Re: Theology & deepities
On 19 Jun 2012, at 20:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.06.2012 09:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
..
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
I read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome, and still today. Theology comes from
I am not that sure. The Church was not uniform and there were many
different intellectual groups as usually fighting with each other.
Neo-platonists belonged just to one of such groups. Below there are
a couple of quotes from Soul of Science.
Well, if we talk about Giordano Bruno
"He argued that the Egyptian pantheism described in the hermetic
writings was superior to Christianity."
This was too much for Christians and Bruno was burned. Yet most
Christians as neo-platonists did not want to replace Christianity.
"Whereas the Christian Aristotelian tradition stressed God’s
rationality, the neo-Platonic tradition stressed His indwelling
spirit working in and through matter. A favorite metaphor was God as
an artisan—“the best and most orderly Artisan of all,” in the words of
Copernicus."
"Like Aristotelianism, neo-Platonism saw the world as an organism
but with a different emphasis: In explaining natural processes it
appealed not to rational Forms but to the creative power of
spiritual forces. These forces were often regarded as divine, or at
least as avenues of divine activity in the world."
"Neo-Platonism contained two somewhat distinct streams of thought.
One stream can be traced in astronomy; it contained a strong
Pythagorean element with a profound and even mystical respect for
mathematics. The other stream can be traced in medicine and early
chemistry; it focused on immanent, quasi-spiritual forces in nature
—“active principles,” as
they were called."
You will find in the Soul of Science many names of this tradition.
It might be interesting to read theological works in this respect.
I am OK with this. Not sure it changes my point though. But I was
simplifying for reason of definiteness. Christian have always kept a
neoplatonist tendencies, but never able to put doubt on primitive
matter. When you look at the detail, there are many nuances, even
between catholic and protestants.
Bruno
Evgenii
the Platonic idea that what we see, observe and measure, is not the
whole of reality, but the christians came back with the strong
emphasis on the material nature of the creation, and the
oversimplication and personification of the "creator".
Bruno
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 6/19/2012 11:38 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: As for Newtons arguments for God, please find below quotes from Soul of Science, p. 66-67. If you do not agree, you may want to read Newton's Principia and offer your own interpretation. Evgenii "The reason Newton felt free to avoid ultimate causes was, of course, that for him the ultimate cause was God. He viewed gravity as an active principle through which God Himself imposes order onto passive matter—as one of the avenues through which God exercises His immediate activity in creation. As Kaiser puts it, for Newton things like gravity “depended on God’s immediate presence and activity as much as the breathing of an organism depends on the life-principle within.” Like breathing, these active powers were regular and natural, and yet they could not be explained in purely mechanical terms." "A second way Newton found to “fit God in” was in his concept of absolute time and space. From the mathematician Isaac Barrow, Newton adopted the idea that time and space are expressions of God’s own eternity and omnipresence. Newton took God’s eternity to mean He is actually extended throughout all time — in his words, God’s “duration reaches from eternity to eternity.” He took God’s omnipresence to mean that He is extended throughout all space — His presence reaches “from infinity to infinity.” Therefore time must be eternal and space infinite.20 Physics textbooks often describe Newton’s concepts of absolute space and time as purely metaphysical without explaining that his motivation was primarily religious." "A third way Newton found a role for God in the world was as the source of its orderly structure. In the cosmic order, Newton saw evidence of intelligent design. “The main business” of science, he said, is to argue backward along the chain of mechanical causes and effects “till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical.” Newton also regarded several specific characteristics of the world as inexplicable except as the work of a Creator. “Was the eye contrived without skill in optics,” he asked, “or the ear without knowledge of sounds?”" "A fourth way Newton found a role for God was by assuming that the universe needs God’s intervention from time to time to stabilize it. For example, the orbits of the planets exhibit irregularities when they pass close to other planets or to comets. Newton feared that over time these fluctuations would accumulate and cause chaos, and the solar system would collapse. Therefore, he argued, God must step in periodically and set things right again. If the universe is a clock, then it is a clock that on occasion needs to be repaired and rebuilt." I note that Newton is described as "finding a role for God", which I think is correct. Newton took his scientific discoveries and found a way to fit God into them, to give God something to do, gaps to fill. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 19.06.2012 09:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
..
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
I read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome, and still today. Theology comes from
I am not that sure. The Church was not uniform and there were many
different intellectual groups as usually fighting with each other.
Neo-platonists belonged just to one of such groups. Below there are a
couple of quotes from Soul of Science.
Well, if we talk about Giordano Bruno
"He argued that the Egyptian pantheism described in the hermetic
writings was superior to Christianity."
This was too much for Christians and Bruno was burned. Yet most
Christians as neo-platonists did not want to replace Christianity.
"Whereas the Christian Aristotelian tradition stressed God’s
rationality, the neo-Platonic tradition stressed His indwelling spirit
working in and through matter. A favorite metaphor was God as an
artisan—“the best and most orderly Artisan of all,” in the words of
Copernicus."
"Like Aristotelianism, neo-Platonism saw the world as an organism but
with a different emphasis: In explaining natural processes it appealed
not to rational Forms but to the creative power of spiritual forces.
These forces were often regarded as divine, or at least as avenues of
divine activity in the world."
"Neo-Platonism contained two somewhat distinct streams of thought. One
stream can be traced in astronomy; it contained a strong Pythagorean
element with a profound and even mystical respect for mathematics. The
other stream can be traced in medicine and early chemistry; it focused
on immanent, quasi-spiritual forces in nature—“active principles,” as
they were called."
You will find in the Soul of Science many names of this tradition. It
might be interesting to read theological works in this respect.
Evgenii
the Platonic idea that what we see, observe and measure, is not the
whole of reality, but the christians came back with the strong
emphasis on the material nature of the creation, and the
oversimplication and personification of the "creator".
Bruno
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 18.06.2012 23:53 meekerdb said the following: On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books. But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with *unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and *was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas. This would be a goal of historical research to find it out. But the quote you posted asserted that such a meaning was already known: "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." Collingwood has written this statement according to the historical research available at his time. In his lectures, Maarten Hoenen who is an expert in middle ages, says similar things. You may assume that both of them are apologetic but then you should find other historians and see what they say. You may also read originals texts and offer your own interpretation. The point however that the interpretation should be based on the texts that had been written at those times. For example a couple of quotes from Newton (according to Soul of Science) Newton, General Scholium "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; ... and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants." “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Now the quote from the book Soul of Science itself: "Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton’s Principia, wrote that the book 'will be the safest protection against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from this quiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless men.'" Hard to have been more wrong than that. I am not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean that this had not been written in the preface to the second edition of Newton’s Principia? From SEV http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/ "The second edition appeared in 1713, twenty six years after the first." "In addition to these, two changes were made that were more polemical than substantive: Newton added the General Scholium following Book 3 in the second edition, and his editor Roger Cotes provided a long anti-Cartesian (and anti-Leibnizian) Preface." It seems that quote from Soul of Science is the correct one. Note that this had happened when Newton was alive. As for Newtons arguments for God, please find below quotes from Soul of Science, p. 66-67. If you do not agree, you may want to read Newton's Principia and offer your own interpretation. Evgenii "The reason Newton felt free to avoid ultimate causes was, of course, that for him the ultimate cause was God. He viewed gravity as an active principle through which God Himself imposes order onto passive matter—as one of the avenues through which God exercises His immediate activity in creation. As Kaiser puts it, for Newton things like gravity “depended on God’s immediate presence and activity as much as the breathing of an organism depends on the life-principle within.” Like breathing, these active powers were regular and natural, and yet they could not be explained in purely mechanical terms." "A second way Newton found to “fit God in” was in his concept of absolute time and space. From the mathematician Isaac Barrow, Newton adopted the idea that time and space are expressions of God’s own eternity and omnipresence. Newton took God’s eternity to mean He is actually extended throughout all time — in his words, God’s “duration reaches from eternity to eternity.” He took God’s omnipresence to mean that He is extended throughout all space — His presence reaches “from infinity to infinity.” Therefore time must be eternal and space infinite.20 Physics textbooks often describe Newton’s concepts of absolute space and time as purely metaphysical without explaining that his motivation was primarily religious." "A third way Newton found a role for God in the world was as the source of its orderly structure. In the cosmic order, Newton saw evidence of intelligent design. “The main business” of science, he said, is to argue backward along the chain of mechanical causes and ef
Re: Theology & deepities
On 19 Jun 2012, at 16:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they
have expounded at considerable length." It doesn't sound
unanimous with with any theologians I've read.
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
You're saying that because I only read one kind of theologian I
don't see the unanimity that I would if I read different theologians??
Have you read Aldous Huxley "Philosophia perennis". There might be a
silencious unanimity because God has no Name, and it might go without
saying.
I read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist
have to hide their idea since Rome, and still today.
Because they are persecuted?? Or because they have not been able to
provide any useful results?
They have inspired research, and the search for truth.
Theology comes from the Platonic idea that what we see, observe and
measure, is not the whole of reality, but the christians came back
with the strong emphasis on the material nature of the creation,
and the oversimplication and personification of the "creator".
Hardly a Christian invention, since they borrowed it from the Jews
whose Yaweh was one of many tribal war gods.
You are right, the Christians took the Jewish Legend and the Greek
Theory, but unfortunately they got the authoritarian virus. The greek
were divided between WYSIWYG or NOT WYSIWYG. The questions remain.
Well, in the comp theory is it clearly NOT WYSIWYG. Things run deeper.
Bruno
http://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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 6/19/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at
considerable length." It doesn't sound unanimous with with any theologians I've read.
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
You're saying that because I only read one kind of theologian I don't see the unanimity
that I would if I read different theologians??
I read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms Newton neo-platonic
tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have to hide their idea since Rome, and
still today.
Because they are persecuted?? Or because they have not been able to provide any useful
results?
Theology comes from the Platonic idea that what we see, observe and measure, is not the
whole of reality, but the christians came back with the strong emphasis on the material
nature of the creation, and the oversimplication and personification of the "creator".
Hardly a Christian invention, since they borrowed it from the Jews whose Yaweh was one of
many tribal war gods.
Brent
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:53:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: responding to Evgenii > > > >b) I believe in the M-theory? > > M-theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not. In fact it > doesn't care about you or anything else. > What does this even mean? M-theory is consistent? That M-theory is a good description of reality? That reality is isomorphic to M-theory? That reality is M-theory (channelling Tegmark here). My gut feeling is that most physicists would plump for the second option, and remain agnostic on the rest. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 18 Jun 2012, at 23:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have
followed theological books.
But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with
*unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some
theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and
*was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many
contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas.
This would be a goal of historical research to find it out.
But the quote you posted asserted that such a meaning was already
known: "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the
meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition
'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached
to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with
some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable
length."
For example a couple of quotes from Newton (according to Soul of
Science)
Newton, General Scholium "This Being governs all things, not as the
soul of the world, but as Lord over all; ... and Deity is the
dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy
God to be the soul of the world, but over servants."
“this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being.”
Now the quote from the book Soul of Science itself:
"Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton’s
Principia, wrote that the book 'will be the safest protection
against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from
this quiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless
men.'"
Hard to have been more wrong than that.
No doubt, the historical research can offer different
interpretations. Another quote from Soul of Science
"In recent years much scholarly ink has been spilled in attempts to
pin down his philosophical orientation. Keynes studied Newton’s
manuscripts and concluded that, in contrast to the standard
conception, Newton stood within the neo-Platonic tradition with its
fascination for symbols and magic. 'Why do I call him a magician?'
Keynes
asks.
'Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a
riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to
certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the
world. ... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the
Almighty.'
Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have
expounded at considerable length." It doesn't sound unanimous with
with any theologians I've read.
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians. I
read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome, and still today. Theology comes from
the Platonic idea that what we see, observe and measure, is not the
whole of reality, but the christians came back with the strong
emphasis on the material nature of the creation, and the
oversimplication and personification of the "creator".
Bruno
'Newton was not the first of the age of reason,' Keynes concludes.
'He was the last of the magicians.'"
Hence when you think of Newton you indeed have a choice. It might
be a good idea to read Newton directly, then you may have a better
idea what was his reason to call in God and offer your own
interpretation.
Evgenii
P.S. I have finished listening to Hawking's (I hope that I have got
his name right this time) Grand Design. What is the difference
between
a) I believe in God
and
b) I believe in the M-theory?
M-theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not. In fact it
doesn't care about you or anything else.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books. But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with *unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and *was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas. This would be a goal of historical research to find it out. But the quote you posted asserted that such a meaning was already known: "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." For example a couple of quotes from Newton (according to Soul of Science) Newton, General Scholium "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; ... and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants." “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Now the quote from the book Soul of Science itself: "Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton’s Principia, wrote that the book 'will be the safest protection against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from this quiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless men.'" Hard to have been more wrong than that. No doubt, the historical research can offer different interpretations. Another quote from Soul of Science "In recent years much scholarly ink has been spilled in attempts to pin down his philosophical orientation. Keynes studied Newton’s manuscripts and concluded that, in contrast to the standard conception, Newton stood within the neo-Platonic tradition with its fascination for symbols and magic. 'Why do I call him a magician?' Keynes asks. 'Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world. ... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.' Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." It doesn't sound unanimous with with any theologians I've read. 'Newton was not the first of the age of reason,' Keynes concludes. 'He was the last of the magicians.'" Hence when you think of Newton you indeed have a choice. It might be a good idea to read Newton directly, then you may have a better idea what was his reason to call in God and offer your own interpretation. Evgenii P.S. I have finished listening to Hawking's (I hope that I have got his name right this time) Grand Design. What is the difference between a) I believe in God and b) I believe in the M-theory? M-theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not. In fact it doesn't care about you or anything else. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books. But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with *unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and *was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas. This would be a goal of historical research to find it out. For example a couple of quotes from Newton (according to Soul of Science) Newton, General Scholium "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; ... and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants." “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Now the quote from the book Soul of Science itself: "Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton’s Principia, wrote that the book 'will be the safest protection against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from this quiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless men.'" No doubt, the historical research can offer different interpretations. Another quote from Soul of Science "In recent years much scholarly ink has been spilled in attempts to pin down his philosophical orientation. Keynes studied Newton’s manuscripts and concluded that, in contrast to the standard conception, Newton stood within the neo-Platonic tradition with its fascination for symbols and magic. 'Why do I call him a magician?' Keynes asks. 'Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world. ... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.' 'Newton was not the first of the age of reason,' Keynes concludes. 'He was the last of the magicians.'" Hence when you think of Newton you indeed have a choice. It might be a good idea to read Newton directly, then you may have a better idea what was his reason to call in God and offer your own interpretation. Evgenii P.S. I have finished listening to Hawking's (I hope that I have got his name right this time) Grand Design. What is the difference between a) I believe in God and b) I believe in the M-theory? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books. But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with *unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and *was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 17 Jun 2012, at 17:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Note that you will find Kurt Goedel among the authors of ontological arguments on the page above. Somebody mentioned the exact same thing a few months ago and this is what I had to say about it: That was in Godel's later years when he went off the rails and thought he had a rock solid logical proof for the existence of God, fortunately even at his worst he retained enough sanity to know he should not publish the thing. This is not correct. Gôdel makes this in his normal mind, and his purpose as to convince (himself) that we can do theology "analytically". He did not intent publication indeed. We can criticize his definition of God (St Anselmus' one, formalized in the modal logic S5), but his proof is valid. Gödel, actually nobody, never claims this proved the existence of God. That it is interesting or not for theology is debatable. Gödel did defend the point I often make: theology can be done scientifically/analytically/axiomatically. In fact I don't believe that some field are more serious than other. Some people can be more serious than other in any field. For historical reason, some field are still culturally influenced by authoritarian powers, and that is a reason to encourage rigor there so as freeing us from authoritarianism. Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle; nevertheless he was always a very odd man and he got odder as he got older. He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly, he wore heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he thought the cold was deadly too, and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting lots of cheap plastic flamingos on his front lawn. He ended up starving himself to death, he refused to eat because he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to poison him. The great logician weighed 65 pounds when he died in 1978 from, according to the death certificate, lack of food brought on by paranoia. A lot of death are not easy. Bruno http://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Note that you will find Kurt Goedel among the authors of ontological > arguments on the page above. Somebody mentioned the exact same thing a few months ago and this is what I had to say about it: That was in Godel's later years when he went off the rails and thought he had a rock solid logical proof for the existence of God, fortunately even at his worst he retained enough sanity to know he should not publish the thing. Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle; nevertheless he was always a very odd man and he got odder as he got older. He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly, he wore heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he thought the cold was deadly too, and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting lots of cheap plastic flamingos on his front lawn. He ended up starving himself to death, he refused to eat because he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to poison him. The great logician weighed 65 pounds when he died in 1978 from, according to the death certificate, lack of food brought on by paranoia. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 13.06.2012 18:24 meekerdb said the following: On 6/13/2012 1:57 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following: Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer the questions put forward. http://choiceindying.com/2012/06/12/is-religion-just-a-matter-of-deepities-or-something-more/. I have just finished reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. A couple of quotes from Chapter XVIII "The Proposition 'God Exists'". p. 185. "In the last chapter but one I had occasion to comment on the way in which a 'logical positivist', wishing to recommend the doctrine that 'metaphysical propositions' not being verifiable by appeal to observed fact are pseudo-propositions and meaningless, quoted as examples propositions about God, such as the proposition 'God exists'. To him the proposition 'God exists' would seem to mean that there is a being more or less like human beings in respect of his mental powers and dispositions, but having the mental powers of a human being greatly, perhaps infinitely, magnified". It not only 'seems' to mean this, it does mean this to 99% of believers. I guess that we talk about educated people. To this end, one example that I like. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ "In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of 'a being than which no greater can be conceived'." In my view 'a being than which no greater can be conceived' is a nice piece of thinking. I do not mean that it proves something but for 11th. century A.D. it is not that bad. Note that you will find Kurt Goedel among the authors of ontological arguments on the page above. p. 186. "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books. p. 187. "If the proposition that God exists is a metaphysical proposition it must be understood as carrying with it the metaphysical rubric; and as so understood what it asserts is that as a matter of historical fact a certain absolute presupposition, to be hereafter defined, is or has been made by natural science (the reader will bear in mind my limitation of the field) at a certain phase of its history. It further implies that owing to the presence of this presupposition that phase in the history of natural science has or had a unique character of its own, serving to the historical student as evidence that the presupposition is or was made. The question therefore arises: What difference does it make to the conduct of research in natural science whether scientists do or not do not presuppose the existence of God?" Then Collingwood shows that the metaphysical proposition 'God Exists' has played the crucial role in the foundations of classical physics. It seems to be a historical fact. I seems to be an apologist interpretation. To say 'God exists' played a *crucial* role, is ambiguous. Does Collingwood imply science could not have developed without a supposition that there is a 'Big Guy in the Sky', or has he just redefined theism so that it is metaphysically important to science? Or has he just taken the residue of theism after it's reduction by science, from 'The Big Guy in the Sky' to 'The Ground of All Being'. I should confess that in Collingwood's book there are some apologetic statements, for example Chapter XIII Propaganda of Irrationalism have not impressed me. Yet, the statement above is just a historical fact. You may want to browse for example http://www.lambsound.com/Reading/books/Christian_Faith_and_Natural_Philosophy.pdf The book is partly apologetic but otherwise it is a nice review of recent historical works. One quote to show that although the authors of the book use historical results, they do not completely agree with historians (this is a sign that historians have not been paid be the Church) "But the new approach harbors its own dangers. Historical sensitivity may give way to historical relativism, in which all cultures and beliefs are regarded as equally true or valid. When that happens, the study of history merges into historicism - the belief that there is no transhistorical truth and that all knowledge is caught up in a continual process of historical change. Many scholars in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science today in fact display a marked tendency toward historicism. They dismiss the idea that science is a search for truth and instead reduce scie
Re: Theology & deepities
On 6/13/2012 1:57 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following: Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer the questions put forward. http://choiceindying.com/2012/06/12/is-religion-just-a-matter-of-deepities-or-something-more/. I have just finished reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. A couple of quotes from Chapter XVIII "The Proposition 'God Exists'". p. 185. "In the last chapter but one I had occasion to comment on the way in which a 'logical positivist', wishing to recommend the doctrine that 'metaphysical propositions' not being verifiable by appeal to observed fact are pseudo-propositions and meaningless, quoted as examples propositions about God, such as the proposition 'God exists'. To him the proposition 'God exists' would seem to mean that there is a being more or less like human beings in respect of his mental powers and dispositions, but having the mental powers of a human being greatly, perhaps infinitely, magnified". It not only 'seems' to mean this, it does mean this to 99% of believers. p. 186. "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it? p. 187. "If the proposition that God exists is a metaphysical proposition it must be understood as carrying with it the metaphysical rubric; and as so understood what it asserts is that as a matter of historical fact a certain absolute presupposition, to be hereafter defined, is or has been made by natural science (the reader will bear in mind my limitation of the field) at a certain phase of its history. It further implies that owing to the presence of this presupposition that phase in the history of natural science has or had a unique character of its own, serving to the historical student as evidence that the presupposition is or was made. The question therefore arises: What difference does it make to the conduct of research in natural science whether scientists do or not do not presuppose the existence of God?" Then Collingwood shows that the metaphysical proposition 'God Exists' has played the crucial role in the foundations of classical physics. It seems to be a historical fact. I seems to be an apologist interpretation. To say 'God exists' played a *crucial* role, is ambiguous. Does Collingwood imply science could not have developed without a supposition that there is a 'Big Guy in the Sky', or has he just redefined theism so that it is metaphysically important to science? Or has he just taken the residue of theism after it's reduction by science, from 'The Big Guy in the Sky' to 'The Ground of All Being'. Brent I like the idea of bringing history into the consideration of such questions. This way helps to understand different opinions better. I have recently finished listening to The Beginning of Infinity and now I am listening to Grand Design. What strikes me at most is the bad knowledge of the history of science by authors of both books. They should have read Kepler, Galileo, Newton and other scientists of that time. In a way, this remind me Orwell's "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Evgenii P.S. Two questions to the discussion on free will raised by reading Collingwood. Does the Theory of Everything also explain the next two human artifacts? 1) The names of stars that have been given to them by astronomers. 2) The fact that British people like foots and inches and French meters and centimeters. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 12 Jun 2012, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer the questions put forward. http://choiceindying.com/2012/06/12/is-religion-just-a-matter-of-deepities-or-something-more/ . Brent OK. It is bit long, and I will send a post there soon or later, that I will communicate. It is interesting for it illustrates that people seems unaware that science and religion are inseparable. Thanks for the link. I will read it attentively next week. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Theology & deepities
On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following: Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer the questions put forward. http://choiceindying.com/2012/06/12/is-religion-just-a-matter-of-deepities-or-something-more/. I have just finished reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. A couple of quotes from Chapter XVIII "The Proposition 'God Exists'". p. 185. "In the last chapter but one I had occasion to comment on the way in which a 'logical positivist', wishing to recommend the doctrine that 'metaphysical propositions' not being verifiable by appeal to observed fact are pseudo-propositions and meaningless, quoted as examples propositions about God, such as the proposition 'God exists'. To him the proposition 'God exists' would seem to mean that there is a being more or less like human beings in respect of his mental powers and dispositions, but having the mental powers of a human being greatly, perhaps infinitely, magnified". p. 186. "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." p. 187. "If the proposition that God exists is a metaphysical proposition it must be understood as carrying with it the metaphysical rubric; and as so understood what it asserts is that as a matter of historical fact a certain absolute presupposition, to be hereafter defined, is or has been made by natural science (the reader will bear in mind my limitation of the field) at a certain phase of its history. It further implies that owing to the presence of this presupposition that phase in the history of natural science has or had a unique character of its own, serving to the historical student as evidence that the presupposition is or was made. The question therefore arises: What difference does it make to the conduct of research in natural science whether scientists do or not do not presuppose the existence of God?" Then Collingwood shows that the metaphysical proposition 'God Exists' has played the crucial role in the foundations of classical physics. It seems to be a historical fact. I like the idea of bringing history into the consideration of such questions. This way helps to understand different opinions better. I have recently finished listening to The Beginning of Infinity and now I am listening to Grand Design. What strikes me at most is the bad knowledge of the history of science by authors of both books. They should have read Kepler, Galileo, Newton and other scientists of that time. In a way, this remind me Orwell's "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Evgenii P.S. Two questions to the discussion on free will raised by reading Collingwood. Does the Theory of Everything also explain the next two human artifacts? 1) The names of stars that have been given to them by astronomers. 2) The fact that British people like foots and inches and French meters and centimeters. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
