On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
No it doesn't. First, "theory" has a different origin from
"theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
From
Wikipedia:
Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
Right. For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
Yes, I agree. Although it wasn't just Christianity. All organized
religions are developed as instruments of social control.
You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
Science can help
relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
distilled wisdom of our ancestors.
Originally they
were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
social oversight. When city-states and regional civilizations like the
Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
and even became a god on his death. The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
agents acting in different capacities in the world. The Romans, in their
conquests, just let local religions keep their gods. But Judaism had a
mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".
The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
believes that people should be geographically organized according to
the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
social construct.
And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free
press. So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is
just to choose sides?
Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"? Have you visited the replica of
Noah's Ark in Kentucky? Is ISIS led by "modern persons".
You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.
A religious myth is only useful in providing comfort, meaning, and order
if most people subscribe to it.
As Seneca the
younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...
Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a sin
worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.
Yes.
But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.
He is pretty upfront about that.
No he's not. He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's original
"true" meaning.
Yes, he states that the original meaning is the correct one. I don't
see how you say that he is not clear on that.
Yes, he clearly states it. But usage is the standard for language, not
usage millenia ago.
If he's
just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics. But he likes to
take
subtle pokes at atheists.
We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly
stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern
atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have
no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue.
"Modern atheism" adds that it's wrong and dangerous to believe silly
stories, however comforting they may seem. That belief should always be
provisional and proportioned to the evidence.
Yes, and this is a childish view of things. Like all ideologies, it
proposes that there is a simple solution that would make the world a
better place, if only everyone accepted it.
You think it is childish to think people should proportion their belief
to the evidence?
Stories are the tool with
which Homo Sapiens built civilization. Civilization would not be
possible without these stories. This is still true today.
Corporations, countries, the financial system, these are all stories.
Their existence depends 100% in our shared belief in them. Unlike
trees and the sky, that are still there even if we collectively stop
believing them. But the stories have the power to cut down the trees
and pollute the sky.
You've taken the metaphor of stories and pushed it to encompass
everything. As Muriel Ruckyser, who wrote a very nice biography of
Josiah Willard Gibbs, said, "The world is made of stories, not atoms."
But this should not be allowed to obfuscate the fact that some stories
are more factual than others, some are inventions that improve our
lives, some are conventions, some are comforting, and some are
controlling. Just because insurance and racism are both stories,
doesn't make them equivalent.
Militant atheists seem to think that we can all become Vulkans. Even
Vulkans could not be Vulkans if they depended on reproduction. If you
are a good parent you love your children unconditionally, and don't
give a shit about evidence.
That's confused. Values are not objective facts and nobody (including
militant atheists) thinks they are. Values, like loving your children,
are inherently subjective.
And evidence can only be appraised 100%
objectively for the extreme and trivial cases. Of course Christ did
not raise from the dead. Of course there was no Noah'a Ark. Of course
Persephone did not descend into the underworld. Not literally, at
least. Once things get messy (e.g. nutrition) you just accept a story
and hope for the best.
Do you think that's what the Germans were doing in 1935?
Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism,
but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even
though it entials and infinity of beliefs.
I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, and I
agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter.
More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say,
I agree, and I've learned some modal logic from Bruno. But I wonder why his
ideas don't get wider discussion. I think he should apply for a Templeton
grant (they'd love him) and speak at the conferences they sponsor as well as
some of the AI conferences.
I think that the currently dominant stories create an unfavorable
environment for Bruno's ideas. Maybe later, but probably not in our
lifetimes.
Do you disagree that Templeton would be happy to fund him and give him a
bigger forum?
Brent
Also it takes a lot of effort to follow him, and even academia is now
dominated by protestant work ethic to such a degree that there is not
time for deep thought or things that are not seen as immediately
"useful".
Telmo.
Brent
unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other
people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think
you are one of the bullies.
Telmo.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
