[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>directly uphold religion or vice versa but I do think both can be used   
   >>>>collaboratively to give us a bigger picture. That's where I think   
   >>>>organisations like Biologos, the Templeton Foundation and the   
   >>>>Pontifical Academy of Sciences make important contributions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>I suppose that's theoretically possible, but all such   
   >>>"collaborations" of which I'm aware tend to devolve into   
   >>>cross-justification, usually by ignoring those pesky   
   >>>contradictions.   
   >>   
   >>I don't see that in the three organisations I mentioned but that is   
   >>possibly due to me being more familiar than you with their work and   
   >>ideas, especially the religious slant to it. The important factor is   
   >>that they start by accepting science and seek ways to fit their   
   >>religious views around that science. Despite Ron's vehement but   
   >>unsubstantiated claims, they do not try to adapt science to fit around   
   >>religious beliefs.   
   >>   
   >OK. I'm not familiar with those specific ones; my comment   
   >was based on what I've observed in general when people try   
   >to fit together two (or more) mutually contradictory   
   >processes or beliefs.   
      
   I suspect a lot of that may be based on what you see here on TO but   
   bear in mind that TO attracts more than a normal share of kooks;   
   that's what it was actually set up to do :)   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>And until people become perfect and   
   >>>perfectly rational I don't see that changing. They're   
   >>>philosophically distinct (and frequently contradictory)   
   >>>things; best to keep them that way, at least for now.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>But *my*   
   >>>>>>>point was that I didn't comment about the content, only   
   >>>>>>>about the meaning of "literal" (or, of course, "literally"),   
   >>>>>>>and MarkE's assertion that "The measure of literalism is in   
   >>>>>>>the *interpretation* of the text of  Genesis, not the   
   >>>>>>>quoting of it.". I thought I made that clear with my further   
   >>>>>>>comments made in reply to him and others. IOW, he misused   
   >>>>>>>"literal", which is defined (OED online) as (paraphrased)   
   >>>>>>>"exact or actual meaning, not allegorical or figurative".   
   >>>>>>>"Exact or actual meanings" do not allow of interpretation,   
   >>>>>>>regardless of how the word may be misused ("literally   
   >>>>>>>Hitler"; "I literally died"). At least that's how I see it,   
   >>>>>>>and the OED seems to agree.   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)