Did I read of it, the great Silver Tome? Alas, yes. They are hours of life expended as meaniglessly as if I were watching TV. I normally make notes as I read, if there are significant "structures" in a book. (I like to develop the writer's case better than the writer does. It aids my understanding.)
With his, I was making four pages of notes for every page of his--almost all were fallacies and such, little was new, and none matched the "proofs' that already exist. But, gods bless him for his literary success. I did not say that you stated that choice, but that you alluded to it. The secific, formulated choice existed before your e-mail. Sorry if it was taken otherwise. I did understand your context of the comments as given and did not mean to put anything into your words. Sorry if it appeared otherwise. thanks--mel ----- Original Message ----- From: "MarshaV" <[email protected]> To: "MD Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Empiricism for dummies > > > Greetings Mel, > > I didn't state that religion and science are equivalent or > interchangeable, I merely stated them as two hypothetical choices and > my preference. > > Did you actually read the book??? Call me stupid if you like, but I > thought the book presented many _solid_ examples and arguments of why > Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with their dogma and accoutrements, > should be flushed. > > Besides I am awaiting the return of the Great Handkerchief. > > > Marsha > > <snip>> . > . > Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson > . mel: Actually, the most gifted scientists trumpet the value of imagination frequently and they are awed by it. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
