> On 30 Apr 2018, at 19:52, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, >>>> and the truth we verify or prove in some theory. Of course, in “serious >>>> metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to >>>> believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just >>>> forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful >>>> and precise. >>> You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from the >>> truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to. >> >> Where? >> >> You might elaborate. I do not understand. > > The common example is belief in life-after-death, something believed on > faith, as all the evidence is against it, but all the hope is for it.
Mechanism, or even just with QM without collapse, provides more reason to doubt that death is a (first person) ending than the contrary. You need a primary matter (or a magical god) to sustain a mind-brain identity thesis allowing you to end from your first person view. And that is not hope, but more like terrifying thinking, especially that we survive the nearest place from where we die (in the eyes of the others in the normal history), making the idea of agony, especially when it is painful, even more frightening. As there is no evidence at all for primary matter, and strong evidences for mechanism, the ending conception of death, the “rest in peace” might be the wishful thinking. Things might be more subtle than naive materialism wants us to believe. > It was a common idea which Julian Jaynes provides one possible explanation. > Plato built a whole morality tale around it. Plato is vast. Which text are you referring too? > >> If someone believe anything because it is hope or wishful thinking, that is >> blind faith, and has few things to do with faith from evidence, usually >> based on adductive induction, which is reasonable by default, but prove >> nothing. As long as it works, it is the best option, but we have to remember >> that is a theory, a question. >> >> It is the separation of theology from science which makes some people >> believing that in science we can prove things about reality, but that is bad >> metaphysics. We can’t. We cannot even prove that there is a reality, that is >> what the greeks understood in the metaphysical/theological domain. And that >> is what the Churches of all kinds want us to forget. > I agree with that. But you seem to imply that there is a separate discipline > "theology" which can prove there is a reality Not at all. When theology is done with the scientific method, the notion of reality, and its nature, are interrogated, in the form of theoretical hypothesis, like materialism, deisme, or the sober Pythagorean arithmeticalism (close to the theology of the universal machine), This is done in a precise way so that the assumption can be debunked, refuted, and at the least, freely discussed around a table and a black board. The problem is that the God/non-God debate hides the original questions and insight: the material reality might be only an appearance growing from a simpler reality. That was the debate among the early theologians and spiritual inquirers. Unfortunately, that debate has been made impossible by the persecution and banishing of all -thinkers in that domain, and, as I have lived, still today, a non negligeable part of the academicians can just not accept the idea that physics is not the fundamental science (actually the physicists are the more open minded here: the opposition comes mainly from non-physicists, and especially materialist philosophers). We have just not the right to doubt primary matter, despite today we have not yet find any evidence for it. Of course, the knocking table argument is how some philosophers, like Aristotle, identify the matter that we see with the primary matter. But that cannot work with mechanism, which has been used by materialist to eliminate the mind-body problem, when it can only be used to formulate it. To grasp this, people must be familiarised with the original discovery of the notion of computability by mathematicians, and which does not rely on any material or physical ontological commitment. > and tell us about it. Yet theologians have been nothing but muddled armchair > philosophers supporting the political power of organized religions. That is unfair. Most who have resisted the authoritarians have been burned alive or persecuted in one way or another. You forget that theology has not yet come back to science since 1500 years. What you call theologian has few things to do with the scientific method, although many are not failed like Trouillard or Valadier in France, but they got problem with the Vatican, which acts like all dictatorship act: by excommunicating those who criticise the authority. I have to go, Bruno > > 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.
