<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: recent reads, October</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:03:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spinoza's Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/comment-page-1/#comment-57429</link>
		<dc:creator>Spinoza's Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/#comment-57429</guid>
		<description>i dont know if Spinoza  believed in God.
I agree with the view that Einstein either
didnt or didnt in any meaningful way.
If you believe nature runs according to
sime rules, and these rules have a 
certain aesthetic, but that is an 
aesthetic that appeals to humans, but
you decide to label that &quot;god&quot;, that&#039;s
ok, but you dont have anything in 
common with the people who believe
in god in the theistic sense. 

i think you have to consider god
something outside of science. if
you make it part of science or equal
to science, i think you&#039;ve stretched
the category past its breaking point.

TMWTGF(steven weinberg, einstein,
spinoza, god) for a better statement
of this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i dont know if Spinoza  believed in God.<br />
I agree with the view that Einstein either<br />
didnt or didnt in any meaningful way.<br />
If you believe nature runs according to<br />
sime rules, and these rules have a<br />
certain aesthetic, but that is an<br />
aesthetic that appeals to humans, but<br />
you decide to label that &#8220;god&#8221;, that&#8217;s<br />
ok, but you dont have anything in<br />
common with the people who believe<br />
in god in the theistic sense. </p>
<p>i think you have to consider god<br />
something outside of science. if<br />
you make it part of science or equal<br />
to science, i think you&#8217;ve stretched<br />
the category past its breaking point.</p>
<p>TMWTGF(steven weinberg, einstein,<br />
spinoza, god) for a better statement<br />
of this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: banane</title>
		<link>http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/comment-page-1/#comment-57343</link>
		<dc:creator>banane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/#comment-57343</guid>
		<description>You think Spinoza didn&#039;t believe in God? I think he did- in the sense that Nature is God- which he states quite clearly in Ethics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You think Spinoza didn&#8217;t believe in God? I think he did- in the sense that Nature is God- which he states quite clearly in Ethics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: banane</title>
		<link>http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/comment-page-1/#comment-57342</link>
		<dc:creator>banane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/#comment-57342</guid>
		<description>To anybody who is reading this- the anonymous post above is Partha. I don&#039;t allow anonymous posts, but I know it&#039;s him so I&#039;ll let this slide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To anybody who is reading this- the anonymous post above is Partha. I don&#8217;t allow anonymous posts, but I know it&#8217;s him so I&#8217;ll let this slide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spinoza's Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/comment-page-1/#comment-57186</link>
		<dc:creator>Spinoza's Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banane.com/2007/10/27/recent-reads-october/#comment-57186</guid>
		<description>&gt;I guess his stuff is used quite 
&gt;a bit by Einstein, Hawking, and 
&gt;other modern scientists.
&gt;
einstein ... and many other reasonable
people since, not just scientists ...
pretty much people who are not dogmatic
nutjobs ... are &quot;sympathetic&quot; to 
Spinoza, but i wouldnt really say they
&quot;use&quot; Spinoza in their scientific work.

of the &quot;natural philosophers&quot; newton
of course revolutionized everything.
descartes has some value as does liebtiz,but i dont think you can say
much for the scientific significance
of spinoza. 

so when you use a word like &quot;use spinoza&quot; i think it implies you mean
the scientists qua scientists, while
his influence is really on them
as scientists qua reflective people.

this has been discussed a lot lately
because of the wave of aethism books.
lots of people talking about &quot;did 
einstein believe in god&quot; refering to
his comment about believing in spinoza&#039;s
god&quot;. [which i agree with the people 
who think that&#039;s just a clever and 
literate dodge to avoid saying &quot;no&quot;].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;I guess his stuff is used quite<br />
&gt;a bit by Einstein, Hawking, and<br />
&gt;other modern scientists.<br />
&gt;<br />
einstein &#8230; and many other reasonable<br />
people since, not just scientists &#8230;<br />
pretty much people who are not dogmatic<br />
nutjobs &#8230; are &#8220;sympathetic&#8221; to<br />
Spinoza, but i wouldnt really say they<br />
&#8220;use&#8221; Spinoza in their scientific work.</p>
<p>of the &#8220;natural philosophers&#8221; newton<br />
of course revolutionized everything.<br />
descartes has some value as does liebtiz,but i dont think you can say<br />
much for the scientific significance<br />
of spinoza. </p>
<p>so when you use a word like &#8220;use spinoza&#8221; i think it implies you mean<br />
the scientists qua scientists, while<br />
his influence is really on them<br />
as scientists qua reflective people.</p>
<p>this has been discussed a lot lately<br />
because of the wave of aethism books.<br />
lots of people talking about &#8220;did<br />
einstein believe in god&#8221; refering to<br />
his comment about believing in spinoza&#8217;s<br />
god&#8221;. [which i agree with the people<br />
who think that's just a clever and<br />
literate dodge to avoid saying "no"].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

