creation of human kind

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Hello Claude

I happen to jave written a review of a book by a logician about religion. If
you can read Dutch you can look it it yourself: 'Tot in der eindigheid' by
J.P van Bendegem (ISBN 90 5240 425 9). What I found remarkable is that many
arguments against common articles of belief are not only put into words but
also into strict logical formulae, so that you can see that they're
waterproof (if you are familiar with logical symbols that is). The
observation that maths has something to do with religious believe is
underscored in the book by a criticism of the concept of ethernity, which
is accordig to the writer one of main the causes of the fallacy of believe
in a god.
The discussion about human or divine concepts has already been decided by
Xenophon, one of the first European philosophers: 'if horses could speak
they would adore gods with horses heads'.

Op vrijdag, 25-dec-98 schreef Claude Setzer:

CS> Partha Banarjee said:
CS> -
CS>> Mathematical reasoning can't "prove" the existence of God. Only
CS>> spirituality and beliefs can.

CS> Do you know what mathematics is????
CS> In fact, mathematics is every bit as much human as "spirituality"
CS> and it would seem to me much more so.

CS> Mathematics can only "prove" human models of nature and are rarely very
CS> accurate.
CS> For example, Bohr's theory changed the whole scientific description of
CS> nature,
CS> but it just barely approaches an accurate description of even the
CS> simplest atom, Hydrogen,
CS> and is far too complicated to describe anything else in nature. Yet
most
CS> of our modern "understanding" of the microscopic world came out of
this.
CS> If we look closely, we might find that "scientists" take just as many
CS> leaps of faith as those who accept the existence of God, may be a lot
CS> more!!

CS> In fact even the concept of "proof" is only human imagination.
CS> At least "spirituality" has some aspect of divinity to it,
CS> and would be a much more reasonable tool for use of
CS> describing the existence and nature of God. In fact it
CS> very often seems that experience of God is far easier and more
practical
CS> than
CS> experience of certain mathematical proofs.

CS> I don't understand why you think your beliefs should over ride every
one
CS> else's.

CS> Claude Setzer


Regards
--
erik


 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
  Erik Hoogcarspel           <    jehms at kabelfoon.nl     ><
Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE
Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland
        >
 *===================================================================================*