> On 27 Apr 2020, at 14:36, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Apr 2020, at 06:53, Samiya Illias <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > wrote: > > > > If the All-Mighty God accepts me in The Kingdom of The Hereafter, I trust > > He will explain to us our roles, responsibilities, perks and privileges. > > OK. > > No it is not OK. Religion is based on the idea that truth is handed down by a > divine authority.
It comes from the insight of the greeks that Truth is an authority we better should not hide, even if we cannot define it. It is related to the fact that you cannot put your hand in the fire, and relativise what is happening. > Religion claims to have the ultimate truth, or THE TRUTH, Only when a tyran steal the domain to those who can remain serious and modest on the complex foundational issues. Dont confuse god, the object of theological study, and god, the object of naïve popular fairy tales, especially when it is mixed with state and politics. (The genuine blasphemy). Yes, I know that we have to backtrack about 1500 years to find serious studies, but if you study the history of religion, you can understand that serious theologian have continue to exist, although usually hiding their theories, or presenting them in a way so that they are not immediately send at stake. > and we are supposed to wait patiently for a great day of revelation. Religion has something to do with personal experience, which are usually forbidden once the religion is stolen by politics, let us say. > For most of us this will come after death, where if we have done all the > right things, according to various scriptures, Of course in science there is no scripture, except papers and treatises. > we will come to know the ultimate Truth and live in eternal bliss. Of course those terms must be defined before we conclude anything, and such a conclusion would only be conditional on some theory. For example, if we assume mechanism, we cannot assume consistently materialism. (That is not entirely obvious, but I got this in the 1970s, at a time where most people told me that this was not original, and indeed that was understood by the greeks already). > For those who are errant they get to spend eternity in a pit of endless fire > where they suffer until the end of time --- but somehow this God still loves > us. That god is omniscient and omnipotent, which is logically impossible. Since St-Thomas, even the (educated) christians does not take any of this literally. I am aware that American Evangelist does, or at least fall they do, but apparently it is used only for making the people offering planes and money to the boss. The con-artistry is just obvious. You can use such argument to defeat the literalist. Scared-text literalism is only a tool for propagating atheism. > > I don't know about anyone else, but I call this a big hustle. These religions > were schemes concocted by various religious and political con-men as a way > people could be controlled and society choreographed according to the wishes > of an ecclesiastical class. Absolutely. That is why I insist that theology comes back at the academy, where doubts, critics, alternate theories, and research are encouraged. > Both Christianity and Islam suffer from this problem, they are huge > social-psychological cons played against people, and where these schemes have > a lot of staying power. They are sorts of neural-brain memes that lodges > themselves in minds and are difficult to remove. Like all propaganda. It is to theology what astrology is to astronomy. > > I read a translation of the Koran after 9/11. I would say my general comment > is that if this were first published now, with crisp new copies available at > bookstores and Amazon, the reviewers would be calling it the screed of a > complete lunatic. What is lunatic is to read such text like if there were scientific attempt to understand things. Before Al Ghazali, many muslims were quite open to this, and that is why they decide to come back to the greeks and translated their text, leading to science, but they will not benefit from it, as the dark mixing with power will come back and prevail. > The Mecca Koran, which is thought to have been written when Muhammed was in > Mecca with his few followers, is relatively inoffensive and reads a bit like > Psalms or Proverbs. The second Medina Koran was allegedly written after they > got their butts kicked out of Mecca, and this part is pure insanity. OK. > > We really should be done with these silly things. It is easy. Let us stop claim that science has solved the ontological problem, like materialist do (believer in primary mater). > These are based on mythic narratives concerning ideas from the ancient world. That is not entirely true. Hypatia taught mathematics and theology in Alexandria, still around 300/400. But we can see the radicals taking position, and she will be murdered by them. You just cannot compare Plotinus and Proclus to the reading of any sacred-fairy tales book. Those scared text are honorable witnessing of the past, but no-one would claim they even address the problem. > They may have made sense then, but really some education and thought should > indicate how utterly ineffective monotheist religion is as telling us > anything really meaningful or useful. Monotheism is the religion view of monism. At least Einstein was aware of that, and explained that without it, he would not even have searched for a his general relativity theory. Monotheism is the grandmother of the theory of of everything, or of the insight we should unify our knowledge in a coherent way. The theism aspect is in the modesty, which enforces a constant listening to a ll arguments, even the most critical, especially the most critical (unless refuted of course). > It is a load of nonsense. We do not sit with slack jaw waiting for some great > Santa Claus or fairy godmother to come and reveal ALL to us. Instead we > think, observe, measure, rethink and … , repeat, in order to know what is > truthful within the limits and tentative certitude of science. There is no certitude in science. Just hypotheses/theories and degrees of plausibility. It does not matter so much in applied natural science, but it matters a lot in applied fundamental science, notably by understanding that in religion only the con men claims some truth. By leaving theology in the fairy tale literature, we give power to the tyran and to argument of authority in religion, but also we make science looking like if it was an alternative to religion, that is, we make science itself into a pseudo-religion. That separates eventually the whole human science from exact science, and that makes them both inhuman and inexact. The problem is not God. The problem is that some people conclude that God does not exist when they find a contradiction in some theory of God. That would be like a scientists along that Earth does not exist, because the idea of infinitely many turtles does not make sense. In science we very rarely abandon a concept. We just improve it through new theory. I the greek theology, the starting God was the natural numbers, then the world of ideas, and then Aristotle added a physical primary universe. Today, se know or should know that such a primary physical universe is contradicted by Mechanism (even with just the amount of mechanism necessitate to make sense of Darwin). Here the problem is that those who claim to not have a religion appears to believe in Aristotle theology, the belief in a primary physical universe. This, as I have explained here, is just not working at all, unless you eliminate consciousness from the picture. Unfortunately, there are still many people who are confusing the strong evidences for the physical laws with evidences for a primary physical universe, or for physicalism. That’s just wrong. That confuses physics and metaphysics. That is Aristotle act of faith in his metaphysics, and a sort of anti-platonic provocation, and misunderstanding. Of course people love it, as they love ontological commitments, as it seems reassuring I guess, but that is the kind of pseudo-religious wishful thinking that is not tolerated when we work with the scientific attitude. We will leave the Middle-Age when theology is back, probably as an option in advanced mathematical logic and computer science (even non-mechanist position can be get more precise ny making precise the digital mechanist position. We know that the modal logic G and G* remains sound, but some can lose completeness, like “being true in all *transitive* models of ZF”. (Being true in *all* models of ZF is just provability for which G and G* are complete in their respective roles). Bruno > > LC > > > > He didn’t create this world without purpose, > > > So let us search the purpose, and try theories. The notion of purpose is not > an easy notion. > > > > > I’m sure there is a greater purpose to our eternal life! > > > So let us do the research work, as this is not obvious, although a pleasant > idea (but that is reason to be careful on this, especially when we are still > on the terrestrial plane, where modesty is not so much an option). > > When you assume a greater purpose you need to take into account that some > people will borrow an ersatz greater purpose for terrestrial use, and that > this can eventually hide for long the genuine higher purpose of the higher > self. The machine already understand that some (religious) truth go only > without saying. > > Those who trust the great Goddess leaves the advertising to Her.The genuine > mystic stays mute, or propose some theory and reason conditionally. > > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com > > > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. > > > > <image0.jpeg> > > > > > > > >> On 23-Apr-2020, at 6:05 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > >> > >> So, if you have pleased, the All-Mighty, and are ushered in to Janah, and > >> you are given permission, what would you do for your first year there? > > > > -- > > 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] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com > > > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. > > > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1964D16E-588C-4EFA-8B4B-40B7B2411F00%40ulb.ac.be.
