Lennart:
I would be reluctant to choose the "most absurd
statement so far".
IMO an atheist is just denying 'god' (hence the
ref. to 'theos').
Faith (any), however, is needed in what we call
'science' in our reductionist glossary, to believe axioms, quantities,
explanations of instrumental needle-movements, words from the ancient, the
wisdom taught at college, the 'applied math' one scribbles, etc.,
A (religiously?) 'agnostic' is usually
meant as a believer (faithful) who has doubts and is not clear "what" to
believe.
I would be in trouble to find a better word e.g.
for my stance, a worldview without accepting hearsay (both religious fables and
'scientific' marvels: givens, axioms, universality of human logic, etc.)
choosing rather a "scientific agnosticism" positing that we
will NEVER achieve a clear knowledge with our impediments of the human mind.
I agree with Bruno's denial of 'fundamental
sciences' (below) with a reversal: all those domains are extracted models of the
totality (who knows what that may be?) in topical boundaries. So I would
call none of them 'fundamental'. I agree: they are imprecise, because all
disregard (mostly) the "beyond boundary" impact as 'out of observation'
noise.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From:
Lennart
Nilsson
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:15
AM
Subject: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An
alternative to a timless Platonia
To
be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i
nature.
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno MarchalSkickat: den 5 oktober 2006
17:07Till: everything-list@googlegroups.comÄmne: Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An
alternative to a timless Platonia
Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart
Nilsson a écrit :
Only
atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong,
but because their belief in "nature" is shown to need an act of faith (and
atheists hate the very notion of faith).BrunoThat
is the most absurd statement so far
Unless you are confusing
atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should explain why you find this
absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that the "modest scientist"
should not take "nature" for granted. Of course by nature, I
mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something primitive, i.e. which
is at the root of everything else. This does not
necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the
interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that
physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of physical
theories.And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the
fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology, theology,
number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite name, they are all
imprecise
enough.Brunohttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You
received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this
group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date:
10/03/06
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
