Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Religious Language and Science
Message-ID: <1009@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 16:03:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1009
Posted: Thu May 30 16:03:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 06:17:48 EDT
References: <-165500@decwrl.UUCP> <45200008@hpfcms.UUCP> <6114@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1837 net.religion:6980

> The problem is that Bill is failing to acknowledge that the Biblical
> language is, by the nature of it being religious language, necessarily
> different in form from the language of science or history.

I wish Charles, who has made this statement before, would explain what the
hell it means.  In what way is it "necessarly different" other than that
you've already assumed a set of conclusions in using such "language".

A good example of such language is:

> Now we have arrived at the heart of the problem.  Why is the bible inerrant?
> It is the absolute word of God.  And what do you mean by that?  Let me quote
> the Episcopal catechism:
> 
>      Q.  Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
>      A.  We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human
>          authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.

If this translates into anything other than the famous Circularist catacombism:

	Q: Why is the Bible the Word of God?
	A: Because it says so in the Bible.

then I would greatly appreciate such a translation.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr