Re: Who is the enemy?

From: George Levy <>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:08:02 -0700

Hi Charles

Sorry, I am not responsible for these statements. I was only quoting
Bruno Marchal's post or 09/19. However, I agree with Bruno very much. It
seems that as in mathematics, any (religious) belief anchored by a rigid
credo (set of axioms) is bound to be either incomplete or inconsistent.
The fanatic insists that his position is both complete and consistent.
The agnostic accepts the incompleteness of his belief. In fact the
agnostic accepts that his current belief is only temporary and may
evolve depending on new information.

Charles Goodwin wrote:

> > Bruno Marchal wrote:

> > >I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious
> > >people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to
> > >believe they have no religion.
> > >Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its
> > religion (yet).
> >
> > >The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused
> > >in most natural language.

I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency
of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument
you could come up with, they will find a way to "rationalize" their
position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no
amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a
tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate
inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the
only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists
is by means of the ultimate argument: force.

While battling terrorism by using consistency methods may not be
applicable directly to the terrorists themselves, they may help win the
heart and mind of those who are sitting on the fence.

> Richard Dawkins strikes me as a "militant" or indeed a "religious" atheist, for example.
I don't know enough about Richard Dawkins personal beliefs except for
his generalization of the principle of evolution. Brought to its
ultimate generalization I believe that this principle can bring the
physical world, life and consciousness out of the plenitude. Creation is
converted from creatio ex-nihilo to creatio ex-toto. In other words God
did not have to do anything. Creatio ex-toto just happened. In my
opinion, this does not diminish God in any way. Au contraire! He created
the world by doing nothing! Talk about power and magic! Even if we show
creatio ex-toto, the question of God doesn't go away. It only makes God
greater. The question of God is just moved to a meta level.

In summary, I think that someone can believe in evolution, can believe
that God did "nothing" and yet be intensely mystical and believe in a
higher God.

Received on Sun Sep 30 2001 - 22:13:08 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST