Commentary on Atwood and Armstrong
TomS
points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
"Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
"By RICK KLEFFEL
"Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
The commentary is online in text form at:
<http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-seeing-I
> National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
> points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>
> Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>
> Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>
> "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
> "By RICK KLEFFEL
> "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
> known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
> store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
> past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>
> The commentary is online in text form at:
>
> <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
includes religion.
By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
> > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>
> > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>
> > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>
> > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
> > "By RICK KLEFFEL
> > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
> > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
> > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
> > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>
> > The commentary is online in text form at:
>
> > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
> includes religion.
Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
If your opinion on this differs, please explain...
> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
Vitalism has been lad to rest a very long time ago. And for very good
reasons. So please, which specific "supernatural element" are you
talking about?
Kalkidas
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>> > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>
>> > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>
>> > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>
>> > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>> > "By RICK KLEFFEL
>> > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>> > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>> > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>> > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>
>> > The commentary is online in text form at:
>>
>> > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>>
>> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>> includes religion.
>
> Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
> until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
>
> If your opinion on this differs, please explain...
If scientific discoveries about origins depend on the dual premises of
matter and spirit, then logically, any claimed discovery about origins which
relies only on matter is necessarily invalid.
>> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
>
> Vitalism has been lad to rest a very long time ago. And for very good
> reasons. So please, which specific "supernatural element" are you
> talking about?
Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is
1.. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital
principle distinct from biochemical reactions
2.. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws
of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part
self-determining
Vitalism has never been "laid to rest". Vitalism is actually true, by the
above definitions. No scientist can explain the functions of living
organisms solely by recourse to the laws of physics and chemistry.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 6:53�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>> points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>
>> Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>
>> Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>
>> "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>> "By RICK KLEFFEL
>> "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>> known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>> store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>> past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>
>> The commentary is online in text form at:
>>
>> <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
>Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>includes religion.
'science' did include religion once....you just don't know history
and science has done pretty well in the last 300 years...religion?
still a failure
>
>By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
fine. you tell me how to measure a 'spirit', m'kay?
until then, it aint science. but you keep telling us you know all
about science....
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well, it seems to be doing very well so far without including
religion. What, for example, is "invalid" about Big Bang theory as an
account of the origin of the universe, or evolutionary theory as an
account of mankind's biological origins.
I am engaged in research in the fossils of a clade of extinct marine
reptiles called plesiosaurs. My work involves, amongst other things,
the statistical analysis of measurements made from the bones, the
statistical analysis of the incidence of bite marks on limb elements,
and the use of phylogenetic systematics to analyse morphology.
Perhaps you can enlighten me how I can factor spirituality into my
research, and how it would affect my methodology and the way in which
I form conclusions by testing hypotheses?
Of course, I'm only asking this question because I know perfectly well
that you can't come up with an intelligent answer. However, your lack
of rational response tells us all we need to know about the validity
of your assertions.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote in messagenews:53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
> >> > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>
> >> > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>
> >> > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>
> >> > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
> >> > "By RICK KLEFFEL
> >> > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
> >> > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
> >> > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
> >> > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>
> >> > The commentary is online in text form at:
>
> >> > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
> >> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
> >> includes religion.
>
> > Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
> > until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
>
> > If your opinion on this �differs, please explain...
>
> If scientific discoveries about origins depend on the dual premises of
> matter and spirit, then logically, any claimed discovery about origins which
> relies only on matter is necessarily invalid.
As no scientific discovery has ever incorporated "spirit", the issue
doesn't arise.
How does one incorporate the premise of "spirit" into a scientific
investigation, by the way?
>
> >> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
> >> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
>
> > Vitalism has been lad to rest a very �long time ago. And for very good
> > reasons. So please, which specific "supernatural element" are you
> > talking about?
>
> Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is
>
> � 1.. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital
> principle distinct from biochemical reactions
> � 2.. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws
> of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part
> self-determining
> Vitalism has never been "laid to rest". Vitalism is actually true, by the
> above definitions. No scientist can explain the functions of living
> organisms solely by recourse to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Funny thing, but I've never read *any* scientific paper from *any*
field which does *not* assume that the universe behaves in a coherent
and consistent manner - i.e. in accordance with the "laws" of physics
and chemistry.
So perhaps you can provide a link to any scientific paper on the
function of living organisms which *does* include a reference to
"vitalism"?
RF
bpuharic
>
>"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
>> until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
>>
>> If your opinion on this differs, please explain...
>
>If scientific discoveries about origins depend on the dual premises of
>matter and spirit, then logically, any claimed discovery about origins which
>relies only on matter is necessarily invalid.
science doesn't depend on 'spirit'. you creationists cant define
spirit and have no idea what it is. that's why there are so many
religions.
so dont rely on science to correct your screw ups
>Vitalism has never been "laid to rest". Vitalism is actually true, by the
>above definitions. No scientist can explain the functions of living
>organisms solely by recourse to the laws of physics and chemistry.
?? prove this, OK? because you creationists had a 3000 year head start
on science
and you didn't even know what a protein was, let alone how to explain
life
you can't explain the simple. yet you say you can explain the complex
>
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>
>"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>>> > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>>
>>> > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>>
>>> > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>>
>>> > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>>> > "By RICK KLEFFEL
>>> > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>>> > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>>> > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>>> > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>>
>>> > The commentary is online in text form at:
>>>
>>> > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>>>
>>> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>>> includes religion.
>>
>> Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
>> until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
>>
>> If your opinion on this differs, please explain...
>
>If scientific discoveries about origins depend on the dual premises of
>matter and spirit, then logically, any claimed discovery about origins which
>relies only on matter is necessarily invalid.
There's no evidence that spirit exists. Why add a useless, meaningless,
untestable hypothesis?
>>> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>>> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
>>
>> Vitalism has been lad to rest a very long time ago. And for very good
>> reasons. So please, which specific "supernatural element" are you
>> talking about?
>
>Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is
>
> 1.. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital
>principle distinct from biochemical reactions
> 2.. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws
>of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part
>self-determining
>Vitalism has never been "laid to rest". Vitalism is actually true, by the
>above definitions. No scientist can explain the functions of living
>organisms solely by recourse to the laws of physics and chemistry.
You have demonstrated your ignorance of what scientists have learned.
Thank you and have a happy new year. Your happiness will increase if you
learn something.
Free Lunch
>On Jan 1, 6:53�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>> points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>
>> Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>
>> Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>
>> "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>> "By RICK KLEFFEL
>> "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>> known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>> store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>> past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>
>> The commentary is online in text form at:
>>
>> <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
>Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>includes religion.
Quite the sweeping statement from someone who never has any evidence to
back up his claims.
>By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
You refuse to understand what science does.
Anyway, the 'supernatural' is an excuse invented by folks who don't like
that their favorite mystical mumbo-jumbo cannot be confirmed to be true.
TomS
<53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Kleuskes &
Moos stated..."
>
>On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 6:53 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>> > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>
>> > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>
>> > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>
>> > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>> > "By RICK KLEFFEL
>> > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>> > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>> > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>> > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>
>> > The commentary is online in text form at:
>>
>> > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>>
>> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>> includes religion.
>
>Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
>until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
I do wonder whether even he would go that far.
Does anyone not accept as valid the scientific idea of the origins
of rain in clouds?
Must we include Thor in our scientific discussion of the origins of
lightning and thunder?
>
>If your opinion on this differs, please explain...
>
>> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
>
>Vitalism has been lad to rest a very long time ago. And for very good
>reasons. So please, which specific "supernatural element" are you
>talking about?
>
RAM
You are an idiot. Your intellectual understanding of religion and
science is so deficient that you appear worse than sophomoric.
Your statements above are historically and contemporarily inaccurate
and obviously based on a silly myopic fundamentalism that denies
science as a separate entity from religion. Religion is about social
control for the individual and the adherents; science is about
developing knowledge about the natural world. Her argument is that
religion must be informed by science. Science is aware of the need
of humans for religion. But that need for a spiritual quest does not
mean what fundamentalist often posit which is a literal belief in
actual "gods" or "spirits" but rather a moral and emotional reverence
for things natural and for things not fully understandable.
Conjoining religion and science will allow for a fuller understanding
of ourselfs and the world we live in as well as provide the internal
and external controls needed too live a socially produce life.
Grow up.
RAM
I should have noted that conjoining religion and science is a
religious agenda and a one way street and science should never take on
religious beliefs for obvious reasons numerously stated by TO
participants.
> Grow up.
Will in New Haven
> National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
> points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>
> Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>
> Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>
> "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
> "By RICK KLEFFEL
> "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
> known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
> store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
> past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>
> The commentary is online in text form at:
>
From the commentary:
Atwood says science fiction became necessary when the contradictions
between objective reality and religious orthodoxy became too difficult
to ignore.
"Those things that we used to just believe in all the time went to
Planet X where they are alive and well," Atwood says by way of
explaining the alternate realities that populate the genre. "Angels
with flaming swords, the burning bush that speaks, you know, all of
those really quite science fiction things in the Bible."
Margaret Atwood shows again that her understanding of science fiction
is insufficient to pontificate about it but she will do so anyway.
--
Will in New Haven
Burkhard
Not true;
see e.g.
Maur�cio Boscolo, C�cero W. B. Bezerra, Daniel R. Cardoso, Benedito
S. Lima Neto, Douglas W. Franco, Identification and dosage by HRGC of
minor alcohols and esters in Brazilian sugar-cane spirit. J. Braz.
Chem. Soc. vol.11 n.1
And then you have of course quite a lot of literature on the mind from
cog sci people, and mind is just spirit wearing a labcoat.
> How does one incorporate the premise of "spirit" into a scientific
> investigation, by the way?
>
Most of my papers are written under the guidance of spirit, mostly
Macallan
richardal...@googlemail.com
You evidently prefer the soft, smooth option. Personally, I go for
something with a bit of edge, such as Laphroig or Talisker.
RF
gregwrld
The spirit of Jim Beam Rye guides me
(with a Tsing-tao chaser for impetus).
(Yeah, I know: declasse. I'm a working
class guy with working class money.
I do like Pinchbottle, if that helps.)
gregwrld
Mike Lyle
> "On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:02:18 -0800 (PST), in article
> <53877daa-5ec4-4eb3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Kleuskes & Moos stated..."
>>
>> On 1 jan, 15:52, All-seeing-I
>>>
>>> Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until
>>> it includes religion.
>>
>> Correction. It will not make a single discovery you accept as valid
>> until it includes religion. That's a subtle yet important difference.
>
> I do wonder whether even he would go that far.
>
> Does anyone not accept as valid the scientific idea of the origins
> of rain in clouds?
I think Ray, in a burst of clarity, said there were no laws of nature at
all, but that each event was uniquely caused by God. This makes him, I
think, an "occasionalist", though he didn't use that word. There are,
under this scheme, few of the difficulties faced --or not faced--by the
other kinds of creationist: all that's required seems to be a willing
and able creator, so it's quite a tidy notion...absurd, no doubt, but
with only a single loose end. And all belief and non-belief systems have
at least one loose end.
The danger of this approach seems to me that from one angle it could be
seen as a mere hiccup away from pantheism, which is, or used to be,
firmly rejected by orthodox Christians and Muslims. And pantheism, in
turn, could quite easily slip over into atheism.
[...]
>>
>>> By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>>> supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
"Spiritual" is a weasel word. One can apply it at will to almost
anything intangible that goes on in people's heads, including even
things whose existence some would deny. I'm not convinced that it's a
useful word for serious discussions.
[...]
--
Mike.
Burkhard
Also very nice, but not while I work, that would be distracting.
Christopher Denney
Science doesn't deny the supernatural; when something is explained by
science it stops BEING supernatural, and becomes science.
That's the whole point; that's the point you seem to have trouble
understanding.
Supernatural is just another way of saying you don't understand
something.
You cannot be both ignorant and knowledgeable about the same subject.
If scientists discovered they could detect and measure souls and
spirits, or could build a telepathy machine.
Those thing stop being supernatural, and become science.
Religion is just tyrants trying to hold on to the power that's they've
been losing for centuries.
Burkhard
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:52�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 6:53�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
> > > points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>
> > > Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>
> > > Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>
> > > "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
> > > "By RICK KLEFFEL
> > > "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
> > > known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
> > > store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
> > > past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>
> > > The commentary is online in text form at:
>
> > > <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
> > Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
> > includes religion.
>
> > By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
> > supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
>
> Science doesn't deny the supernatural; when something is explained by
> science it stops BEING supernatural, and becomes science.
Which is of course why adman, with the possible exception of snex, is
the most reductionist materialist on this NG. By changing religious
mythology to descriptive history, and the supernatural to something
that is just outside _current_ theories (as you rightly say), his
gods become indistinguishable from powerful space aliens. (just
remember his argument that science is limited because our pets have
different senses - so the only thing we are lacking to perceive the
gods is a more accurate sense of smell). Everything that exists (or
existed) exists then in a pretty mundane, materliaistic way, and the
spiritual disappears entirely.
Ye Old One
>On Jan 1, 6:53�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> National Public Radio had a commentary on a couple of books which raise
>> points of interest about the relation between science and religion:
>>
>> Margaret Atwood, "The Year of the Flood"
>>
>> Karen Armstrong, "The Case for God"
>>
>> "Authors Find Fertile Mix Of Science And Religion
>> "By RICK KLEFFEL
>> "Science and religion have an uneasy relationship. Margaret Atwood,
>> known for her literary science fiction, thinks the future holds in
>> store a religion that combines the two. She takes her lessons from a
>> past charted by contemporary religious scholar Karen Armstrong."
>>
>> The commentary is online in text form at:
>>
>> <http://www.wbur.org/npr/122107126>
>
>Science will not make a single valid discovery about origins until it
>includes religion.
If it included religion it would not be science.
>
>By religion, that assumes man's innate spiritual side as well as the
>supernatural element of life that science denies exists.
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).