On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
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.
?? Which is to say murky, ambiguous, and contradictory? I think Marx is
a lot clearer than the trinity.
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
...
I guess that the reason for the fall of Rome was not Christianity. By
the way, there is a nice book
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized
Christianity and Christianity like any dogmatic religion is in conflict
with the skeptical, inquiring, testing nature of science. When the
reformation broke the intellectual monopoly of the Church, science
flowered and for a time it was regarded as an adjunct to theology:
discovering the creator through nature. But that only lasted up till
Darwin.
I am afraid that the conflict between Christianity and science that you
describe is not consistent with historical facts. According to Prof
Hoenen, who is an expert on Middle Age, science and theology has been
developed rather like a brother and a sister. No doubt, that one can
observe a fight for the power between different intellectual groups
(this happens between relatives as well) but this is quite different
from what your are talking.
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.
What's his definition of God? Does he really mean "presuppositions", or
does he mean "entailments". I wouldn't think you'd need any
presuppositions to simply assert, "God exists."
I expect that he means "presuppositions", as this is the main theme of
his 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.
