Abstract

In this short paper I will argue that theology, or at least Platonist theology can be done with the scientific method, but that, perhaps paradoxically at first sight, this does not prevent the role of religion, nor the necessity of a dialog between science and theology or between science and religion, seen as possible applied theology. It is important to keep in mind that science, well understood, has at the start something common with religion, which is a humility and modesty attitude. Science is born from the doubt, lives with the doubt, and never abandon the doubting attitude in any of its possible conclusion. We just don’t know, in science, and can only make our beliefs/ assumptions/theories as much precise as possible so that we make higher the possibility of refuting them, so that we can abandon them or improve them. Theology, once made with the scientific attitude is no exception, and making theology into a science, consists in reintroducing genuine doubts in the heart. Only bad faith can fear reasons. Only bad reasons can fear faith. When fundamental science forget this, it becomes a kind of pseudo-religion. I will use Neoneoplatonism for Neoplatonism + Church-Turing thesis, as explained below. It is a mathematical theology that we can ascribe or attribute to any arithmetically sound universal machine. The machines looking inward, and remaining sound in the process, can do this, in some technical sense. Such a theology will appear to contain a scientific, communicable and justifiable part extended by some Truth, that the machine can intuit or experience, but which are not amenable to a thorough scientific justification by the machine about itself. Indeed, I will argue that most theologies contain a trap, as some true theological propositions become false when only asserted, vindicating some mystical insight as variate as Damascius’ ineffability or Lao-Tseu when he said that the wise keeps silent. This argument relies on my early study of the canonical theology of the universal Turing machine, which I will sum up in the first and second section of the paper, with some references for those interested in the details. It will appear that such a theology is very close to the Neoplatonist theology, and by “neo-neo-platonism” I mean a variety of Neoplatonism together with the mathematicalphilosophical thesis of Church and Turing which is fundamental in theoretical computer science and mechanist philosophy of mind. The apparent paradox is that such an approach seems to make theology into a science, and this should make, at first sight, unnecessary the existence of a dialog between science and religion. I will explain how that paradox is only apparent, and why this mathematical theology of the machine cannot be used normatively in religion and why this makes necessary the existence and preservation of a dialog between science and, let us say, any will for an applied theology, that is a practical religion, be it through theurgical means, or possible varieties of technological Pascal Wags.