Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Rush Limborg]

But again, the idea that, "we haven't proven the idea yet, but we might in the future"...isn't that a statement of faith?

No, it's a statement of fact. "We never will" or "we definitely will" are both statements of faith. "We might" is a statement of fact.

You are presuming that the theory of evolution does not posses certain presumptions--certain assumptions--as much as literalist creationism does.

To the contrary. Let me explain it this way: "We might fill in the gaps of evolutionary theory" is a statement of fact (more or less)--but then again, so is "We might not."

In the same way, "We might not fill in the gaps of literalist creationist theory" is a statement of fact--but then again, so is "We might very well fill in the gaps."

I happen to think the possibility is likely, given a historically remarkably well-attested pattern of science explaining things that religion claims must have been the work of a god. That's just historical awareness. But of course I admit the possibility I could be wrong, and we will never spontaneously generate life.

Sounds like you're not a "militant atheist" so much as an agnostic who leans towards atheism.

I did not say it was a reason to call Evolution invalid. I am simply asking how we know that it was, in fact, a "missing link"--and not simply, say, an old man who suffered from a bad case of arthritis.

That's a great question, as are your questions about the current explanations for punctuated equilibrium. I've got a suggestion: why don't you go find out what those answers are? They're complicated and require a lot of specialized knowledge, but the resources are available.

Because I am not the one defending that point of view.

If I were to make a claim, and you asked me for proof, and I said that it was your job to look it up--would you have accepted that?

Until you've done the research though, it might be a good idea for you to not doubt things that hundreds of people have studied and postulated explanations for. I certainly make no comments whatsoever about specific Christian beliefs, because I don't have any knowledge on the subject; I've never read the Bible or any of the scholarship on it.

Hundreds of people have studied and postulated explanations for literalist creationism too, Thrawn.

Saying "this sounds ridiculous to me" is not a valid point in an argument about science. Much of scientifically accepted theory is counterintuitive at best, but always built on a foundation of observation and experimentation. It's completely obvious from your posts that you're unaware of the current state of evolutionary biology.

Apparently not....

But again, it is not my job to defend your point of view.

Thrawn...you made a big deal over my alleged misuse of a term. Let me point out a similar problem on your part.

The term "faith" does not mean accepting things blindly, in spite of lack of evidence--or the existance of contradictory evidence. It is simply a matter of filling in the blanks when our reason does not answer all of our question.

I would venture to assert that you are assuming a "false dicotomy" between science and faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, at a certain point, we all must "fill in the gaps". The question is not how we fill them in, but what are the standards for us revising those guesses.

Let me ask you a question - what would it take for you to have your faith in Jesus Christ reversed? What would it take for you to no longer believe in his divinity? Speaking purely hypothetically here. I've already told you what it would take to disprove evolution - your turn.

Well let's see...

You say evolution could be disproved if a human skeleton were to be discovered that is dated at 1 million years.

I point out a possible example--and you assert that that was not homo sapiens.

I asked how that was determined...and rather than answer, you tell me to look it up myself.


I'm guessing there would be no issue if I were to react the same way were I in a similar situation.

Here's my point. I would probably say that, given time, it might turn out that what you claim is evidence disproving Christianity is in fact not so--just as you say that, given time, the many holes in evolutionary theory might be explained.

The difference is...I admit fully that my presumptions, as far as my beliefs are concerned, are a matter of faith.

(Sorry about the double post; I know it should've been one longer one. My mistake.)

Frankly, I'm not too worried about that.

 

[label]

"Worship me or die" is pretty much Yahweh's entire schtick, particularly in the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish history is marked by God smiting them for not worshipping him

Perhaps the semantics involved is where I'm getting hung up here.....when I think of "Worship", I think of singing praises or praying prayers of thanks.......things you'd normally do in the Worship part of a service. Do you mean that when you state that God says "Worship Me", or are you really meaning "Obey Me"?

In the Kings and Chronicles, "good kings" and "bad kings" are defined by their persistence in suppressing other religions and mandating Yahweh worship. Manesseh, Hezikah, Joshiah...all names of interest.

Yes, the Old Testament can definitely be problematic in places and I still struggle with a few passages myself. However, much of what's recorded in Kings and Chronicles are not recording the types of behaviors that God wants us to necessarily emulate, they are merely historical accounts of what occurred, both good and bad.

The "worship me thing" is quite biblical, though.

Unless you go for the Psalms, I suppose..

Oooooor, Song of Solomon.

 

[Thrawn]

Ok, Rush, come on now.

If a scientist - someone trained, and whose job it is to make these determinations - tells me "this is not a homo sapiens skeleton", I'm going to believe them. That's their job and their field of expertise. If I must rephrase: "To disprove evolution, a *verifiable* homo sapiens skeleton must be found anachronistically." It is not unreasonable to ask that experts in the field verify a finding before I let it disprove my entire worldview. You're being silly, here. Obviously, someone entirely uninformed in the field misunderstanding a well-known finding and saying so on a messageboard doesn't qualify.

And, yes, if I - uninformed as I am - found something I believed was a logical flaw in the Bible and posted about it, there's absolutely no way I'd expect that to convince you. And I would think "you have no idea what you're talking about, go read this history to understand what that actually means" would be a completely valid response. It's absurd to think otherwise. I'm not claiming knowledge of your field; you're the one claiming that a discovery counts as evidence against mine when the people that discovered it don't even think so!

And you still haven't answered the question. I've explained what it would take to disprove evolution for me. What would it take - purely hypothetical, here, I mean what sequence of imaginary events, plausible or otherwise would it take - for you to stop believing in Christianity? You don't get to dodge this one.

 

[label]

What would it take - purely hypothetical, here, I mean what sequence of imaginary events, plausible or otherwise would it take - for you to stop believing in Christianity?

It's an interesting question to be sure. No scientific discovery that we're capable of making in my lifetime would do it.

So, I suppose I should define what Christianity is for me in order to determine what it would take to disavow it. Christianity is an ideology that at it's simplest form really only asserts a few central points.

- God created everything
- God is uncompromisingly just
- God want's a relationship with those He created
- Jesus lived a perfect life, died so we could have that relationship with God
- Love God with all your heart
- Treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated

Some event would have to occur that would be in violation with one of those tenants. For me, that something would have to be a near extinction event on Earth........that would probably invalidate my belief in God, and consequently Christianity. Contact with an Alien race might push me a ways towards real doubt. Beyond that........not much else.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I don't see how contact with an alien race would be any sort of faith problem, personally.

As far as a mass extinction event...remember that a lot of the kinds of disasters that we could encounter are very likely to be self-inflicted, or otherwise due to our failure to stop said event (probably because of acting like a bunch of squabbling children when the time comes).

 

[ST-One]

Hundreds of people have studied and postulated explanations for literalist creationism too, Thrawn.

Yet they don't have any evidence to back up their ideas, and are only agreed upon by a certain group of Christians.

Whereas evolutionary biologists from all over the world, from various cultural backgrounds and religious affiliation agree that the theory of evolution is correct.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Right in this thread, we have somebody saying that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel didn't literally happen.

Somebody?

label obviously. Geez, read the thread.

And you read my posts. You obviously have problems understanding them.

post was "You will not encounter statements like 'maybe what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right', etc in any religion." - religion, NOT a believer.

Where in the BIBLE - or in another text, considered canon by all the faithful - does it say "what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right'"?

Religion is the believers. Or, ok, the structure put together by believers to codify those things they share in common. But if the believers say so, thus is the religion.

As to the second part - Paul's letters in the New Testament state that the Law of the Hebrew Bible doesn't apply to Christians, but the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is still a canon part of the Christian Bible, including the Law.

And again you seem to have problems understanding my post.
I asked you - 'Where in the BIBLE - or in another text, considered canon by all the faithful - does it say "what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right'".
Of course, my question is not limited to the Bible - you're welcome to search the Coran or any other holy text.

I did not ask you for rhetoric.
And saying that this law applies to this group of people is something compelely different from saying that this law is wrong or not quite right.

And many/most are NOT willing to do so - as history amply demonstrates.

And many of those who are willing to ignore/reinterpret parts of canon end up creating divisions/sects, with a different 'literal' truth.

Well unless you're going to make the ridiculous statement that only Christians who take the Bible 100% literally as fact are real Christians... you have to accept that not all believers read their sacred texts literally all the time. Sorry if that's confusing, but that's how it is. Who cares if they make new divisions/sects - they're still believers.

These believers care when they make new divisions/sects.
These believers - yes, christians, but not only - have been killing each other - and others - for millenia because their 'truth' is the real one.

Also, many/most faithful regard their religion as literal truth - as history proved again and again by their actions. Deal with it.
And you're the one who confuses historical fact about religion - including christianity - with what you wish religion to be.

 

[label]

I don't see how contact with an alien race would be any sort of faith problem, personally.

Well, for me, that would be entirely contingent upon whether they seemed to possess the same set of intrinsic moral code that is contained within the human race or not. If my belief is that

A) God Created everything
B) God created humans(and in this case, other lifeforms) in order to have a relationship with them.
C) God's moral code's are His own and don't vary by race

Then it follows that any species would share a certain number of essential moral codes....don't murder, don't steal, etc, etc. If the alien species had no concept of a "God" and their sense of justice or "morality" was completely foreign, then I would argue that would yield serious implications that Theists would need to reconcile with their faith.

As far as a mass extinction event...remember that a lot of the kinds of disasters that we could encounter are very likely to be self-inflicted, or otherwise due to our failure to stop said event (probably because of acting like a bunch of squabbling children when the time comes).

It's a fair point. I'm not entirely sure why the notion of a mass extinction event would push me towards non-belief except that I believe that we won't face another mass extinction event (like "the flood', if you take that at face value) until God's ready to end this existence Himself either with Jesus's return or God speaking a word of something. It's admittedly not a very well thought out belief in my life and is one that perhaps needs revisiting.

 

[label]

Also, many/most faithful regard their religion as literal truth - as history proved again and again by their actions..

I think you (and others in this thread) need to be careful about using the word "literal" truth in different contexts here. I personally believe the truth found in the Bible is Literal, Objective Truth. Just as I believe that parables that Jesus used to convey this Literal Truth were not literal, historical accounts, I believe other passages in the Bible to also convey Literal Truth even if they themselves are not literal historical accounts.

As with all people who have faith, I regard what I believe in to be literally True.....there is a creator and He loves us all.

I regard parts of the Bible to be literal accounts, some parts allegorical, some parts songs, some parts love poetry, some parts historical accounts and other parts, straight forward, directed teaching. The Bible is a very old collection of books and letters, songs and poetry assembled by many authors and groups of people over many, many years. It should not be surprising in the least that once one tries to glean more from the scriptures then the on the surface, facile truths that are present, that much more understanding is required to make sense out of certain passages.

 

[captcalhoun]

how can it be the literal truth and not literally true? that's absurd.,

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Also, many/most faithful regard their religion as literal truth - as history proved again and again by their actions..

I think you (and others in this thread) need to be careful about using the word "literal" truth in different contexts here. I personally believe the truth found in the Bible is Literal, Objective Truth. Just as I believe that parables that Jesus used to convey this Literal Truth were not literal, historical accounts, I believe other passages in the Bible to also convey Literal Truth even if they themselves are not literal historical accounts.

As with all people who have faith, I regard what I believe in to be literally True.....there is a creator and He loves us all.

I regard parts of the Bible to be literal accounts, some parts allegorical, some parts songs, some parts love poetry, some parts historical accounts and other parts, straight forward, directed teaching. The Bible is a very old collection of books and letters, songs and poetry assembled by many authors and groups of people over many, many years. It should not be surprising in the least that once one tries to glean more from the scriptures then the on the surface, facile truths that are present, that much more understanding is required to make sense out of certain passages.

Other faithful regard other portions of the bible as literal accounts, other parts allegorical - or with another allegorical meaning -, other parts directed techings, and make a different sense out of different certain passages.
The creationists vs evolution debate shows that there are enough faithful who, even today, take as literal truth/account/historical fact the most scientifically absurd portions of the Bible.

And, during history, such other faithful proved on many occasions to have no compunctions in skinning you alive because you disagreed with them about how to interpret the odd comma.

 

[label]

how can it be the literal truth and not literally true? that's absurd.,

Not sure why you're not getting it.............I'm not sure how to say it any clearer than I did. Parables may contain literal truths, and they themselves are not attempting to convey literal historical accounts. Like Aesop's fables......

 

[label]

And, during history, such other faithful proved on many occasions to have no compunctions in skinning you alive because you disagreed with them about how to interpret the odd comma.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you that people have misused the Bible throughout history and have done some horrible things in the name of "religion" even though most major religions explicitly condemn the activities that are being perpetrated in their name. I was simply noting that certain people in the thread are using the word "literal" in completely different contexts and that it appeared to make communication more difficult.

There's "Literal" as it pertains how people accept the whole of their ideology to be literally true....i.e: I believe basic tenants of Christianity to be literally true. Then there's "literal" as it applies to the context of some specific passage that is being talked about whether it be the Tower of Babel, Creation Story or Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Ok, Rush, come on now.

If a scientist - someone trained, and whose job it is to make these determinations - tells me "this is not a homo sapiens skeleton", I'm going to believe them. That's their job and their field of expertise. If I must rephrase: "To disprove evolution, a *verifiable* homo sapiens skeleton must be found anachronistically." It is not unreasonable to ask that experts in the field verify a finding before I let it disprove my entire worldview. You're being silly, here. Obviously, someone entirely uninformed in the field misunderstanding a well-known finding and saying so on a messageboard doesn't qualify.

Hundreds of people have studied and postulated explanations for literalist creationism too, Thrawn.

Yet they don't have any evidence to back up their ideas, and are only agreed upon by a certain group of Christians.

Whereas evolutionary biologists from all over the world, from various cultural backgrounds and religious affiliation agree that the theory of evolution is correct.

I do concede that trained scientists do have credibility in such matters--I must also point out that there are significant numbers of scientists who proudly are strongly critical of the theory of evolution--many of which are full-fledged creationists.

Among them are Nobel Prize nominee Henry F. Shaefer; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Paul Davies, former Cambridge University professor of theoretical physics; late astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle; Owen Gingerich, senor astronomer at the Smithsonian; Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of Discovery Institute (who earned his doctorate from Cambridge); and so on

And, yes, if I - uninformed as I am - found something I believed was a logical flaw in the Bible and posted about it, there's absolutely no way I'd expect that to convince you. And I would think "you have no idea what you're talking about, go read this history to understand what that actually means" would be a completely valid response. It's absurd to think otherwise. I'm not claiming knowledge of your field; you're the one claiming that a discovery counts as evidence against mine when the people that discovered it don't even think so!

Actually, Thrawn, I would have respected your intelligence enough to have, at the very least, pointed you to where you could find the answers to your questions.

And you still haven't answered the question. I've explained what it would take to disprove evolution for me. What would it take - purely hypothetical, here, I mean what sequence of imaginary events, plausible or otherwise would it take - for you to stop believing in Christianity? You don't get to dodge this one.

I did, actually. Just as you said that, "We don't have the answers for that yet--but we might in the future"--I would probably respond in a similar manner.

A straight answer, Thrawn, is that I honestly don't know what would be sufficient evidence for me to stop believing in Christianity. I doubt there would be anything--and I'll explain why:

You yourself said that the theory of evolution is constantly being revised and improved as evidence is revealed. I would say the same for creationism.

BTW...you said a million-year-old verafiably human skeleton would be irrefutable evidence that disproves evolutionary theory. To be fair to your side...I would say, "Not necessarily. You could simply revise the evolutionary chart to account for modern man existing that long ago."

But still, I would offer that the one thing that would destroy Christianity--read carefully, now--the only thing which I think would establish, in no uncertain terms, that Christianity is a lie...would have to be the verifiable bones of Jesus Christ.

As I said before--if the resurrection is a lie, Christianity is no better than a simple moral philosophy, with no special significance other than possible historical contributions.

But the reson I previously said "I don't know" is that I sincerely doubt (to put it mildly) that there will ever be any way to verify whether a skeleton was that of Christ or not. There was no such thing as DNA sampling back then--and as far as the records are concerned, Jesus didn't have any offspring (The DaVinci Code notwithstanding...) to compare any DNA samples (if any remain) to.

 

[David cgc]

As I said before--if the resurrection is a lie, Christianity is no better than a simple moral philosophy, with no special significance other than possible historical contributions.

Thank you for denigrating everyone who's ever given their lives for an ideal, from the martyred saints to soldiers defending their societies. "No better than a simple moral philosophy." I find it absolutely repugnant that people follow Christianity (or any religion) because they want to be a good little boy so Santa-Jesus gives them everything they want for Heaven, and not because they find the ideals to be better than the alternative philosophies.

I am baffled that someone could call themselves a follower of Jesus Christ, man or God, and then say that if the supernatural elements weren't true the philosophy would be invalidated. If someone were to disprove the Resurrection and you wouldn't believe that Christianity was the most perfect moral philosophy ever to come from the human heart, still worthy of your adherence, devotion, and yes, your very life if it were to come to that, then I strongly recommend you reexamine your commitment to the faith.

Things will try you in this life that are far, far more challenging than people who believe the evidence in the stones, and you will need to have complete confidence in your foundational beliefs, whatever those may be, to see you through. That's not what I'm hearing when you say that the only thing ranking Jesus Christ above John Locke is that Locke stayed dead longer.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Sorry...but I'm going with Paul on this one. In fact, he wrote this passage to logically silence the claim you propose, that the idea that the teachings of Christ can be separated from the supernatural:

But if it is preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ [read: those who were martyred for the faith] are lost.

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied above all men.
(I Chorinthians 15:12-19)

Sorry...but that's how it is.

I find it absolutely repugnant that people follow Christianity (or any religion) because they want to be a good little boy so Santa-Jesus gives them everything they want for Heaven,

That is a straw man, David cgc--and you know it, if you know anything about the doctrine of salvation.

Things will try you in this life that are far, far more challenging than people who believe the evidence in the stones, and you will need to have complete confidence in your foundational beliefs, whatever those may be, to see you through.

And do you honestly think--after all this time I have spent in this thread--that I don't have complete confidence in my foundational beliefs? I just happen to include a firm belief in the resurrection as one of those "foundational beliefs"--and that that doctrine is, indeed, one of the most "foundational" in Christianity.

 

[David cgc]

And do you honestly think--after all this time I have spent in this thread--that I don't have complete confidence in my foundational beliefs?

On the contrary, after all the time you've spent in this thread, I'd be willing to bet on it. It's not unheard of that people who shout the loudest are trying to convince themselves.

And also because you did not address the root accusation. Are the moral teachings of Jesus Christ only valid because of who and what He was?

 

[Rush Limborg]

And do you honestly think--after all this time I have spent in this thread--that I don't have complete confidence in my foundational beliefs?

On the contrary, after all the time you've spent in this thread, I'd be willing to bet on it. It's not unheard of that people who shout the loudest are trying to convince themselves.

Not unheard of...but not the rule, either--in fact, far from it. Besides...I'm not the one "shouting" in these debates.

Let me ask you...would you rather I keep silent, in what I say? If so...I would presume that that preference is more of a sign of insecurity.

No--my intentions here were not to convince myself...but rather, to dispel the notion that religious belief is not incompatable with reason. I admit it does challenge me, and sharpen my mind in matters of apologetics--however, that's not why I'm doing it.

Of course...without defenders of ideas--without public, unyielding defenders of ideas--said ideas are easily dismissed and thrown away at the first attack.

Frankly...were I to "flee" this thread, the latest challenge by another poster would be unanswered--and therefore, it would be interpereted that I was unable to address it.

And also because you did not address the root accusation. Are the moral teachings of Jesus Christ only valid because of who and what He was?

A bit of a dysphemism, that last statement--but basically, yes. Technically, the character of Jesus--who he was--is an absolutely essential element of his teachings.

His teachings are so full of claims about himself--from "whomever drinks from the water I give him will never thirst", to "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life--no one comes to the Father except through me", to "come to me, and I will come to rest"--that to separate them from the rest of his teachings is both arbitrary and irrational.

 

[Thrawn]

I sincerely doubt (to put it mildly) that there will ever be any way to verify whether a skeleton was that of Christ or not. There was no such thing as DNA sampling back then--and as far as the records are concerned, Jesus didn't have any offspring (The DaVinci Code notwithstanding...) to compare any DNA samples (if any remain) to.

I think I'll exit this debate with this particular distinction, then - Rush, I am simply uncomfortable devoting my life to a philosophy that is unverifiable. The reason science appeals to me is that anyone anywhere, with access to the same information, is capable of verifying the results. I don't care how much it doesn't make sense to you that events could've gone differently; I'm fundamentally uncomfortable accepting solely the word of a few people from 2,000 years ago about something this important. I can't understand a God who harbored a desire to help his people see the light not being more convincing, and consistent, than that. And in a very real sort of way, I don't believe that is really a statement of faith, just a statement of... disbelief.

Agnostics are often decried for being intellectually lazy and/or not making up their mind, or something similar, but I think that most atheists would readily agree that they won't ever have an answer to the question of where the universe came from, and thus are at some level fundamentally comfortable with not picking a particular answer to that question. And being comfortable with not knowing, I think, is not the same as faith in a religion. It's rather the opposite.

Evolution, as a theory, will continue to have pieces disproven and altered; by your own admission, Christianity is incapable of such development. It is thus a philosophy I can't accept. If it doesn't make allowances for the fallibility of its narrators, I can't trust them. Science by its very nature doesn't have that problem. I'm only interested in believing in things that can be disproven, that have definable ways in which I would someday know I was wrong.

I think posting about my entire development of my moral code is a little personal for this particular forum, but suffice it to say that it does not in my opinion rely on any particular leap of faith. I don't even believe that I'm necessarily right about things like God, Heaven, Hell, etc; I'm just unconvinced, so I've chosen to construct my moral code based only upon things I believe are verifiably true about reality. Whether or not this is all there is, I think I should be happy and proud of what I do here, since it seems more likely to me that death is the end for me whenever it comes. I'm happy with the moral code that has resulted, I believe my beliefs are internally consistent, and give me genuine reasons for doing good in the world.

My point from the beginning, and what I still remain uncomfortable with, is the unspoken equivalence in the minds of many religious people that choosing to not believe any faith is qualitatively the same as choosing to believe in a particular one. Or moreover that deciding to trust the results of scientific endeavor is in support of the former or in opposition to the latter. I think neither is true, for the reasons I've explained above. I think the term "evolutionist" is an attempt at subtly conflating religion and faith, and as such should be avoided in the interests of intellectual honesty. And I hope you can at least see why *I* think they're qualitatively different choices, even if you insist otherwise.

 

[flemm]

Sorry...but that's how it is.

Paul was already an interpreter of the historical Jesus, however. An extremely influential one, probably the most influential one, as far as Christian doctrine is concerned, but an interpreter. So really, I don't see any reason why his opinion on the subject should necessarily define anyone's beliefs, despite the fact that his epistles are considered to be part of holy scripture by (as far as I know) all major denominations of Christianity.

That's especially true since the text of the Gospels and all the epistles as we know them are part of a tradition established over time, in the early decades and centuries following the death of Jesus.

On that note, it's interesting to read some of the apocryphal (and some would say heretical) gospels that have been discovered in recent times. There were a lot of stories about Jesus, many of which differ greatly from what eventually came to be received as canon in the Church. Some of them, presumably, were never written down, or did not survive.