Christian faith in TrekLit?

[label]

It could still exist but not be recognized for what it is, depending on what that society has gone through in its development. You might actually see that appear as a sort of search that has no end state, in that society's development.

Are you saying that in this wildly hypothetical situation that if Aliens exist, that how God interacts with them might significantly differ from how He we believe He interacts with us? How would you reconcile that with the notion that God is unchanging and that "I AM" would be anything different to them then to us? Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to follow.

However, I would hesitate at saying that even an obvious analogous place in an alien society for religious concepts would constitute scientifically verifiable evidence--and I say that even as a person of faith.

If an alien species had a belief in a God, but it was drastically different, then I think the impact of that on my faith would be that I would somewhat challenged to remain a "Christian" in the strictest sense, but that wouldn't necessarily challenge my notion of a Creator. If the alien species showed up with a virtual copy of the Bible, I think that'd be indisputable proof to all but the most hardcore atheists (and they'd just be in denial. ). However, if the alien's showed up and had no concept of a God(s), then I (as a person of faith) am left with two possibilities.

1) God exists and doesn't really care to have a relationship with them which would be very problematic for me.
2) God doesn't exist and the spiritual facet/need that all humans share is not an indication of a divine being, but just a part of who we are.

Completely agreed. I think it encourages people into an attitude of vengeance and delights in destruction rather than focusing on what we can do to further the Kingdom of God--to bring healing to this world now.

Exactly. I've seen that mentality used to justify a lot of very unchristian actions including how people absolve themselves of having to take care of this planet and their environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not drinking Gore's kool-aid, but I'm also cognizant that we were given responsibility to take care of this planet and it's inhabitants and I think that gets lost in the shuffle sometimes because the Left wing has become more associated with being environmentally conscious. We all live on this planet, we should all be doing a better job.

You might be interested, if you would like to read a well thought-out criticism of the idea of the Rapture, in reading the book Will Catholics Be Left Behind?

That would be very interesting. [Edit] I've read through some of the reviews posted on Amazon and taken a closer look a the book. That does indeed look like a great source of information regarding the "end-time" views that has so many in "mainstream" Christianity I run into nowadays. I haven't read it yet, but based on the great reviews it's getting and your own recommendation, this will be next up on my theological "books to read" list.

To this point, I've read several books/papers on the topic I've enjoyed so far, the latest being this short, but effective treatment of the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813343143/ref=wms_ohs_product_C

I also heard a Christian Reformed reverend, while visiting someone's church, openly explain why the whole concept is destructive.

That's awesome. Good to hear there's at least a few critical thinkers left out there in the churches.

Often those "smaller" events have been used and misused in many ways--both by those who claim that no God could tolerate such a thing happening, and by "Christians" like Robertson and Falwell who use them to claim that God is taking out his vengeance on the world for "allowing sin."

Yeah, the amount of damage people who get up in the name of God and make pronouncements like they do have done incredible amounts of damage to people who might be looking for answers about where God is in the mess that is this world.

After watching this cycle several times, the conclusion I have come to is this: what matters to God is how we respond in the face of such tragedies. Do we help to feed, comfort, and clothe our neighbor? Do we show compassion without cruel condemnation? We have to make that choice, because what matters is whether we bring God's compassion to a broken world that matters. Most often, the Holy Spirit acts through us--but not by coercion. We must choose to listen and obey. If we don't do something to relieve suffering, both physical and spiritual, then we have no one but ourselves to blame for turning a disaster into a cataclysm.

An excellent assessment I fully agree with. One of the main two reasons I go the church I attend is because they are so attuned to suffering and calamities in this world and in our own backyard and how we can get out and be the hands and feet of Christ in the world.

Tolstoy's short story "Where Love Is, There Is God Also" is a wonderful literary illustration of this point. And thanks to public domain, one I can share. I think you'll enjoy it.

Thanks for the link and the great conversation.

 

[label]

About faith--I think that the "barrier" you are looking for is the fact that love, by its very nature, must be freely given and received. It is also not a static thing; it is a cyclical and active thing constantly being exchanged from one to the other like a feedback loop. Given this, one of the most critical preconditions of love is free will
....
Therefore we had to be fashioned in a way that gave us a choice as to whether we would or would not accept that love.
....
Yet for God to simply impose His will upon us by force, once we rebelled, is something that I believe firmly would be a horror worse than death.
.....
We must actively decide what it is we felt and perceived; we are not simply forced or brainwashed into it (and that just highlights the depth of the evil, of cults that do such things to people, BTW). We are given a choice that we respond to. That choice is expressed as faith.

Interesting line of reasoning. I have several lines of thought about this:

1. So, are you saying that God setting up a "Dr is in" stand in a city somewhere so people who wanted to get a little empirical proof would lose something that God either wants us to have or be part of the relationship with him?

2. If faith is a requirement to allow us the choice to love and embrace God through our decisions, tell me how you view the Pauline conversion? Was Paul not given that choice? Same question to those who had similarly any-and-all-doubt-removing experiences through divine intervention.

3. How would God interacting with people in a more direct manner lessen the type of relationship He wants to have with us? Isn't that kind of like saying to your wife or friend, "I'm going to write you these letters that tell you how I feel, and occasionally, I may text you or tell someone to remind you how I feel, but I'm not going to ever directly hug you or hold your hand or be visible in the same room with you from now on."?

(and now you can tell that I'm a Methodist

I'm not surprised. I attended a Methodist college (Asbury) and share many, many of my own beliefs with the Free Methodist movement.

 

[Thrawn]

I'm just saying I'm not convinced by any of the others, and I don't think there's any way to know which IS the best system given that they all deal with unanswerable questions

Interesting. So, would you consider yourself a nihilist then? Or, do you think of yourself as more of a solipsist? I'm just trying understand how you construct your epistemological framework if you don't believe that you can really know which lens is the proper one to view the world with?

This sounds like a really interesting question, I'd love to answer it, but I've never studied philosophy, and actually have no idea what those words mean!

 

[label]

This sounds like a really interesting question, I'd love to answer it, but I've never studied philosophy, and actually have no idea what those words mean!

No worries.......

I'll ask the same questions in a bit different way; Do you think objective reality exists? That is to say, reality that "is", that is not contingent upon any individuals existence.

If you do, do you believe we can ever truly know that what we believe is accurately describes objective reality, or do you instead believe that attaining that type of knowledge is unattainable in the first place? If you do believe we cannot know what objective Truth is, what barrier(s) keeps us from that knowledge?

If you do believe that objective Truth can be known, how do you go about creating a system or paradigm that governs what you can and cannot know and how you go about discovering Truth.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It could still exist but not be recognized for what it is, depending on what that society has gone through in its development. You might actually see that appear as a sort of search that has no end state, in that society's development.

Are you saying that in this wildly hypothetical situation that if Aliens exist, that how God interacts with them might significantly differ from how He we believe He interacts with us? How would you reconcile that with the notion that God is unchanging and that "I AM" would be anything different to them then to us? Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to follow.

Actually not. I am saying that this alien society might not understand that part of themselves. There are any number of reasons why this could be, but I would put it down to choices made by the hypothetical aliens rather than a difference in God's methodology.

However, if the alien's showed up and had no concept of a God(s), then I (as a person of faith) am left with two possibilities.

1) God exists and doesn't really care to have a relationship with them which would be very problematic for me.
2) God doesn't exist and the spiritual facet/need that all humans share is not an indication of a divine being, but just a part of who we are.

Or a third possibility--and one I am sure that many here would find highly controversial: that we are to be examples. Not cruel people converting others by the sword, but showing why God is worthy of desire, through behaving with kindness. Behaviors like generosity and forgiveness can be demonstrated.

Obviously this would require us to hold ourselves to a very high standard of conduct--and also to reveal the parts of our past that we are not proud of, because the lessons we learned the hard way are important as well.

Exactly. I've seen that mentality used to justify a lot of very unchristian actions including how people absolve themselves of having to take care of this planet and their environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not drinking Gore's kool-aid, but I'm also cognizant that we were given responsibility to take care of this planet and it's inhabitants and I think that gets lost in the shuffle sometimes because the Left wing has become more associated with being environmentally conscious. We all live on this planet, we should all be doing a better job.

Cleaning up is good...using it as a political football isn't. Those are my thoughts.

1. So, are you saying that God setting up a "Dr is in" stand in a city somewhere so people who wanted to get a little empirical proof would lose something that God either wants us to have or be part of the relationship with him?

The direct presence of God the Father appears to be deadly, to overwhelm the mind (look at the various theophanies in the Bible prior to Jesus' coming, and also to what happened to those who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant without precautions). In sending Jesus to us, God was able to approach us directly and in a way that we could handle...yet with Jesus' presence, we had a choice on whether or not to accept Him. To present Himself in a way that would not overwhelm us is to present Himself in a way that requires our choice.

2. If faith is a requirement to allow us the choice to love and embrace God through our decisions, tell me how you view the Pauline conversion? Was Paul not given that choice? Same question to those who had similarly any-and-all-doubt-removing experiences through divine intervention.

I would argue that as powerful as St. Paul's experience was, he still did have the power of choice. He could've evaluated it after he got out of the "heat" of the moment and decided that he was crazy, or delusional, or even that the vision was sent to him for evil purposes. (Considering his mindset about Christianity beforehand, I imagine he did have to consider and then reject that possibility.

3. How would God interacting with people in a more direct manner lessen the type of relationship He wants to have with us? Isn't that kind of like saying to your wife or friend, "I'm going to write you these letters that tell you how I feel, and occasionally, I may text you or tell someone to remind you how I feel, but I'm not going to ever directly hug you or hold your hand or be visible in the same room with you from now on."?

I don't think that using a relationship between humans--limited in their power--is a fitting comparison. Despite the jokes people make about their relationships, in a normal, loving situation, there is not such a power differential, to where their ability to choose could be removed by proximity.

 

[captcalhoun]

holy snot this thread's off topic. why's it even open any more?

 

[trekfan69]

I've always found religion in Star Trek fascinating and a bit irritating when it comes to TOS. We get lots of talk about Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations and how everyone has more or less moved on from prejudices based on religion and what not but I swear, every time Kirk comes to town (at least in the television series) he's hell bent on exposing the false god of the week and liberating the poor natives of the burden of their silly superstitions.
Sure, the false god in question is usually a renegade Starfleet officer, an unhinged piece of technology, or a petulant super-being taking advantage of the locals...and nobody wants that. But, it always left a bad taste in my mouth. It was more what went unsaid than what was actually said. I believe that silent message was always "All gods are false and on the take and you're ignorant and backwards for believing in them." That doesn't seem like a very IDIC way of thinking to me. I don't ever remember religion being cast in a positive light at all in TOS.
It seems to me that religion is pretty much like anything else in the world that can influence the masses. It can be a good thing-or a very bad thing just depending on who is wielding it. In of itself religion is neither "good" or "bad". It's the ol' guns don't kill people, people do arguement with religion in this case being the gun. It's what people choose to do with it, I think.
We never got to see the Timbucktoobies or whatever practicing their religion in a peaceful, non crazed manner and being recognized as hard working, civilized, intelligent people trying to live their convictions. Those aliens certainly never existed! That possibility is ignored for the much more exciting prospect of bashing things we don't agree with, or for glorifying the radical bug eyed fringes.
Hey, I'm totally cool with keeping sermons within the walls of the church and out of entertainment. It's not Star Trek or any other entertainment's place to preach any particular faith or religion. I am saying, however, that in enlightened Star Trek times it would be cool for religion to get a little of that IDIC philosophy that is spread around liberally on any other given topic.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Regarding religion and faith:

It is impossible to prove the existence of God, just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of God.
This means that:
To believe in God requires a 'leap of faith'.
Ironically, to be an atheist, convinced God doesn't exist, also requires a 'leap of faith'.


I understand the concept of 'faith' as meaning - to take something as true, despite there not being evidence/enough evicence to prove this something as true.

Here I want to address the problem of human motivation.
What motivates people?
If you ask any one person why he/she is doing a certain action, he/she may be able to respond logically up to a certain point, but, at the end of the 'whys', there will always be an emotion/an impulse: ~'because I like it', 'because I hate it', etc.
This emotion can no longer be explained logically; it's just there - this person made a choice for which there was no logical basis.
If a being that thinks perfectly logically, that feels no emotion, would exist, this being would be catatonic, it would lack any motivation, it would just linger, purposeless.

My point is - faith is taking something as true without deriving this truth logically; motivation is deciding to do something/anything without deriving this decision logically.
The similarities are striking.

 

[trekfan69]

Very true.

 

[ST-One]

Ironically, to be an atheist, convinced God doesn't exist, also requires a 'leap of faith'.

No, not really.
Atheism - "lack of belief" - is something like every human's default setting.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith, since atheist are NOT convinced that god doesn't exist, but rather hold the position that there is no evidence to support the idea that a god exists.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Ironically, to be an atheist, convinced God doesn't exist, also requires a 'leap of faith'.

No, not really.
Atheism - "lack of belief" - is something like every human's default setting.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith, since atheist are NOT convinced that god doesn't exist, but rather hold the position that there is no evidence to support the idea that a god exists.

Not quite.

An agnostic has the position that there is not evidence to prove 'the idea that a God exists' just as there is not evidence to prove the ideea that god doesn't exist.

An atheist is convinced god doesn't exist, despite being unable to prove this logically - meaning an atheist can only arrive at this conclusion through faith.

 

[Thrawn]

This sounds like a really interesting question, I'd love to answer it, but I've never studied philosophy, and actually have no idea what those words mean!

No worries.......

I'll ask the same questions in a bit different way; Do you think objective reality exists? That is to say, reality that "is", that is not contingent upon any individuals existence.

If you do, do you believe we can ever truly know that what we believe is accurately describes objective reality, or do you instead believe that attaining that type of knowledge is unattainable in the first place? If you do believe we cannot know what objective Truth is, what barrier(s) keeps us from that knowledge?

If you do believe that objective Truth can be known, how do you go about creating a system or paradigm that governs what you can and cannot know and how you go about discovering Truth.

I think if you start assuming reality doesn't exist, then there's little point to philosophy in the first place, so let's answer a "yes" to that one.

As to your second question, I think reality is complex and bizarre, and we'll never know how all of it works, but that's really ok. Science has as a fundamental perspective, I think, that all we're really doing here is approximating reality to steadily greater degrees of accuracy. It certainly seems as though there are questions that will never be answerable (eg, "where did this all come from in the first place", not to mention something like "why is my sister so damn stubborn all the time").

My position is that I think that's all there ever will be - more and more accurate approximations - so let's keep doing that, learning what we can, and using that knowledge to define us. I'd much rather rely on an approximation I know is accurate to (to pick a random number) 90% than take random guesses at the remaining 10% and build my life on that.

 

[ST-One]

Ironically, to be an atheist, convinced God doesn't exist, also requires a 'leap of faith'.

No, not really.
Atheism - "lack of belief" - is something like every human's default setting.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith, since atheist are NOT convinced that god doesn't exist, but rather hold the position that there is no evidence to support the idea that a god exists.

Not quite.

An agnostic has the position that there is not evidence to prove 'the idea that a God exists' just as there is not evidence to prove the ideea that god doesn't exist.

An atheist is convinced god doesn't exist, despite being unable to prove this logically - meaning an atheist can only arrive at this conclusion through faith.

Is this another case of 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes true'?

You are wrong about atheists; they just lack the belief in something for which there is no evidence.
That's not a conviction of anything, but a lack of something.

 

[Thrawn]

^ Right. Like, if I deny the existence of purple man-eating unicorns, that's not because I'm making a leap of faith to deny their existence. It just means I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do exist, so why bother thinking about it?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

No, not really.
Atheism - "lack of belief" - is something like every human's default setting.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith, since atheist are NOT convinced that god doesn't exist, but rather hold the position that there is no evidence to support the idea that a god exists.

Not quite.

An agnostic has the position that there is not evidence to prove 'the idea that a God exists' just as there is not evidence to prove the ideea that god doesn't exist.

An atheist is convinced god doesn't exist, despite being unable to prove this logically - meaning an atheist can only arrive at this conclusion through faith.

Is this another case of 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes true'?

You are wrong about atheists; they just lack the belief in something for which there is no evidence.
That's not a conviction of anything, but a lack of something.

ST-One, atheists believe in the non-existence of God:
They can't logically prove God doesn't exist but they are convinced God doesn't exist.

One can believe a positive affirmation just as one can beleive a negative affirmation.
A lack of conviction/faith would make one an agnostic, NOT an atheist.

What part of all this is unclear?

^ Right. Like, if I deny the existence of purple man-eating unicorns, that's not because I'm making a leap of faith to deny their existence. It just means I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do exist, so why bother thinking about it?

You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is RIDICULOUSLY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist.

You cannot prove that the existence of God is EXTREMELY improbable - beyond a reasonable doubt, that is.
This means you claiming God doesn't exist requires a leap of faith.

 

[ST-One]

Not quite.

An agnostic has the position that there is not evidence to prove 'the idea that a God exists' just as there is not evidence to prove the ideea that god doesn't exist.

An atheist is convinced god doesn't exist, despite being unable to prove this logically - meaning an atheist can only arrive at this conclusion through faith.

Is this another case of 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes true'?

You are wrong about atheists; they just lack the belief in something for which there is no evidence.
That's not a conviction of anything, but a lack of something.

ST-One, atheists believe in the non-existence of God:
They can't logically prove God doesn't exist but they are convinced God doesn't exist.

One can believe a positive affirmation just as one can beleive a negative affirmation.

What part of all this is unclear?

^ Right. Like, if I deny the existence of purple man-eating unicorns, that's not because I'm making a leap of faith to deny their existence. It just means I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do exist, so why bother thinking about it?

You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is EXTREMELY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist to a more than satisfactorily degree.

You cannot prove that the existence of God is EXTREMELY improbable - beyond a reasonable doubt, that is.
This means you claiming God doesn't exist requires a large leap of faith.

Atheism describes a lack of faith in your god or any other god not a leap of faith into unbelieving.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe in the non-existence of god(s) - which is a ridiculous notion, to be honest.
I simply haven't seen any evidence that would make me think deities exist.

 

[ST-One]

You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is RIDICULOUSLY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist.

Please, do so.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Is this another case of 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes true'?

You are wrong about atheists; they just lack the belief in something for which there is no evidence.
That's not a conviction of anything, but a lack of something.

ST-One, atheists believe in the non-existence of God:
They can't logically prove God doesn't exist but they are convinced God doesn't exist.

One can believe a positive affirmation just as one can beleive a negative affirmation.

What part of all this is unclear?

^ Right. Like, if I deny the existence of purple man-eating unicorns, that's not because I'm making a leap of faith to deny their existence. It just means I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do exist, so why bother thinking about it?

You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is EXTREMELY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist to a more than satisfactorily degree.

You cannot prove that the existence of God is EXTREMELY improbable - beyond a reasonable doubt, that is.
This means you claiming God doesn't exist requires a large leap of faith.

Atheism describes a lack of faith in your god or any other god not a leap of faith into unbelieving.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe in the non-existence of god(s) - which is a ridiculous notion, to be honest.
I simply haven't seen any evidence that would make me think deities exist.

If you don't believe in the non-existence of God and you don't beleive in the existence of god then you're an AGNOSTIC, NOT an atheist, ST-One:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

[ST-One]

ST-One, atheists believe in the non-existence of God:
They can't logically prove God doesn't exist but they are convinced God doesn't exist.

One can believe a positive affirmation just as one can beleive a negative affirmation.

What part of all this is unclear?



You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is EXTREMELY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist to a more than satisfactorily degree.

You cannot prove that the existence of God is EXTREMELY improbable - beyond a reasonable doubt, that is.
This means you claiming God doesn't exist requires a large leap of faith.

Atheism describes a lack of faith in your god or any other god not a leap of faith into unbelieving.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe in the non-existence of god(s) - which is a ridiculous notion, to be honest.
I simply haven't seen any evidence that would make me think deities exist.

If you don't believe in the non-existence of God and you don't beleive in the existence of god then you're an AGNOSTIC, NOT an atheist, ST-One:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Sorry, but I find this wishy-washy, fence-sitting agnosticism-stuff quite pointless.
I don't believe in anything without evidence.
And I don't believe in gods - and that makes me an atheist.

 

[Smellincoffee]

You can prove the existence of 'purple man-eating unicorns' is RIDICULOUSLY improbable - far beyond a resonable doubt.
This means you can logically prove 'purple man-eating unicorns' don't exist.

Please, do so.

No skeletal remains of horselike creatures with headlong protrusions have ever been found. Unicorns, if they in fact existed, would seem to be related to the horse, given their appearance -- but the Equus family are herbivores, not carnivores. They don't have the right teeth for tearing meat from flesh, and I doubt their digestive systems are equipped to handle meat, either.

You can't prove a negative, but you can understand some propositions to be pretty bloody unlikely -- and for me, that extends to ghosts, goblins, gods, angels, demons, and every other supernatural spookum people have dreamed up.