On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
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.
More like a master and slave - until the slaves revolted. Honen is a professor of
philosophy and theology who specializes in commenting on theologians of the middle ages:
Marilius, Boethius, and Albert Magnus. Although Bruno (not Marchal) was burned at the
stake and Galileo was put under house arrest, science was allowed as a servant of the
church up until the Victorian era. Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were dominated by theology. And
the real break came with Darwin. To say they developed like brother and sister is to
suppose theology developed. While science has advance enormously in scope and accuracy,
theologians now do no better than in the 13th century.
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.
There are Christian parties, Zionist parties, and Muslim parties and Tea parties, but
there is no science party. So it's pretty clear who is interested in power and who in
knowledge.
Brent
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.
