Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

[Kim Jones]

http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov


Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite
female on the planet.

If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel "Contact" (or saw the movie)
- this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie
Foster in the film)

Introduction by Richard Dawkins

cheers,

Kim Jones

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Kim,

Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice talk. I appreciate a lot.

She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing:  Science is agnostic. 

"I believe in God" (Bg) is a religious statement.  (B = I believe, g =  'God' exists", "~" = negation)

But B~g, the athesist statement, is a religious statement too. Atheism is a religion. (and doubly so for the materialist atheists).

Crazily enough, I note she shows this in the exact manner of the introductory chapter of "Conscience et Mécanisme"). So honest atheists exists.

Not so sure why she said she believes (religiously) in the non existence of God, without saying what she means by the word, especially that later she talk of science as the "quest for the truth", but with comp the mathematical notion of truth (relative to a machine and relative to the possible machine views) obeys literally to the notion of "God" in the Greek Theology of Plato (according to my own understanding of Plato, but confirmed by Plotinus and Hirschberger).

Mainly 'God'  = the transcendent human-ineffable truth we are invited to search/explore/contemplate.

Making "Science", the quest of the truth, like Carrolyn Porko did (two times, at the two third of that video), is the basic axiom of Plato's theology. It makes science and reason (and mathematics, and music, ...) the most basic tools in the search of the admittedly religious (by science modesty!) truth. 

    * * *

Let me give you 3, (3! yes there is one more!) basic reasons to consider "Digital Mechanism" as a theology (actually a framework for variate theologies (Mechanism will not stop all possible religious conflicts, on the contrary given the existence of very different possible practices, like overlapping or not with the duplicate ...  ).

- 1) To say "yes" to the doctor, even if some oracle guaranties the competence of the doctor and the accuracy of the comp substitution level, etc, is an irreductible act of faith in the possibility of a (relative) digital reincarnation.

- 2) It is a "scientific theology" in the following precise sense: To each machine, or machine's state,  (or machine relative description) we associate the set of true arithmetical sentences concerning that machine (described in arithmetic, say). Roughly speaking:

Science = provability

Religion = truth  (in the spirit, I am humble and modest, and I search)

Then, not only a universal machine can introspect itself and discover the gap between truth and provability. It can not only discover the unnameability of its own truth notion, but a very rich (in term of provability power) machine (like ZF) can study a big (not all) part of the theology of a more simpler Löbian machine, like Peano-Arithmetic. So although a machine cannot know that she is correct, she can lift the "invariant" theology of simpler lobian machine. Of course she cannot assert she has proved those statement, but she can assert that those are probably true as far as she is "correct", and comp is correct.

But there is a third reason. 

-3) Church thesis. Also called Church Turing Thesis, and which I call sometimes Post law, or Gödel Miracle, or Post, Church, Turing, Markov thesis. Its truth entails the truth of the weaker thesis according to which there exists a universal machine. But do we know that? can we know that?

Do we know if there is a universal language, or a universal machine?

No one can prove that, of course. So here too you need to do a bet: an axiom, a thesis, an hypothesis. The miracle (Gödel) is that the set of partial computable functions is closed for the diagonalization, it cannot be transcended. As Gödel said, for the first time we get a mathematical definition of an epistemological concept. Gödel did hope that a similar thesis could exists for the notion of provability, but its own theorem, together with Church thesis prevents this (I think).

And then all attempts to define the computable functions leaded to the same class of partial computable functions. We get all the (total) computable functions, but they have to be situated in a non computable sequences among all the partial functions, as shown by Kleene's diagonalization (as shown in the last "seventh step serie thread", but I guess I have to come back on this). I recall that a total function is a partial function with subdomain equal to the whole N (N is included in N).

So comp, by Church thesis, is also a positive belief in a universal machine, despite the lack of proof of existence).

Of course Turing *did* prove its famous theorem saying that A Universal Turing machine exists. It is a theorem (even of arithmetic) that universal TURING machine exists, and that universal CHURCH lambda expression exists, and that universal SHOENFINKEL-CURRY combinators exists, etc.

For each universal language it can be shown a universal finite entity exists. But this does not prove that there is a universal machine for all computable functions, only that all those class have a relative universal entity. I mean Turing's theorem is not Turing's thesis. But Turing (Church)' thesis makes its universal machine "really" universal (with respect to digital computability).

What can arithmetic still prove is that TURING system, and CHURCH, one, and algol, fortran, lisp, etc. are all equivalent, making the universal TURING (or Church, ...) machine universal for all of CHURCH lambda expression, etc. They are all provably equivalent. 

Now to prevent any misinterpretation, let us address the question:

Is the universal machine God?

I would say no. Sometimes I like to call it the baby god, though. In the arithmetical interpretation of the hypostasis the universal machine, once she knows that she is universal, (in a weak technical sense) can play the role of Plotinus' man, or discursive terrestrial intellect. It is man, not God. man means humans.

Universal machine are always finite entities, and exists always relatively to many other Universal machines (even if you can define the whole set of relations into arithmetic, or combinators, quantum topologies, ...).

I may refresh the arithmetical hypostases (cf AUDA). I limit myself to correct machines (they prove only correct arithmetical sentences, by definition). So when the machine says "p", it means that "p" is true. By Tarski theorem, it is the only way to say that "p is true". She just say p. So by "p" below, I mean the assertative proposition by the (correct) machine. 

Plotinus one = arithmetical truth = p.

Plotinus divine Intellect (or intelligible) = Bp  (Gödel's arithmetical "BEWEISBAR" provability predicate). But by incompleteness that INTELLECT admit an effective part borrowed by the machine: it is Plotinus' man.

That is, here, the INTELLECT splits into the true Intellect and the provable intellect. By Solovay theorem those two logics are axiomatised (at the propositional level) completely by G for the provable (by the machine) part, and by G* for the true but unprovable (by the machine) part. For exemple ~Bf (I will not assert a falsity) belongs to G* \ G. It is true, but not provable, by the correct machine.

Plotinus "universal soul" is the Theaetetical first person. It is the logic of the knower "inside the machine". It is given by the logic of the conjunction of Bp and p: Bp & p. It obeys, and is characterized by the modal logic S4Grz. Amazingly, it is not splitted by the incompleteness phenomenon= S4Grz = S4Grz*.

Then intelligible matter and sensible matter logics are given by the logic Bp & Dt, and Bp & p & Dt. respectfully. They both split by the Solovay "*" incompleteness results. 

Plotinus admit at least this very precise arithmetical interpretation, and shows how incompleteness and insolubility structures the ignorance space of the (universal) machine. 

Seen from inside, that space is *very* big, but incredibly richly structured, and the physical world, if the neoplatonist are correct, or if comp is correct, is given by the "mathematical bord of that ignorance space.

This is a verifiable (refutable) statement, making machine's theologies testable. Note that all correct Lobian machine (or even non machine, but still self-referentially correct entity) have the same abstract propositional theology (given by G and G* and their intensional variant).

***

Kim, thanks. I think I will send your Carolyn Porco's link to the salvia forum where discussion on atheism appears a lot. I was just abou trying to,explain the problem with *some* atheists.

Probably in the thread "Atheists, be nice!". 

http://www.entheogen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25489

(my username is "salvialover24", well sorry for that ...)

It will help me to explain that there is no problem with atheists, only with dishonest atheists (saying that atheism is not a religion, that science is on their side, etc.).

Of course, as a scientist,  I am agnostic on ALL the Aristotelian Gods. This includes Matter (primitive matter). 

Bruno

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Brent Meeker]

I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic.  But the trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives.  So now I generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what theists believe.  So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent, omniscient, and ominibenevolent.  Thinking that such a god is does not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence and not contradicted by any credible evidence.  I know you adopt a very abstract and mathematical meaning for "theism", but we don't get to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define "agnostic".

You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:

I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic.  But the trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives.  So now I generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what theists believe.  So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent, omniscient, and ominibenevolent.  Thinking that such a god is does not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence and not contradicted by any credible evidence.  I know you adopt a very abstract and mathematical meaning for "theism", but we don't get to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define "agnostic".

Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something.

May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching.

Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics is crap" because of Lyssenko.

The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory.

You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction.

Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. 

What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense.

I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a classical teleportation).

Digital Mechanism is only my favorite working hypothesis, and also, I admit, I find it rather plausible given the quantum facts. But honestly, I don't know, and I gave reason why we cannot *know* that. It is part of the true but uncommunicable theological facts, and eventually it concerns only me and my doctor/shaman/priester/whatever.

And then, as a computer scientist, I show also that the logic of self-reference by self-correct machine provides an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus theology. But from this, comp is only made refutable, not proved.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Brent Meeker]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic. But the
>> trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the
>> existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved
>> us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives. So now I
>> generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are
>> interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what
>> theists believe. So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to
>> believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent,
>> omniscient, and ominibenevolent. Thinking that such a god is does
>> not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence
>> and not contradicted by any credible evidence. I know you adopt a
>> very abstract and mathematical meaning for "theism", but we don't get
>> to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define "agnostic".
>
>
> Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly
> have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?

Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell
them we're agnostic about God we will be telling them that we have no
good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason
to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws.

> The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition,
> and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of
> infinite, or inconceivable, in-something.
> May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I
> did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable
> things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are
> searching.
> Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God,
> the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in
> its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in
> which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics is
> crap" because of Lyssenko.
>
>
> The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any
> theory.

Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject
for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false?

>
>
>>
>> You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim
>> to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does
>> leads to contradiction.
>
>
> Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter.
> What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital
> Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense.
>
> I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism.
> And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine
> can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a
> classical teleportation).

If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on
everything. But that definition implies science is no better than
guessing and all opinions are equal. I think we need to keep a
distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of having
good evidence for.

Brent

>
> Digital Mechanism is only my favorite working hypothesis, and also, I
> admit, I find it rather plausible given the quantum facts. But
> honestly, I don't know, and I gave reason why we cannot *know* that.
> It is part of the true but uncommunicable theological facts, and
> eventually it concerns only me and my doctor/shaman/priester/whatever.
>
> And then, as a computer scientist, I show also that the logic of
> self-reference by self-correct machine provides an arithmetical
> interpretation of Plotinus theology. But from this, comp is only made
> refutable, not proved.

Scientific theories are never proved. That doesn't mean we're agnostic
about whether the Earth is flat or spheroidal.

Brent

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Nov 2009, at 12:17, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite
>>>> female on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel "Contact" (or saw the movie)
>>>> - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie
>>>> Foster in the film)
>>>>
>>>> Introduction by Richard Dawkins
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Kim Jones
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:everything-li...@googlegroups.com>.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
>

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:

Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly

have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?

Because that's what most people who use the term mean.  And if we tell
them we're agnostic about God

Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. 

But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind.

we will be telling them that we have no
good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason
to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws.

Then it is like rejecting the "object" of a theory, because we disagree with a theory.

It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat.

There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits).

The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition,

and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of

infinite, or inconceivable, in-something.

May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I

did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable

things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are

searching.

Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God,

the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in

its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in

which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics is

crap" because of Lyssenko.

The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any

theory.

Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject
for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false?

Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment.

Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. 

Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is "false".

With comp "true" and "false" are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories.

You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim

to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does

leads to contradiction.

Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter.

What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital

Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense.

I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism.

And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine

can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a

classical teleportation).

If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on
everything.  But that definition implies science is no better than
guessing and all opinions are equal.

 I think we need to keep a
distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of having
good evidence for.

Well you right, and I just have insisted on this on the FOR list. But yes, I do believe that a scientist never know for sure, and that he does not commit *any* definitive ontological commitment. All theories are hypothetical. But this does not mean that all theories are equal. Some theories takes more time to be refuted. Some theories are more fertile, and can be more interestingly false. 

A scientist can judge a theory much better than another, without saying "I believe it to be true". He will say "I believe it to be more plausible than some other theories. We have to take our theory seriously until we find a better theory.

Scientific theories are never proved.  That doesn't mean we're agnostic
about whether the Earth is flat or spheroidal.

We can judge that "spheroidal" is far more plausible, and useful, given our current knowledge, but we can hardly say that science has proved that the earth is spheroidal, or that earth really exists. In science there are just no proof about anything concerning reality. Only radical atheists (unlike atheists like Carolyn Porco) can pretend that science has proved anything. Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is the "quest" of the truth, but it is a quest. I could say that religion is the goal, and science the means. It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to figure a mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist, nor the priest. Only politicians behave like that sometimes, and usually for opportunist reasons. There is nothing more modest than science. But by opposing science to (honest) religion, we tend to make science into a pseudo (authoritative) religion.

I said in different forums that the divorce between science and religion is a symptom of schizophrenia. A human temporary (I hope) laps of insanity. Religion can only extends science. The Islamic al-Ghazali (eleven century) did already explains this in great detail. A religion which fear science can only be based on bad faith. A religion which fear the spirit of free research and free exam can only rely on lies and dishonest way to keep power. Some atheist today (in Europa) are acting like that, because they want to hide that atheism is a religion, actually a typically Aristotelian (easily anti-platonist) religion.

As scientist we don't know, but can study and test different theories. 

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Bruno,

 

you navigate into perillous waters. Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness. You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice and it works for you. It does not work for me: I am still in the undecidedness and whatever I want to grab dissipates upon touching.

I do not state to be an atheist, for - as you correctly pointed out - it would necessitate a 'god' to deny and I do not get to such definition. I claim to be a "scientific" agnostic, questioning whatever traceable to a human 'mind's' (?) understanding and its limitations (including numbers - cf: David Bohm).

In my approach we are limited and can extend our thinking only within our limits. I try to do my best - knowing that it is not enough.

 

The developing human 'mind' (= mental capabilities altogether) went through stepwise enwidenment including the religious faith and your extension into a universalized 'god' idea etc. This is why I cringe when accepting ancient ideas - definitely in an earlier stage of our development - to be applied to our   'later stage' (I almost wrote: more advanced - assuming  we IMPROVE).

 

I climb on the shoulders of giant oldies - not to see exactly as far as they do, but further. What do I see? something unexplainable - beyond my limitations.

And definitely beyond the horizon of those whose shoulders I climbed onto.

What does not mean that I am smarter. I just have a vision I don't understand.

 

I enjoyed your post - thank you - and warn you: going all the way may lead you into deep agnosticism and you may lose the grip on the assumed 'reality' that  you are holding on today. I can afford it at my age, but you have work to do in a world that does not appreciate in science the "I DON'T KNOW" position.

 

Best regards

 

John Mikes

[Brent Meeker]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>> Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly
>>> have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
>>
>> Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell
>> them we're agnostic about God
>
> Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who
> have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude)
> conception of God.

Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are
*not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.)
use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy.

> The difference between some american and european christians can be
> bigger than the difference between european atheists.
> But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively
> some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual
> critical mind.
>
>
>
>> we will be telling them that we have no
>> good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason
>> to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws.
>
> Then it is like rejecting the "object" of a theory, because we
> disagree with a theory.
> It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people
> said it to be flat.
> There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits).

When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a
better theory about the shape of the Earth.
If I disagree with the theory that human events are controlled by
immortal beings living on top of Mt. Olympus, should I still entertain
the proposition that immortal beings live on Mt. Olympus as a reasonable
scientific hypothesis. Am I a dishonest atheist because I don't believe
in Zeus?

>
>
>
>>
>>> The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition,
>>> and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of
>>> infinite, or inconceivable, in-something.
>>> May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I
>>> did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable
>>> things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are
>>> searching.
>>> Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God,
>>> the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in
>>> its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in
>>> which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics is
>>> crap" because of Lyssenko.
>>>
>>>
>>> The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any
>>> theory.
>> Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject
>> for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false?
>
>
> Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be
> internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external,
> when the theory is contradicted by some experiment.
> Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste
> and esthetic features can play a role.
> Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is "false".
> With comp "true" and "false" are by themselves very complex and
> delicate notions, in need of theories.

Then to say you uncertain about the existence of God when speaking to
non-theologian Christians or Muslims or Mormons you are being a
dishonest agnostic. This can be a very convenient position for academics
in the U.S. where the funding of research may depend on politicians who
are sensitive to the votes of believers.

Depends on what you mean by "proved". There is "proven in court",
"proven by experiment", and "proven in mathematics" - remember the base
meaning of "proven" is "tested". I would say Porco is a radical agnostic
- one who doesn't want to reject popular religious ideas no matter how
much the evidence is against them because we can always reinterpret them
in a way that they *might* be true.

> Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is the

> "quest" of the truth, but it is a /quest/. I could say that religion

> is the goal, and science the means.

But every religion claims to have the truth - by tradition, by visions,
by revelation - and makes a virtue of belief beyond or even contrary to
evidence. I agree with what you say about science, but I think you are
making up your own definition for religion.

> It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to figure a
> mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we
> have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist, nor
> the priest. Only politicians behave like that sometimes, and usually
> for opportunist reasons. There is nothing more modest than science.
> But by opposing science to (honest) religion, we tend to make science
> into a pseudo (authoritative) religion.

No, we emphasize the difference between provisional belief proportioned
to evidence and unquestionable belief in authoritarian revelations.

>
> I said in different forums that the divorce between science and
> religion is a symptom of schizophrenia. A human temporary (I hope)
> laps of insanity. Religion can only extends science. The Islamic
> al-Ghazali (eleven century) did already explains this in great detail.

The Abrahamic religions conflict with science because they teach that
there are miracles (scientifically inexplicable events with are answers
to pious prayers). Science has tested this theory and found no evidence
for it and so scientists don't believe it; it is proven false to a
standard higher than courtrooms but less than mathematical.

> A religion which fear science can only be based on bad faith.

All the religions I know of claim that science supports their beliefs
(with "interpretation") - unfortunately their beliefs are mutually contrary.

Brent
�People are more unwilling to give up the word �God� than to give up the
idea for which the word has hitherto stood�
--- Bertrand Russell

> A religion which fear the spirit of free research and free exam can
> only rely on lies and dishonest way to keep power. Some atheist today
> (in Europa) are acting like that, because they want to hide that
> atheism is a religion, actually a typically Aristotelian (easily
> anti-platonist) religion.
>
> As scientist we don't know, but can study and test different theories.
>
> Bruno
>
>

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Nov 2009, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>> Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly
>>>> have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
>>>
>>> Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we
>>> tell
>>> them we're agnostic about God
>>
>> Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who
>> have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude)
>> conception of God.
> Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who
> are
> *not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.)
> use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy.

Yes, but if you use science 'against" them, you make science a pseudo-
religion, and you give them more braids. If we don't get back to
'serious" (meaning hypothetical) theology, pseudo-religion will
continue.

Even if you take the 'theology' of the universal machine as a toy
theology, it is remarkable how it explains the difference between
science and theology. Science is *the* tool of those whose faith is
not based on rumors.

>
>> The difference between some american and european christians can be
>> bigger than the difference between european atheists.
>> But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively
>> some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual
>> critical mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>> we will be telling them that we have no
>>> good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good
>>> reason
>>> to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws.
>>
>> Then it is like rejecting the "object" of a theory, because we
>> disagree with a theory.
>> It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people
>> said it to be flat.
>> There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits).
> When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a
> better theory about the shape of the Earth.

Exactly.

> If I disagree with the theory that human events are controlled by
> immortal beings living on top of Mt. Olympus, should I still entertain
> the proposition that immortal beings live on Mt. Olympus as a
> reasonable
> scientific hypothesis.

Of course not. I am not aware such theory explains anything new, or
actually anything at all.

> Am I a dishonest atheist because I don't believe
> in Zeus?

No. But as an atheist, who *believes there is a no God", you may hurt
the sensibility of someone who find the idea or concept deep and
interesting and may be some theologies are less wrong than other ...

And most atheists are doubly believers. They believe in the
inexistence of God, but many believe in the existence of Matter (some
primitive matter "explaining everything").

A a scientist I am completely agonstic:

I don't believe in God
I don't believe in the inexistence of God
I don't believe in Matter (primary one)
I don't believe in the non existence of Matter.

I do find plausible that whatever I am, I may be Turing emulable, and
all I say is that in that case the overall picture is No Matter but
some 'truth' about a universal "dreamer". This includes (by UDA) its
physical realities.
Is it so astonishing that digital mechanism could make eventually
physics a branch of Theoretical Computer science?

I don't understand. Be them Mormons, Muslims, Christians , ...
atheists or Taoist, I told them, oh, look, if you say believe you can
survive with a digital brain/body, then reality is described by the
relation between Numbers, and the theology is of the type "Plotino-
Pytagorean. Do you see why? If not read or that paper. I am pretty
sure that those whose faith comes from inside may recognize feature.

> This can be a very convenient position for academics
> in the U.S. where the funding of research may depend on politicians
> who
> are sensitive to the votes of believers.

You loss me.

I meant "proved about reality". Science is neutral about reality.
Now Gödel's and Lob's theorems illustrates that universal machine can
study its own limitation, and bet some unprovable truth (sometimes
instinctively/automatically).

But Brent, I am critical on all non serious theology. In the human and
applied human science we are still nowhere.

I am not sure that Carolyn Porco does not reject popular religious
ideas, like myself.
And I am not sure how she would react when understanding that
Mechanism Digital entails everything emerge from the story, described
in elementary arithmetic of a universal machine looking at itself.
Thanks to the Gödel-Löb-Solovay split, such a theory describes the
provable and the unprovable part of the machines and this from its
many different person points of view.

>
>> Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is
>> the
>> "quest" of the truth, but it is a /quest/. I could say that religion
>> is the goal, and science the means.
> But every religion claims to have the truth - by tradition, by
> visions,
> by revelation

I am afraid that with the comp assumption, "claiming to have the
truth" is a blasphem.
It is human nature.
Lesson: if someone claims to have the truth, run away.

Science = doubt.
Fundamental science = fundamental doubt.

> - and makes a virtue of belief beyond or even contrary to
> evidence. I agree with what you say about science, but I think you are
> making up your own definition for religion.

Not really. It is the religion of the universal machine when she says
"yes" to the doctor, at her risk and peril. Or it is the religion
(truth) she can deduce from just imagining surviving such an experience.

It is a branch of math, and it is axiomatized by the modal logics G
and G*, and its intensional variants.

>
>> It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to
>> figure a
>> mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we
>> have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist,
>> nor
>> the priest. Only politicians behave like that sometimes, and usually
>> for opportunist reasons. There is nothing more modest than science.
>> But by opposing science to (honest) religion, we tend to make science
>> into a pseudo (authoritative) religion.
>
> No, we emphasize the difference between provisional belief
> proportioned
> to evidence and unquestionable belief in authoritarian revelations.

But the evidence are that after 1500 years of materialist theology,
the human science have make only one progress (democracy) and continue
to make the fundamental question out of the scientific method of
investigation, like if only physics was, by definition, the
fundamental science. "Matter" has been a fertile methodology, but it
fails to explain its origin, its link with mathematics, and then it
fails on the consciousness/reality problem.
Classical Mechanism, once taken seriously, shows that the 'rational,
elegant, and conceptually simpler picture could be different. In the
tiny Sigma_1 part of arithmetical truth lives an incredibly creative
creature, which behaviors and discourses needs mathematics which
extends far away arithmetical if not mathematical truth.

A universal machine is a bomb,yet a creative one.

>>
>> I said in different forums that the divorce between science and
>> religion is a symptom of schizophrenia. A human temporary (I hope)
>> laps of insanity. Religion can only extends science. The Islamic
>> al-Ghazali (eleven century) did already explains this in great
>> detail.
>
> The Abrahamic religions conflict with science because they teach that
> there are miracles (scientifically inexplicable events with are
> answers
> to pious prayers). Science has tested this theory and found no
> evidence
> for it and so scientists don't believe it; it is proven false to a
> standard higher than courtrooms but less than mathematical.

Give time to people to get the things less literally. If we come back
to seriousness in theology, even you may agree on some non literal
interpretation of some old text.

By its very nature, the "God intuition" is perverted by any use of
that idea.
God or truth is the last thing which needs authoritative argument.
Discussion in the evening, or silence, may convey something, but
someone whose faith is grounded, I guess he will let God presents
itself, or not, instead of any other argument.

Or he will build a theory, take some "theological" assumption
seriously, like comp.

>
>
>
>> A religion which fear science can only be based on bad faith.
> All the religions I know of claim that science supports their beliefs
> (with "interpretation") - unfortunately their beliefs are mutually
> contrary.

But this is due because some make science a religion. Science cannot
support religion, science can only refute the wrong theologies. A
theology which asserts that science support her, is deadly wrong at
the start, unless the support is given through hypothesis and (new)
predictions in the usual way.

We are not talking about some human superstitutions. We search a
theory which explains the origin of the physical laws, and which does
not eliminate the person, and explain consciousness, or explain why we
cannot explain consciousness, ... what could happen when we die, and
many fundamental things like that, by reasoning from hypotheses.

And not everything is necessarily wrong in the popular theologies
either.
Well except, probably (cf UDA), the popular belief (assuming
mechanism) in Matter.

Now, it is a meta-theorem that if Mechanism is true, I will remain
forever undecided about it.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Nov 2009, at 17:48, John Mikes wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> you navigate into perillous waters.

I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas
on the border of the non controlable.

> Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain
> limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness.

Yes, indeed.

> You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is
> your choice and it works for you.

It is a theorem that is does not change the general idea. I have tried
the combinators, but the advantage of numbers is that their are taught
already in high school, and also, the most know Löbian machine, Peano
Arithmetic, has indeed those high school beliefs has only beliefs. It
is more simpler, and its chnage nothing for the comp reasoning.

> It does not work for me: I am still in the undecidedness and
> whatever I want to grab dissipates upon touching.

We have to be in undecidedness for reason of self-consistency.

> I do not state to be an atheist, for - as you correctly pointed out
> - it would necessitate a 'god' to deny and I do not get to such
> definition. I claim to be a "scientific" agnostic, questioning
> whatever traceable to a human 'mind's' (?) understanding and its
> limitations (including numbers - cf: David Bohm).
> In my approach we are limited and can extend our thinking only
> within our limits. I try to do my best - knowing that it is not
> enough.

It is *never* enough, for any honest universal machine/entity.

>
> The developing human 'mind' (= mental capabilities altogether) went
> through stepwise enwidenment including the religious faith and your
> extension into a universalized 'god' idea etc. This is why I cringe
> when accepting ancient ideas - definitely in an earlier stage of our
> development - to be applied to our 'later stage' (I almost wrote:
> more advanced - assuming we IMPROVE).

Why? I think that when we discover an error in a theory, or in case of
repeated failures, we may have to backtrack.

>
> I climb on the shoulders of giant oldies - not to see exactly as far
> as they do, but further.

Sometimes progress can blind you on older simpler ideas which suddenly
can get new interpretation. plotinus lacked the universal machine/
number, but was close (in its chapter on numbers).

> What do I see? something unexplainable - beyond my limitations.

OK.

> And definitely beyond the horizon of those whose shoulders I climbed
> onto.

You can't know that.

> What does not mean that I am smarter. I just have a vision I don't
> understand.

OK, but they may not understand too. Most mystics insists they don't

understand.


>
> I enjoyed your post - thank you - and warn you: going all the way
> may lead you into deep agnosticism and you may lose the grip on the
> assumed 'reality' that you are holding on today. I can afford it at
> my age, but you have work to do in a world that does not appreciate
> in science the "I DON'T KNOW" position.

I think people like David Deutsch, and many others agree that science
is the "don't know" per excellence. We try to make clear some beliefs
and pictures and to see the consequences. But I know some does not yet
know that (that science = doubt).

Kind regards,

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Brent Meeker]

> Now G�del's and Lob's theorems illustrates that universal machine can

> study its own limitation, and bet some unprovable truth (sometimes
> instinctively/automatically).
>

Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn't care what reality
is, but science assumes that there is enough regularity in reality that
theories about it can be tested. The unprovable truths you refer to are
always relative to a particular set of axioms and rules of inference.
So unless you have some way to limit "reality" to that set of axioms and
rules of inference, the truths are not unprovable "in reality".

> But Brent, I am critical on all non serious theology. In the human and
> applied human science we are still nowhere.
>
> I am not sure that Carolyn Porco does not reject popular religious
> ideas, like myself.
> And I am not sure how she would react when understanding that
> Mechanism Digital entails everything emerge from the story, described
> in elementary arithmetic of a universal machine looking at itself.

> Thanks to the G�del-L�b-Solovay split, such a theory describes the

> provable and the unprovable part of the machines and this from its
> many different person points of view.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is
>>> the
>>> "quest" of the truth, but it is a /quest/. I could say that religion
>>> is the goal, and science the means.
>>>
>> But every religion claims to have the truth - by tradition, by
>> visions,
>> by revelation
>>
>
> I am afraid that with the comp assumption, "claiming to have the
> truth" is a blasphem.
> It is human nature.
> Lesson: if someone claims to have the truth, run away.
>
> Science = doubt.
> Fundamental science = fundamental doubt.
>

Religion = certain faith

>
>
>
>
>> - and makes a virtue of belief beyond or even contrary to
>> evidence. I agree with what you say about science, but I think you are
>> making up your own definition for religion.
>>
>
>
> Not really. It is the religion of the universal machine when she says
> "yes" to the doctor, at her risk and peril. Or it is the religion
> (truth) she can deduce from just imagining surviving such an experience.
>

That is what reminded me of the Bertrand Russell quotation - you seem
reluctant to give up the word "religion" while discarding the idea for
which it formerly stood: shared beliefs which were held on faith and
immune to experimental investigation which explain human origins,
purpose, and morals.

> It is a branch of math, and it is axiomatized by the modal logics G
> and G*, and its intensional variants.
>
>
>
>>> It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to
>>> figure a
>>> mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we
>>> have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist,
>>> nor
>>> the priest.

But some prove their picture in the sense of testing it and discarding
or modifying it if it fails. That's the scientist. Others avoid
testing their picture and cling to it in spite of its failures Those
are the priests.

>>> Only politicians behave like that sometimes, and usually
>>> for opportunist reasons. There is nothing more modest than science.
>>> But by opposing science to (honest) religion, we tend to make science
>>> into a pseudo (authoritative) religion.
>>>
>> No, we emphasize the difference between provisional belief
>> proportioned
>> to evidence and unquestionable belief in authoritarian revelations.
>>
>
> But the evidence are that after 1500 years of materialist theology,
> the human science have make only one progress (democracy) and continue
> to make the fundamental question out of the scientific method of
> investigation, like if only physics was, by definition, the
> fundamental science. "Matter" has been a fertile methodology, but it
> fails to explain its origin, its link with mathematics, and then it
> fails on the consciousness/reality problem.
>

I agree that matter fails to explain its origin, but I think its link
with mathematics is explained. Mathematics is just precise expression
and inference to avoid contradiction. If physics tried to use just
words or images in its theories it could more easily fall into
self-contradiction. Mathematics, in relation to physics, is just a
means of precise and consistent description of a theory.

> Classical Mechanism, once taken seriously, shows that the 'rational,
> elegant, and conceptually simpler picture could be different. In the
> tiny Sigma_1 part of arithmetical truth lives an incredibly creative
> creature, which behaviors and discourses needs mathematics which
> extends far away arithmetical if not mathematical truth.
>
> A universal machine is a bomb,yet a creative one.
>
>
>
>
>>> I said in different forums that the divorce between science and
>>> religion is a symptom of schizophrenia. A human temporary (I hope)
>>> laps of insanity. Religion can only extends science. The Islamic
>>> al-Ghazali (eleven century) did already explains this in great
>>> detail.
>>>
>> The Abrahamic religions conflict with science because they teach that
>> there are miracles (scientifically inexplicable events with are
>> answers
>> to pious prayers). Science has tested this theory and found no
>> evidence
>> for it and so scientists don't believe it; it is proven false to a
>> standard higher than courtrooms but less than mathematical.
>>
>
>
> Give time to people to get the things less literally. If we come back
> to seriousness in theology, even you may agree on some non literal
> interpretation of some old text.
>
> By its very nature, the "God intuition" is perverted by any use of
> that idea.
> God or truth is the last thing which needs authoritative argument.
>

I think you mean "authoritarian argument". Yet that is the kind of
argument used by all religions: "God commands it." Although you want to
define religion as a kind of betting on the truth of some mathematically
unprovable propositions, religion also has a definition in sociology.
Loyal Rue has written a very good book about religion from this
viewpoint called "Religion is Not About God"

> Discussion in the evening, or silence, may convey something, but
> someone whose faith is grounded, I guess he will let God presents
> itself, or not, instead of any other argument.
>
> Or he will build a theory, take some "theological" assumption
> seriously, like comp.
>

If everyone took their theology seriously there would be very few
Christians or Muslims - and no fundamentalist theists at all.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> A religion which fear science can only be based on bad faith.
>>>
>> All the religions I know of claim that science supports their beliefs
>> (with "interpretation") - unfortunately their beliefs are mutually
>> contrary.
>>
>
> But this is due because some make science a religion. Science cannot
> support religion, science can only refute the wrong theologies. A
> theology which asserts that science support her, is deadly wrong at
> the start, unless the support is given through hypothesis and (new)
> predictions in the usual way.
>

You must be aware that the latest form of this is called Intelligent
Design, a line of argument supported by research grants from the
Discovery Insitute in Seattle. It is a resurrection of William Paley's
argument from design which says that the world is to structured and
functional to have arisen by natural processes and that this is evidence
that the world was designed and created by a super-being. This has
given rise to many hypotheses which however are all of the form "Natural
processes can't explain THIS!" with various biochemical and cellular
structures substituted for "THIS".

> We are not talking about some human superstitutions. We search a
> theory which explains the origin of the physical laws, and which does
> not eliminate the person, and explain consciousness, or explain why we
> cannot explain consciousness, ... what could happen when we die, and
> many fundamental things like that, by reasoning from hypotheses.
>
> And not everything is necessarily wrong in the popular theologies
> either.
>

Unfortunately. If they were wrong about everything we could just
suppose the opposite.

> Well except, probably (cf UDA), the popular belief (assuming
> mechanism) in Matter.
>

So you are an a-matterist after all. :-)

Brent

> Now, it is a meta-theorem that if Mechanism is true, I will remain
> forever undecided about it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
>
>
>
>

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Nov 2009, at 04:48, Brent Meeker wrote:

Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn't care what reality
is,

Fundamental science does care on what really is. But it is admitted by serious inquirer that there are alternative theories.

but science assumes that there is enough regularity in reality that
theories about it can be tested.  The unprovable truths you refer to are
always relative to a particular set of axioms and rules of inference.

They are related to a self-referentially correct universal machine. Formal theories are just simple exemples of such machine.

 
So unless you have some way to limit "reality" to that set of axioms and
rules of inference, the truths are not unprovable "in reality".

The interest is that such machine discover that there is a "transcendent reality" above what they can prove. Already without making observation. Observation speed-up, like self-mulitiplication and confrontation speed up the "process".

Reality, nor meaning is never limited by the theory or machine. On the contrary, tha theory or machine is the tool by which "reality" can makes sense to pieces of reality and glue them together in the quest for the truth.

Religion = certain faith

It is just faith in a reality or in a truth. Religious text which tell that face has to be blind, can only be misunderstood poetical idea or cynical ways to manipulate people. To say to accept something with blind face is equivalent to say shup up and obeys me.

I am not talking on some pseudo-post blasphem human (too much human) terrestraial religion. I am talking of the the religion any universal machine, "before the fall of his soul", can infer by looking at herself.

- and makes a virtue of belief beyond or even contrary to

evidence. I agree with what you say about science, but I think you are

making up your own definition for religion.

Not really. It is the religion of the universal machine when she says  

"yes" to the doctor, at her risk and peril.  Or it is the religion  

(truth) she can deduce from just imagining surviving such an experience.

That is what reminded me of the Bertrand Russell quotation - you seem
reluctant to give up the word "religion" while discarding the idea for
which it formerly stood: shared beliefs which were held on faith

I don't discard this. Shared beliefs hled by faith is already in science.

and
immune to experimental investigation

I can agree with this, but it should not be misinterpreted. It is the place where "things can be dangerous or close to the blasphem". It is the part of truth which is indeed beyond science. But this is not (although it is many time when religion "lives" a blasphemous period (say) wher the priest says "shut up and obey me", in is the place the teacher says now you have to look in yourself and trust yourself.

To feast, to private oneself of sleep, or taking some drug seems to provide some helps, but joke and circumstances can help too. 

which explain human origins,
purpose, and morals.

So I agree with your definition of religion. And the only difference with science is that for one aspect of the truth it as asked to you to close the book and the eyes and look into yourself.

The gigantic revolution is that we know now that universal machine can already do the trick, and it is just fabulous what they can see.

It is a branch of math, and it is axiomatized by the modal logics G  

and G*, and its intensional variants.

It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to  

figure a

mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we

have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist,  

nor

the priest.

But some prove their picture in the sense of testing it and discarding
or modifying it if it fails.  That's the scientist.  Others avoid
testing their picture and cling to it in spite of its failures  Those
are the priests.

Some scientist are bad too. It is not the problem of religion. It is the problem of humans sticking on wrong ideas. It is worth when the wrong idea are shared by coercion.

The problem is that if you confuse religion with bad or confused religion, you will prevent the possibility of better religion. So that confusion is maintained by the pseudo-religious people. Radical atheists are the best allies of the radical pseudo-religious. None one the coming back of the moderate and inquiring mind.

Religion is what extend science *by necessity*. It is indeed relative to any entity having self-referential abilities. But is may be shared by collection or organization of such machine relatively to probable histories.

I would say that religion (the truth) is the motor of science (the unending quest).

Any scientist who says that he does not religion is either a pure instrumentalist technician without conscience, or someone who has a blind faith religion and want to hide it from science or questioning.

Discarding religion, per se, result in transforming science into a religion, like equating proof and truth. This can lead only to problems.  Theories, machine, beliefs are finite attempts to figure the "thing". Of course you have to have some faith in what you are searching. 

The best idea like religion and democracy, can be perverted. But by dismissing attempts tpward serious modest theology, we make impossible to cure ourself of the perverted religions. And none religion is per se totally perverted. Humans are complex and is each group you have different tendencies, some may have the potential to "change their mind or evolve". 

Religion is what results when science discover its modesty and limitations. Once you give the mimimal ability of self-inductive inference to a theory as simple as Peano Arithmetic, she get mystical, discover her limitations, and being 100% correct, she is mute on the proper theological part, but she can explain that by using interrogation mark.

In a nutshell, for the logician, in AUDA: science corresponds to G, and religion corresponds to G*. And pure religion, what you and only you can find in you (and especially not accept by blind faith) corresponds to G* minus G. It is a testable theology, given that its include the machine physics.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/