Re: Believing ...

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:18:47 -0400

Thanks, Bruno,

The 'truth' was missing from my post.

there was a technical mistake: from my sentence as mailed:

> Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do
> not ' believe. What I
> find "logically not so repugnant -

one word disappeared in the mailing process. Originally I wrote:

> Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do
> not ' believe in T R U T H (that was in RED). - then came a new par:
. What I find "logically not so repugnant - etc. etc.

Maybe the red insert was not well accepted by the computer-god.
The reductionist dichotomy is semantic: I called 'science' (the reductionst)

the conventional historic 'gathering of information as humanity could'
and identified it earlier as a "model-view" of a boundaries-enclosed topical

cut out from the totality. Reductionist science (sic) observes events WITHIN

the topical boundaries and draws conclusions applied many times BEYOND
 them.(what I find false).
Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is rfeductionistic
in this sense.. I agree: "SCIENCE" should be as you identified it.


On 3/21/07, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> Le 21-mars-07, à 15:48, John M a écrit :
> > BRUNO:
> >
> > I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter.
> > Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few
> > exception.
> > Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly
> > believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research,
> > he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a
> > lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has
> > to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is "just" a pagan notion of
> > god.
> >
> > Bruno
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > I cannot offer myself as the example you missed so far, because - as I
> > explained - I do not consider myself conform to MY definition of an
> > atheist.
> > Theists do beluieve in primitive matter, created by their God. The
> > previous Pope even undersigned to the Big Bang (some version).
> > *
> > Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do
> > not ' believe. What I
> > find "logically not so repugnant - as either the reductionist science
> > fables" nor the religious hearsay - is a 'story' and I call itmy
> > "NARRATIVE" to just speak about an origination of our world and
> > uncountable others in a less nausiating way.
> > And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR
> > mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information.
> > Not sitting as an old man oncloud.
> >
> > John M
> >
> OK then, except that I think that you confuse "science" and "scientism
> or fake science". I just don't see how "science" can be reductionist.
> Science is "opening the eyes and doubting what we see".
> When a scientist thinks he knows the truth (or acts like he/she was
> thinking that) then he looses his scientific attitude. Be it in
> biology, astronomy, theology or even in astrology, or whatever. In
> science, like in conscience, public lack of doubt is akin to madness.
> This is provable (indeed it is a form of Godel second incompleteness
> theorem) for machines or lobian entities.
> Bruno
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 17:20:16 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST