Le 05-oct.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
> To be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i ”nature”.
Fair enough.
My "confusion" (it is still debatable) comes from the fact that I have
never met a "real" atheist (as opposed to an agnostic who believes to
be an atheist) who does not take the primitivity of "matter" for
granted. If you have references I am very interested. Most atheist I
read are ardent defender of materialism, up to the point of being often
"eliminativist", "consciousness" would be an illusion (a statement
which I have never understand). I am sensible on this point because
such hard materialism negates the first person existence, and in europa
we know where such philosophies can lead.
Now, if you are open to an "objective idealist atheism", then I am open
to the idea that comp could be the most atheist doctrine: it denies the
Nature-God. But I think this could be very confusing, if only because,
as the "yes doctor" problem illustrates, comp needs a sort of act of
faith by itself (in technology, in numbers, ...).
And the comp reasoning guaranties that such an act of faith is not
blind, it does not kill the doubt. Actually I should perhaps not use
the word "faith" which could be a sort of "false friend" (not exactly
the same meaning in french and english, or worst, not the same meaning
according to your most fundamental beliefs).
Bruno
>
>
> Från: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> [mailto:everything-list.domain.name.hidden] För Bruno Marchal
> Skickat: den 5 oktober 2006 17:07
> Till: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Ämne: Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia
>
>
>
> Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
>
> Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not
> because they would be wrong, but because their belief in "nature" is
> shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of
> faith).
>
> Bruno
>
> That is the most absurd statement so far…
>
>
> Unless you are confusing atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should
> explain why you find this absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that
> the "modest scientist" should not take "nature" for granted. Of course
> by nature, I mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something
> primitive, i.e. which is at the root of everything else. This does not
> necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the
> interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that
> physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of
> physical theories.
> And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the
> fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology,
> theology, number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite
> name, they are all imprecise enough.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Oct 05 2006 - 11:37:50 PDT