From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:50:23 GMT

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:
>
>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.

     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.

>>     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.  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.

      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. 

      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.

>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.

      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.

      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.  

                                 dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics