Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Why attack Christianity?
Message-ID: <2639@azure.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Mar-84 21:25:12 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2639
Posted: Sat Mar 24 21:25:12 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Mar-84 07:42:04 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 63

>> = White
>  = Kalmadge

>> I think that an objective look at the past 2,000 years of history would
>> reveal that Christianity has done a lot more harm than good.  Consider,
>> for example, just exactly what things would be like if the Roman
>> Catholic Church had managed to hang on to the awesome power that it
>> enjoyed in the middle ages.  Certainly you wouldn't be reading this
>> article on a computer terminal.  In fact, I doubt that any of us would
>> be enjoying the fruits of science, because science as we know it would
>> not exist; it would be considered heretical and its practitioners would
>> be regularly burned at the stake!

> Sorry, I can't buy that! It was NOT Christianity but greed for money and 
> power that caused the problems you speak of.  And just because the Roman 
> Catholic Church CALLED itself Christian doesn't mean you have to believe 
> THAT, either! "Christian" means a follower of the teachings of one Jesus of 
> Nazareth.

Not this again!  They weren't REAL Christians, right?  There may possibly be
a few million people who disagree with your statement, but they can speak for
themselves.  Now that you mention it, I'll be willing to bet there are 
millions of folks out there who don't believe that YOU are a REAL Christian 
(Mormons, for example).  So what's a poor religious skeptic, like myself, to 
do?  If someone claims to be a Christian, I have to believe them.

Also, the problems I speak of may be partly due to greed, but they are also
due to a fanatical belief in Biblical inerrancy.  Any time that scientific 
study has conflicted with the Bible, there has been trouble.  The main reason
that science can get away with so much these days, is that organized religion
has lost a great deal of its power and credibility.

>> Never mind that once you allow a
>> supernatural force into science, that science falls apart at the seams
>> (if it's not falsifiable, it's not science!).

> It would be wise to remember that many forces now known to be 
> natural were once considered super-natural.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  I think that it is perfectly fine for
science to study a phenomenon that may be considered supernatural in order to
find a rational explanation, but I don't think that it is valid to fall back
on a supernatural explanation and try to claim that it is science.  If there is
no way that a theory can be proven false, then it is not a scientific theory.

> It would be nice if the submitters on the network would use less emotion and 
> more logic when they are presenting their arguments.

> Most of the people on the net (whether pro or con anything) show a definite 
> lack of the ability to engage in logical thought.  (Especially net.flame, I 
> guess that's what it's for).  This wouldn't be so bad if some of them weren't 
> supposed to "computer scientists". A bit of perusal of some of the software 
> in this building points out the same problem.

Since these comments are included in a rebuttal of my article, I guess I should
take them personally.  Although there may have been some emotion in my article,
my argument certainly rested on firm, logical foundation.  If you find my logic
to be faulty, then perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out rather than
presenting vague allegations.  I really don't know where you get off sounding
like you have a corner on rational thought!

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw