. > > So I insist on this: the institutionalisation of superstition has been > the result of the separation of science and theology. Before this Plato > already put the supersitituio away in the most fundamental science > theology. Read all neoplatonist, you will not see anything supersititious > in there. > > Bruno > > > The old word for "matter" is "hyle" (hence hylicism, etc.)
As I've maintained (contrary to what others seem to say), physicalism is reductive, but *materialism (hylicism) is non-reductive.* Physicalism (as many writers point out) presumes that everything can be reduced to physics <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15147/>. But “Is there a theoretical reduction <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/backward-and-downward/> of chemistry <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/its-probably-the-chemistry-stupid/> to physics?” is debated today <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262307/> by scientists and philosophers. Materialism — which treats all matter (quarks, atoms, molecules, cells, brains, galaxies, …) with equal *respect* <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15147/> — doesn’t have this problem. It is agnostic in the current debate. So the safest stance is to be a Materialist vs. Physicalist. It’s too early to commit to the completeness of physics. https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/materialism-vs-physicalism/ - pt -- 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.
