COMP Theology

Messages from the everthing list

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/2b92d17d59aaa178

19.02.2012 15:52 Bruno Marchal:

 I don’t remember having said that to Craig. On the contrary I criticize him for introducing a new word without ever defining it. But “theology” means “Study of Gods” like biology is study of life. It is a simple word that everyone can understand, and using another word would be, for me, like doing the mistake that I attributed to Craig. In the case of theology it is a way of helping people to remind history, and the use is not private. It is the same theology than the Christians, only the methodology differs. And the “results”. If you abstract from the Aristotelianism, machines’ theology remains much closer to even the Abrahamic theologies than to atheistic naturalism or materialism, which even hides their theological character.

Once I asked to the list to suggest another word for “theology” but the propositions were worst. To reject the word “theology” due to its connotation is a bit like abandoning it to the current dogmatic trends in the field.

To use another world is like doing a tabula rasa on all the work of the theologians. Experts know well the existence of the neoplatonist theologies, and machine’s theology is very close to them, and to all those who have been in trouble working in that field in opposition with the authorities. So I dunno, you might try to suggest another word, but I am not sure you will find one. i like using the word that people know, and you need to be naive to believe that the theology of numbers will pretend that some human is the son of god…

From 1970 to 1990, I have use the word “biology”. Some peolle criticized the work by saying it was theology, and using that word prevents that easy critics. The I have used the word “psychology”, but this lead to more confusion. Both Cantor and Gödel used the word theology i similar settting. Cantor even discussed its transfinite with confessional theologians, and Gödel made implicitly clear that he thought that Theology can be done in the hypothetical non confessional way.

Then the use of the term theology, in expression like “machine’s theology” makes directly clear that I want to avoid the mechanist antitheological attitude of the early mechanist french rationalist, like Diderot, Sade and LaMettrie.

19.02.2012 16:37 Evgenii Rudnyi:

Could you please cite these works?

By the way, recently I have listened to the course Theorien der Wahrheit (Theories of truth) by Prof Hoenen. Among other works he has discussed Logische Untersuchungen (Logical Investigations) by Gottlob Frege and his famous das dritte Reich (the third Reich, no doubt has nothing to do with Hitler).

The theology as such has been mentioned as well, as Prof Hoenen has paid a lot of attention to Anselm von Canterbury, Über die Wahrheit (On Truth). Prof Hoenen has shown that many other works has been influenced (directly or indirectly) by Anselm.

The list of considered texts in the course is here

/2012/01/theorien-der-wahrheit.html

20.02.2012 16:15 Bruno Marchal:

Search the for the text “mathematics, theology and the infinite” by Joseph Dauben
I have lost my examplar, but I think the following paperback might be the same book, with another title:

http://www.amazon.com/Georg-Cantor-Joseph-W-Dauben/dp/book-citations/0691024472

Concerning Godel I was alluding to its formalization, in the modal logic S5 (S4 + <>p -> [ ] <> p), of Anselmus Ontological Argument for the existence of God. You will easily find it with a research engine on the net. Note that some people wrote “Anselm” for “Anselmus.

Note that Gödel’s proof is not available for the Löbian machine, and it is a mystery for me why Gödel took the system S5, given that such a system formalizes the old Leibniz-Hilbert type of pre-Gödelian philosophy. This does not mean that it might not be possible to make the proof available, with some change to the machine’s first person (axiomatized by S4Grz).


Comments are closed.