Talk:Ann Druyan

Off topic chat

Untitled Just a passing comment The particular photograph posted of Druyan (as of 5 April 2014) makes her look a lot like Carl Sagan's first wife, Lynn Alexander, in her later years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvement to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Druyan is an Agnostic

She clearly states that she is Agnostic in this interview with Michael Shermer: http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticality/039_skepticality.mp3 12:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Questions for 24.45.99.191

1. Why not leave Ann Druyan in bold?

Ok.

1. Why not leave the birth date?

Ok.

1. What is the evidence that Ann Druyan had any serious personal interest in pantheism?

Plenty. She and her late husband Carl Sagan both WERE ones, as their own works and own sayings do clearly demonstrate.

Saying it in ALL CAPS does not make it true. What is "clear" is that you use your biased interpretation of Sagan and Druyan in order to put a label on them.

What makes it true are the actual sayings and writings of Druyan and Sagan, themselves. That is not bias.-PV

If we are in the mood for compromise, I suggest,

Some people feel the need to place labels like "pantheist" on Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. Sagan and Druyan frequently thought, wrote, and spoke about religion, yet they never endorsed pantheism.

Not true.-PV

Those who would label Sagan and Druyan as pantheists seem to imagine that Sagan and Druyan simply failed to publicly announce that they were pantheists.

They didn't have to do so, explicitly, their own words and ideals indirectly had actually said it for them.-PV

The alternative and more plausible explanation is that they knew perfectly well what pantheism is and rejected it. This view is supported by their many writings that stress the idea that people can have a sense of awe and wonder about the cosmos without introducing the man-made "5th wheel" of god.

Again, half-true. Pantheism is not any belief in any man-made Personal God, ie. fifth wheel, but, in the IMPERSONAL GOD of the COSMOS, ie. the Natural and SCIENTIFIC LAWS and FORCES of NATURE.-PV

Even your "IMPERSONAL GOD of the COSMOS" is a creation of people's imagination. JWSchmidt 19:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that the Natural and Scientific Laws and Forces of NATURE are creations of people's imagination? Pan-psychism? IDEALISM? What?-PV

It is possible to deal with nature, science, and the physics of fundamental forces without any mention of god. If you read Druyan's work, you will find that she mentions god in the context of showing how to "explain the wonder of nature without resorting to the God hypothesis". Druyan gives frequent examples of how introducing god is only a source of distraction from the science's goal of finding the truth. JWSchmidt 00:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have already responded to these objections of yours further down below.-PV

1. Why not leave in mention of NORML?

Ok.

1. Why remove the external links section? JWSchmidt 23:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, they are now all back in, along with the additional link to pantheism. 12:00, 7 April 2004 (UTC)

---

"Maybe someone should actually ask her?" does not belong in an article - Tεxτurε 16:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why not? You just don't seem to take her own words for it, unless explicit: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html Her sentiments here are textbook "pantheism" or "cosmotheism".-PV

The article Ann Druyan Talks About Science, Religion, Wonder, Awe . . . and Carl Sagan is all about "daring to explain the wonder of nature without resorting to the God hypothesis." You must have been "educated" with some interesting textbooks.

Thanks, I have, and yes, they haven't and would not do so being "pantheists" or "cosmotheists". The "God Hypothesis" need not be any Personal God. Get it? -PV

Subtract "god" from "God Hypothesis" and think about what is left. Druyan is perfectly comfortable finding her place as part of the cosmos without any god. JWSchmidt 00:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How can Druyan's article even be compared to a textbook on pantheism when she does not even use the word "pantheism"? Subtract "god" from pantheism and you might get to what Druyan is talking about. JWSchmidt 19:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She didn't have to even use the word "pantheism", explicitly, because it was IMPLIED. No. Subtract a "Personal God" from pantheism, and you still will get "pantheism", which is an Impersonal "God" of Cosmos. You just seem just not so very bright, are you?-PV

I haven't followed this particular edit war and it has no relevence on my comment. NPOV articles do not include questions like "maybe someone should actually ask her". Please keep that kind of editorial note in the talk page discussions. - Tεxτurε 17:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, calm down, Texture, I was just being sarcastic. Of course it didn't. :D

(cur) (last) . . 14:36, 9 Apr 2004 . . JWSchmidt (it is not required that a public figure publically deny that they hold a particular religious belief in order to make it objectionable that those religious beliefs be attributed to them)

Indeed, nor vice versa!-PV

Protection from attribution of religious beliefs is in no way a commutative process. To claim commutivity in this case would be to suggest that you are free to attribute religious beliefs to Sagan since he did not make a comprehensive list of every religion and make clear that he did not believe in each of them. However, Sagan was under no obligation to create such a list in order to be protected from false attributions of religious beliefs to him. His writings make clear that he rejected all religions. JWSchmidt 15:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not relevant nor true.

It is obvious that Carl Sagan didn't reject pantheism or cosmotheism, but, in fact, quite clearly affirmed it.-PV

12:00, 10 April 2004 (UTC)

An alternative explanation could claim that she has rejected pantheism, along with all the other religions.

Why was this (above) sentence removed? JWSchmidt 15:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it is obviously false.-PV

Both Carl and Annie only had rejected all traditional religions and their divisive PERSONAL GOD's, but, not the Impersonal pantheistic or cosmotheistic "GOD or DIVINITY" of the COSMOS as a WHOLE.-PV

"I'd like to tell you, briefly, why science it so important to me and why the notion of freedom from religion and freethought is, I think, so centrally important to our society." -Ann Druyan.

She does not say "freedom from traditional religions" and then go on to advocate pantheism. It is not required that she list every religion and say that she rejects it. What IS required is that your claim that she is a pantheist be backed up by evidence. While she has thought about the idea that some people like to imagine that god is the cosmos, you have to provide evidence that she endorsed that idea that equating god with the cosmos is in some way useful OVER and ABOVE just enjoying the intellectual recognition of the unity of the cosmos. Where does she endorse (not just mention) the idea of equating the cosmos with god? Give use the quote. JWSchmidt 18:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She didn't have to say "from traditional religions", because it is implied. The evidence supports my contention for Carl Sagan, as I have already quoted him. The evidence about Druyan is more indirect, but, it is still quite clear. "Endorsements" from her are NOT REQUIRED. If I can find a better quote, for her, I will be glad to supply it.-PV

Please explain how it is "implied" that Druyan endorsed pantheism. I think you are confusing your personal POV with an objective (or NPOV) point of view that can be shared by others. You have NOT presented evidence in support of similar claims about Carl Sagan. JWSchmidt 22:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you are just confusing your own personal POV with an objective (or NPOV) point of view. I actually have presented very clear and objective evidence of Carl Sagan's pantheism by using a direct quote of his that makes it plain as day. Your own biased personal POV is the actual problem, JWSchmidt. -PV

You have never explained how the act of mentioning the idea of pantheism implies that an author is a pantheist. You have repeatedly avoided even acknowledging that there is a distinction between mentioning a religion and adopting a religion. The fact that Sagan discussed the idea of equating god with the cosmos does not IN ANY WAY imply that he adopted pantheism. You have never presented any evidence that Sagan or Druyan endorsed or adopted pantheism. JWSchmidt 20:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since you have already just made up your mind, JWSchmidt, I won't bother you with the actual facts and even those you'll just ignore or deny anyway.-PV

I have not read everything written by Druyan. She has also given many public talks. If you have evidence to support the idea that she advocates or ever endorsed pantheism I would be glad to see it. I have been making the point that based on what I have read it is very unlikely that she would ever advocate or endorse pantheism. This does not mean that I would ignore evidence that you can provide. It only means that I am skeptical about the chances that such evidence exists. JWSchmidt 23:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go and actually read what she has written and you will find plenty of evidence to support my own contention that she is a pantheist or cosmotheist. Be skeptical but also keep an open mind. Otherwise, your bias and bigotry will stop you from ever acknowledging the truth and the facts.-PV

I would like to remind the users that this is not a schoolyard (or youtube), and that a modicum of intelligence and maturity is required on these pages. Such juvenile actions as name-calling (including unwarranted accusations of bigotry) are neither appreciated nor are they acceptable conduct. Additionally, personal conclusions are not facts; simply because one perceives an implicit meaning in a person's specific statement does not make that meaning valid. As this is intended as an encyclopedia, we MUST state facts, not the potentially biased conclusions we may draw from them. If this is what you wish to do, you may blog, editorialize or review material elsewhere. This not the place for propaganda or childish nonsense. -AsEcho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.171.236 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surname

What is the ethnic origin of her surname? Is it Armenian? Badagnani (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Important work omitted?

I am puzzled that her bibliography in the main article does not include her important role as editor (and contributor of an introduction) of "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", the 2006 reprint of Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford lectures. Can anyone shed any light on this? Does anyone feel inspired or qualified to expand the main article to remedy this omission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.30.59 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable Names Database Quotation context and explanation.

The following quote at the bottom of the article lacks context and its meaning could be misinterpreted:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl."

From: http://www.nndb.com/people/291/000026213/

The entire statement from Ms. Druyan discusses her relationship with Sagan when he was alive, emphasizing the time they spent together, as well the staggering cosmological odds of their having encountered one another. She also addresses the concept of death and our interactions with it. The entire quote is long, but I feel it is necessary to fully communicate the author's feelings on the subject. The annotated quote appears to be deliberately negative and could serve to frame Ms. Druyan as belligerently anti-religion. The original quote, in its entirety, follows:

“When my husband died, because he was so famous & known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me — it still sometimes happens — & ask me if Carl changed at the end & converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage & never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief & precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive & we were together was miraculous — not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous & so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space & the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me & it’s much more meaningful…

The way he treated me & the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other & our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.“

-- Ann Druyan, 2003, Feature on science and religion for Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

Original Context: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ann_druyan_talks_about_science_religion

Gkx12 (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

At the time she met Carl Sagan she was engagged with another guy, do you know who was the missfortunate that lost this awesome lady? --- Jean Bernstein--201.141.119.22 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless he is otherwise famous, WP:BLPNAME applies and his name does not belong on this page or in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was very famous, actually important: he was Timothy Ferris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ferris

http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=Z01FzDkprgUC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=timothy+ferris+druyan+girlfriend&source=bl&ots=8QO8LSLN0e&sig=vEUt6lZxc6bA8INaWD4Dcr6hSQk&hl=es-419&sa=X&ei=4C5lU8jhL5ajyASO7YC4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=timothy%20ferris%20druyan%20girlfriend&f=false

Acording to his bio he was a co-worker in Carl Sagan, Frank D. Drake, Ann Druyan, Timothy Ferris, Jon Lomberg, and Linda Salzman Sagan (1978). Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record. Random House. ISBN 978-0-345-31536-6.

People deserve the complete info. --- Jean Bernstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.106.150 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Wikiquote

Quotations sections do not belong on Wikipedia WP:NOT WP:QUOTE they go on Wikiquote instead. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Then move it and all the 250+ quotes you have deleted. David J Johnson (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Then stop being rude WP:CIVIL and making wrong accusations WP:VANDNOT. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)