Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Science as Religion (other objec
Message-ID: <8300063@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 10:09:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.8300063
Posted: Thu Nov  8 10:09:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 20:58:11 EST
References: <704@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-70400:uokvax:8300063:000:1532
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    Nov  8 09:09:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.religion / umcp-cs!mangoe /  8:26 pm  Nov  6, 1984 */
There simply cannot be objective data for an event which took place 2000
years ago and left no particular physical evidence; neither can there be
evidence against it, other than the presupposition that it could not have
happened.  Therefore, by Rich's logic, we should draw no conclusion; 
instead, he chooses to reject the event.  I cannot see this as objectivity;
it is out and out subjective evaluation of the data.
/* ---------- */

Pliny reported all sorts of marvelous creatures. Do you have the same
position on their existence that you do on the veracity of the Bible?
Similarly, Aristotle reported that women have fewer teeth than men.
In the absence of reports to the contrary, should we give any credence
to the possibility that women have come to have more teeth than they
did in the time of Aristotle?

Based on the lack of physical evidence, and the observed current and
past tendencies of people to believe practically anything, I simply
estimate the likelihood of the truth of Christianity as being on the
same order as that of the validity of Uri Geller's claims, and hence
not worth worrying about, save as it influences other people's behavior
(and hence might get me burned at the stake :->), not to mention being
the source of some very good art and music. (One can't say the latter
about ESP proponents, admittedly.) This is not to say that the sort
of discussion one finds in net.religion* isn't interesting at times.

						James Jones