From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Summary: What exactly are we talking about?
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:16:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Dec3.173952.18221@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec3.014059.14565@sierra.com> ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter) writes:
>>In <3895@key.COM> patel@key.amdahl.com (Chandresh Patel) writes:

Sorry this is a bit late -

>     Also, how would one quantify 'Answers provided by religion do
>     not normally pass the test of reason'?  For definiteness let's stick to
>     mainline protestant religions, say Methodism or Baptism in particular.
>     Are you asserting that all 'answers' provided by Methodism do
>     not pass the 'test of reason'?  If not, which ones do not?

What are the answers provided by Methodism? Perhaps if I knew one I might
be able to comment :-) Certainly I think we might both be in agreement in
saying the idea that someone will burn in Hell for all eternity for having
preMarital sex does not exactly qualify as reasonable - let alone the idea
that Homosexuals are dammed. What about the present hysteria about drugs?
Is it reasonable to say that someone who smokes marijuana is going to burn?
drinks a little whiskey? These have been 'answers' in the past although like
many Churches the Methodists I know seem to make it up as they go along.

>     How exactly does core doctrine fail a 'confrontation with
>     evidence'?

It must be a core doctrine that the New Testament is roughly historic. That
is, it is a fundamental requirement of mainstream Protestantism that the
events in the NT actually, or largely, occured. If we examine the evidence
of Jesus' birthday in the NT we find a fundamental mistake. Although I do
not remember exactly I believe Luke gives two methods of dating Jesus'
birth - One was the Roman census for which they 'had to' return to Nazareth
(stopping in Bethlehem on the way) and the other was the Death of Herod.
Or to be more precise I think Luke states that John the Baptist was born 4
years before Herods death and as an Angel visited both mothers while both
were pregnant Jesus must have born in the same year (more or less). We have
Roman records of these two dates - the Roman census was SIX years after Herods
death thus Luke is out be ten years! If he cannot get Jesus' birthday right
then it is unlikely that he would get much else - at least it has to be taken
with a serious grain of salt. Thus the NT fails on the first hurdle of historic
accuracy. It cannot even decide what Judas did with his money or where and how
he died. In short it is not a historic document. Thus a core doctrine dies a
slow and painful death.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math