From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Summary: I really like Methodists honest
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:17:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Dec15.035023.13220@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1950@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>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:

>>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.

>     The assertion was that 'answers provided by religion do not
>     normally pass the test of reason'.  In order to make this point,
>     you're going to have to do better than giving me your gut feeling
>     about what you *think* the Methodists hold about hell and premarital
>     sex.   I think you'll find that the original point is untenable on
>     its face.  Anything else is a subject for soc.religion.  Go there
>     and watch them rip.

Well firstly the assertion was not made by me, but as I'm sort of arguing
it I guess I won't complain. As for what Methodists think about premarital
sex and hell I do know that since they started they have held these and/or
similar views. Recently there have been a lot of changes in what they preach
at least around here. Now if I was to go on what I have heard from Methodist
friends then support for abortion, gay rights, Nicaragua, vegetarianism,
solar energy and land rights are all mandatory. I do know that this is not
an entirely traditional platform :-) So as I said previously what exactly
is an answer provided by Methodism? It seems that you can make it up as
you go along so long as it is in line with the general bubble gum attitude
of the rest of the Church. I am sorry if that offends you I don't really
mean to but most of my friends at School were Methodists and smug little
buggers they were too.

>>>     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

>      It must not be.

There was a meeting in the United States where all the mainstream Protestant
groups got together and decided on 'core doctrine'. Number 1 was the historic
accuracy of the Bible. Now if Methodists et al have changed their mind then
I will accuse them of inventing their religion as they go along which, to me,
denies them any claim to serious scientific consideration. That aside, if the
Bible is not historic - even if parts are parables or need interpretation,
then the main point of the Reformation has failed. If the Bible is not historic
then there is no guide to what is right and what isn't.

>      Core doctrine is not details in the
>      stories, core doctrine is 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost', omniscience
>      omnipotence, baptism, Nicene creed etc.  Also, there are many who would
>      make the argument that the bible is fundamentally allegorical.  If
>      so, your 'problem' disappears.

No it doesn't. Protestants have asserted the historic (often literal)
correctness of the Bible since before Luther. If Protestants *now* say
it is not historic and is allegorical then how can they expect to be taken
seriously? Were they wrong 100 years ago? Are they wrong now? Science assumes
that laws that are true now were true 1000 years ago. It seems that no main
stream religious group does anymore. The Uniting Church (to which the Methodist
groups belong in this country) have said that is it wrong to interfer with a
womans right to an abortion - for the last 100 years they have been saying the
exact opposite. What sort of doctrine or answer is that? The Bible has not
changed any more than the fact of gravity. I do not disbelieve in gravity
but some Protestants seem to do the equivalent with the Bible. If it is
capable of providing core doctrines or answer then it was as capable 100
years ago as it is now. Are you asserting that it only has succeeded in the
last 20 years where it has failed in the last 200? If so why does this become
compatible with science or more to the point, if science disproved a core
doctrine would the science be wrong or the doctrine?

>      In any case, I don't think this 'confrontation with evidence'
>      is exactly fundamental.  I don't know of any church that bases its
>      doctrine primarily on Jesus having been born in the same year
>      as John the Baptist.  There are also matters of interpretation in
>      Luke as you may well know.

There are fundamentalist Churches that accpet every word of the Bible
literally, Elizabeth (I think) and Mary were both pregnant when they
both (simultaneously) were visited by an Angel. Therefore they must
have been born very close (like within 9 months of each other) Not quite
the same as the same year but close enough. Thus I think you do know a
Church which holds something very close to this view! As for interpretation
this is exactly why there can be no reconciliation between religion and
science. You cannot make science up as you go along - something is true
or it is not. You cannot 'interpret' experimental results out of existence!
If I was to say to my supervisor 'but these results are allegorical' he
would have hysterics! Thus the Protestant Churches (as your example) has
held views that are now rejected by all but a handful of nuts. They based
these views on the same results we have today. No new data has been collected
no new experiment done. Why then do you reject much of what your Church stood
for? (like imprisoning homosexuals or banning abortion or banning divorce etc)

>      I also would like to point out that we were talking about
>      'science and religion', not history and religion.  Since I do
>      not believe that history is a scientific field (nor is it appropriate
>      for this group, but what difference does that usually make?), let's
>      confine our 'evidence' to scientific evidence please, especially
>      since that was the vein in which all of the previous statements
>      were made.

History *is* a scientific field or at least the study of historic documents
for the purpose of evaluating their accuracy is. There are a whole range of
sciences that have sprung up around history - the study of writing styles,
language and so on. If religion wants to be treated seriously then it must
be open to scientific study. In this case, the accuracy of the events
surrounding Jesus' life are open to question, if they can't get that right
then they might not get anything else right either. In short once you start
down the path of 'allegory' then pretty soon you are left saying that Jesus
was this bloke who said some cool things; you are now dealing with philosophy
not religion. As for scientific evidence it is easy for you to say because
there is none - like the Loch Ness Monster really. I can't prove there is
no Nessie, I even hope there is. I just don't believe it.

>>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

>      Keep in mind that the NT is not intended to be a historical document
>      in the sense that you mean.  Expectation that it is (or should be)
>      is misguided.

It has been a religious doctrine for 2000 years that the bible is historically
accurate - I can post quote after quote from Luther, Calvin, any Protestant
thinker from before WW2 or anyone else. Their postion for the last 200 years
and more is that the Bible is accurate. You and others have recently decided
otherwise, so who was/is wrong you or them? Who do I sue to the murder of my
great-great-...-grandfather who was burnt by Protestants who regarded this
behaviour as a 'core doctrine'? (Well not exactly but close enough for a
cheap debating point)

>      Tell you what, give your local United Methodist bishop
>      a call and tell him of the astounding historical inaccuracy you've
>      found in his book.  I'm sure he can explain his position on this
>      better than I could.

I am sure if someone built a time machine and proved that Jesus did not die
on the Cross and he really disappeared to Majorca with all the money the
bishop wouldn't quit his job either. The problem is that, unlike science,
religion *has* the answers and is in a never ending search for justification.
Thus all what has been believed is thrown away because it is no longer credible
Protestants who deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the exisitence of God
even can still remain Christians and even become Bishops (c.f. Church of
England) Do you not see how this directly contadicts all that science is
supposed to be about? It is the very opposite of science, the answers before
the testing?

>      The original point, like anyone cares anymore, was that certain
>      statements were being made about religion in near complete ignorance
>      of even the major religions in this country.  The aforementioned
>      statements were and are incorrect.  Even yours is a misapprehension
>      of core doctrine.

What then exactly is a core doctrine? I do know what historically the main
stream Protestant Churches have regarded as core doctrine but nowadays I
haven't time to keep up with the stream of reevaluations. Perhaps if you
list a few I might be able to comment - perferably in another newgroup
so that we do not bore those without a 'k' key. However I can say that in
the very essence of Modern Protestantism there is a fundamental conflict
with science and even common reason. Things that were once sacred are now
despised - and unlike Scientific progress not because they have been shown
to be wrong as such but because they are no longer fashionable. This is
totally opposed to what I would consider (in all modesty) science.


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