On 05.05.2012 20:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Collingwood (as Prof Hoenen has told) one can find a
reason in Christianity. First, it is monotheism and this is quite
important to infer inexorable scientific laws. Second trinity. For
example Islam is also based on monotheism but it does not have trinity.
So logic and unified laws are important, but so is believing in
logically contradictory things like the Trinity!? Newton never believed
in the trinity - and I doubt anyone else ever did either since believing
in a contradictory proposition can be no more than paying lip service to
it.
I have also always thought that trinity is completely illogical. I guess
that even now I do not see the logic. Yet, the claim is that it is
somehow allows us to take intelligibility for granted.
Do you know another reason to believe in intelligibility?
I am no an expert on Newton, but I would say that he did believe in
trinity. According to Prof Hoenen, the logic of trinity was at that time
basically in the blood. He gave several examples including even Marx.
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic in Marx's Capital is the same as the
logic of trinity.
I should say that I am bad with trinity (I have to learn more about it
yet) so I will just repeat what I have heard. Science needs a belief
in the inexorable scientific laws but also another belief is
important, that is, we are able to learn the scientific laws (the
intelligibility of the world). The neuron spikes not only obey physics
but then can also comprehend it. Somehow the trinity brings us the
intelligibility of the world (and hence may help us to understand the
trick that allows the neurons to comprehend physics).
Sounds like Collingwood is just a Christian apologist. If it had not
been for the rise of Christianity when Rome fell the thread of Greek and
Roman science might have carried forward and the dark ages might have
been avoided. Christianity probably delayed the renaissance and the
enlightenment by a thousand years.
I guess that the reason for the fall of Rome was not Christianity. By
the way, there is a nice book
Lucio Russo. The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC
and Why it Had to Be Reborn
where the author claim that there was another scientific revolution
indeed. Yet, Rome was the reason for its fall. Lucio Russo says that
Rome as such was not interested in scientific revolution.
Let me repeat however what Collingwood has presumably done. His goal was
to find absolute presuppositions related to the statement God exists. I
have to read the book but I expect from lectures of Prof Hoenen that
this was a normal logical analysis. One takes some assumptions and then
gets results accordingly. Then Collingwood has analyzed science and its
absolute presuppositions. It might be that his analysis was biased, I do
not know. I have to read the book.
Evgenii
--
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.
