On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 6 May 2019, at 20:34, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> > On 3 May 2019, at 20:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5/3/2019 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> The current darkness comes from the separation of theology from >> science, making exact science inexact and human science inhuman. >> >> >> >> Religion is the only goal, >> > >> > That's the kind of absolutist pronouncement that priests and despots >> have used to justify oppression and atrocities from auto-de-fe' to >> Buchenwald. >> >> I could have put that truth, or meaning, or value, is the only goal, but, >> normally, with what follow, i.e. “science is the only mean”, people should >> understand that this assume the minimum spiritual maturity of those who >> knows that in the religion domain, the argument-per-authority is not just >> not valid, it is catastrophic. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Science is the only mean. >> > >> > And every person is an end. >> >> Absolutely. >> >> Which should invite to be skeptic on all metaphysics which threat the >> existence of persons. >> >> Theology is today full of BS, not because theology is BS, only because >> theology has been separated from science, with the goal to use it as a way >> to control people. The prohibition of medication, and the idea that a >> government can have a word on this, in place of you or your doctor, is the >> same phenomenon. It is how liars get power, by appropriating the domain out >> of the serious and modest inquirers. The USSR did that with genetics, >> because theology was already just forbidden, and materialism (even the >> strong version) was obligatory. It is always the use of the argument per >> authority, in place of questions and other questions. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > I just found this quote by Godel, where he concluded mostly the same: > > There would be no danger of an atomic war if advances in history, the > science of right and of state, philosophy, psychology, literature, art, > etc. were as great as in physics. But instead of such progress, one is > struck by significant regresses in many of the spiritual sciences. [123] > > > http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html > > Jason > > > The consequences of Mechanism assess many statement made by Gödel, > including his skepticism toward naturalism. Unfortunately, like many, he > taught that mechanism was a trick to defend materialism and naturalism, > where, as I try to explain, mechanism and materialism are at the antipodes > of each other. > > Then Gödel was too much a mathematical realist. He was a set realist, on > which I am rather neutral. With mechanism, finite set realism is assured, > but the axiom of infinity is probably inconsistent at the ontological > level. It would reintroduce too many “histories” and the white rabbits > would come back (not that we can be sure they are eliminated with > Mechanism, or even with the inferred quantum mechanics). > I found this quote by Godel regarding set realism. It seems he believed in sets because you need them to prove certain facts about the integers: "if mathematical objects are our creations, then evidently integers and sets of integers will have to be two different creations, the first of which does not necessitate the second. However, in order to prove certain propositions about integers, the concept of set of integers is necessary. So here, in order to find out what properties *we* have given to certain objects of our imagination, [[we]] must first create certain other objects--a very strange situation indeed!" Does this require finite or infinite set theory? Is either compatible with mechanism? Jason > Gödel, like all those at the origin of Mathematical Logic (Boole, de > Morgan, Peirce (the father)), was interested in theology, as illustrated by > his formalisation of the Ontological Argument. Smullyan too. But, as Cohen > explained, the theological motivation of mathematical logic has been forced > to be hidden to permit the professionalisation of mathematics in the 18th > century. > > All sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in > any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act of faith. > > Each period of the human history where theology belonged to science have > been enlightened, peaceful and prosperous. When theology is done with the > scientific attitude, nobody agrees except on the necessity of research and > dialogs. Once God is given a literal name, we get the lies, the war, the > poverty. We get the feeling of superiority and inferiority, and the humans > stop to recognise themselves in the others, leading to paranoïa and > hysteria. > > It is important, and unclear from the quite of Gödel, if he realised that > when theology is back to science, we are just able to admit our ignorance, > and become modest in the field. It is the claim of truth which is fatal in > science and even more so in the fundamental science. Bringing back theology > in science is equivalent to bringing back doubt, modesty, eventually even > moral. The problem is that by separating theology from science, many get a > wrong conception of science, like if it was truth by definition, when it is > only doubt by definition. The idea that science = truth is not science, but > scientism. > > Now, people want religion to be consolating, comforting, and based on > wishful thinking. Maybe the humans are still a long way from this. Lies > have their role too, both in arithmetic and in the human life. I am not > still sure how to open the mind to people so that they can accept our > ignorance. That requires some courage, I guess. > > The danger (for harmonious life) is not ignorance, but the ignorance of > ignorance. The attraction to complete knowledge, which simply cannot exist > (assuming mechanism, or our local finiteness). > > Bruno > > > > > > > -- > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A9392514-B072-47E7-899B-7CD2F07F0C8F%40ulb.ac.be > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A9392514-B072-47E7-899B-7CD2F07F0C8F%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjeSm-XcwHb1%2BXHStA-TWct1PSg0_-C2F3J%2BRaCom4PvA%40mail.gmail.com.
