Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

Have you ever watched DS9 by any chance? You might like the Bajorans; they're portrayed in a very multifaceted way. Both the laity and the clerics are very much people--lots of different personalities, stands on controversial issues, and so forth. There are some jerks and outright terrorists, yes, but there are also some very smart, very devoted people that treat people wonderfully.

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.

The difference is your first example (the man-eating unicorns) is falsifiable by physical evidence. The second is not. So, whatever you think of the likelihood, you'll never be able to find a proof one way or the other.

 

[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.

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.

The difference is your first example (the man-eating unicorns) is falsifiable by physical evidence.

Physical evidence disagree with the creation myth in the Bible.

The second is not. So, whatever you think of the likelihood, you'll never be able to find a proof one way or the other.

That's a statement of faith.
You can't possibly know that.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The difference is your first example (the man-eating unicorns) is falsifiable by physical evidence.

Physical evidence disagree with the creation myth in the Bible.

Notice my stance on evolution upthread. I read the creation story in allegorical fashion and have no disagreement with the scientific description of how we came about. The major points made by the story, though, that we were created (and not an accident), and that we were offered a choice by God and rejected it, I take as absolutely true. How God actually did that creation, or whether the fruit is literal or a symbol, does not bother me. If anything, what science reveals I find to be incredibly awe-inspiring.

The second is not. So, whatever you think of the likelihood, you'll never be able to find a proof one way or the other.

That's a statement of faith.
You can't possibly know that.

Actually not. It's inherent in the nature of the instruments (be they our own natural ones, or ones we've created), that they are limited to a certain subset of our experiences, in terms of what they can and cannot measure. There is an additional subset of experiences that cannot be quantified in the same way, even though the impulses and neurotransmitters involved can indeed be measured. Certain stimuli, for instance, give us a pleasurable response, but beyond the simple determination of health that we can make from our medical instruments, we cannot determine the worth of that experience--whether it is one we ought or ought not to pursue. That is a determination left to that internal experience we cannot convey to others without losing something critical: the ability to experience it as one's self, not through a description or a set of measurements.

As far as God Himself goes, His intangibility (with the exception of the Incarnation of course) precludes any measurement with scientific instruments. It is therefore impossible to prove or disprove by physical means whether or not He exists. Other means may come closer, such as philosophical proof--but as far as hard physical evidence one way or the other...that won't be possible.

 

[Myasishchev]

I don't think the Kai or the Vedek Assembly were supposed to have secular political authority. When Winn made herself the de facto First Minister, it was quite controversial and soon reversed. It's just that the Bajoran faith (Prophetism? They never named it) is so pervasive in the society that the religious authorities have considerable influence on how people live their lives even without formal legal or political authority.

In fairness, the Bajoran religion is factually true, so while respecting no establishment makes sense for us, it could be argued that, for Bajorans, it makes more sense to permit their religion a significant and formal government role.

I mean, premillennial dispensationalists would be a lot easier to take seriously, too, if the Rapture had already happened.

The problem, from a Fed standpoint, is really that the Bajorans are far more loyal to an alien potentate than they could conceivably be to the UFP.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

One can simply ask, "where is the evidence to support this proposition of yours - that there is a God?"

Declining to accept a claim without substantial evidence to support it requires no "leap of faith" at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The only reason you really make this mistake is because you've already made another by implicitly accepting that the existence of God is a default premise that individuals must respond to.

 

[Myasishchev]

Anytime Left Behind and End Times stuff comes up around here, I always love to direct people to the slacktivist's Left Behind series on his blog, which is a very detailed page-by-page (well, almost) examination of what's in Left Behind, what's wrong with it from a Christian perspective, and what it means, with a lot of humor and snark at times. It's in reverse chronological order, so you'll have to start at the bottom, work to the top, and then click "Previous."

It's also extremely long - started in 2003 and still going now. But it's pretty much amazing and worth it.

Oh, I'd like to second this. Fred Clark's a really great writer and my personal favorite Christian.

But even as long as the project has been going on, he's only like halfway through Tribulation Force (the second book... of, what, thirteen?). I spent something like two weeks or a month getting through Clark's old posts catalog, and now I may need to actually purchase the Left Behind novels. But I don't know if I dare experience them without an intermediary.

 

[ST-One]

Notice my stance on evolution upthread. I read the creation story in allegorical fashion and have no disagreement with the scientific description of how we came about. The major points made by the story, though, that we were created (and not an accident), and that we were offered a choice by God and rejected it, I take as absolutely true. How God actually did that creation, or whether the fruit is literal or a symbol, does not bother me. If anything, what science reveals I find to be incredibly awe-inspiring.

Where's the evidence that all life on this planet (and I guess and all the other world out there too) was created by a single being?
BTW: Life is not an accident. It's a remarkable combination of factors, and that is actually much more 'awe-inspiring' than the notion of a supreme being creating us with the single goal in mind: to have someone worship him and follow his commands.

Isn't it interesting that, today, 'God' used evolution to create us when only a few centuries ago he created us from the mud of the Earth in the shape that we are in now?

'God' is fighting a retreating battle - and he is losing.

The second is not. So, whatever you think of the likelihood, you'll never be able to find a proof one way or the other.

That's a statement of faith.
You can't possibly know that.

Actually not. It's inherent in the nature of the instruments (be they our own natural ones, or ones we've created), that they are limited to a certain subset of our experiences, in terms of what they can and cannot measure. There is an additional subset of experiences that cannot be quantified in the same way, even though the impulses and neurotransmitters involved can indeed be measured. Certain stimuli, for instance, give us a pleasurable response, but beyond the simple determination of health that we can make from our medical instruments, we cannot determine the worth of that experience--whether it is one we ought or ought not to pursue. That is a determination left to that internal experience we cannot convey to others without losing something critical: the ability to experience it as one's self, not through a description or a set of measurements.

So you have a hard time explaining your feelings.

As far as God Himself goes, His intangibility (with the exception of the Incarnation of course) precludes any measurement with scientific instruments. It is therefore impossible to prove or disprove by physical means whether or not He exists. Other means may come closer, such as philosophical proof--but as far as hard physical evidence one way or the other...that won't be possible.

That is, of course, another statement of faith (well, what else?).
It is also an intellectually lazy one, 'No matter what you say, no matter what you find, it doesn't prove anything.'

'Philosophical proof'... yes, our thought experiments, our ethical considerations, our creation of the notion of inalienable rights - those are what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
And 'God' is just another one of those philosophical thought constructs that try to explain the yet unexplained by actual, by physical evidence.

As such, the sciences cannot disprove 'God'. But that doesn't prove that 'God' actually exists - besides in the heads of those who believe he exists.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Yes.
Claiming God exist is a extraordianry claim.
Claiming God doesn't exist is also an extraordinary claim.
None can be proven.

One can simply ask, "where is the evidence to support this proposition of yours - that there is a God?"

Just as one could simply ask: "where is the evidence to support this proposition of yours - that there isn't a God?"

Declining to accept a claim without substantial evidence to support it requires no "leap of faith" at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes - and agnostics are the one who decline to accept a claim (God exists; God doesn't exist) without substantial evidence.

Atheists have no problem taking a leap of faith and acepting that God doesn't exist without substantial evidence.

The only reason you really make this mistake is because you've already made another by implicitly accepting that the existence of God is a default premise that individuals must respond to.

Hardly.
The default premise is the agnostics': accepting neither the existence of God, nor God's non-existence.

Both the religious people and the atheists depart from this startinng position - by a leap of faith.

 

[JoeZhang]

Atheists have no problem taking a leap of faith and acepting that God doesn't exist without substantial evidence

Are you going to play "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" all day, it makes you look dishonest. You've been told why this is wrong over and over again.

I have a absense of belief in gods, I am not making any claim that god doesn't exist.

 

[ST-One]

Just as one could simply ask: "where is the evidence to support this proposition of yours - that there isn't a God?"

It doesn't work like that, and you should know that.
The available evidence doesn't suggest that there is a god.
That is all.

Hardly.
The default premise is the agnostics': accepting neither the existence of God, nor God's non-existence.
Both the religious people and the atheists depart from this startinng position - by a leap of faith.

For god's sake, no!
Atheist do not believe in the the non-existence of any god.
They don't believe at all!

Not believing isn't something atheist actively do.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Atheists have no problem taking a leap of faith and acepting that God doesn't exist without substantial evidence

Are you going to play "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" all day, it makes you look dishonest. You've been told why this is wrong over and over again.

I have a absense of belief in gods, I am not making any claim that god doesn't exist.

Which makes you an agnostic - as per the definition of the concept; NOT an atheist - as per the definition of the concept.

BTW, I already answered posts similar to yours - the same 'argument' - in this thread.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Hardly.
The default premise is the agnostics': accepting neither the existence of God, nor God's non-existence.
Both the religious people and the atheists depart from this startinng position - by a leap of faith.

For god's sake, no!
Atheist do not believe in the the non-existence of any god.
They don't believe at all!

Not believing isn't something atheist actively do.

Atheists actively believe in the non-exitence of God, ST-One - as per the dictionary definition of the word.
As I already told you, one can have faith in negative affirmations, just as one can have faith in positive statements.

If you 'don't believe' in the non-existence/existence of God, you're an agnostic.
Personally, I find it ironic how you claim this 'fence-sitting agnosticism-stuff quite pointless' while embracing it.

 

[Gepard]

Which makes you an agnostic - as per the definition of the concept; NOT an atheist - as per the definition of the concept.

Sigh. Atheist = a (without) + theism (a belief in a deity). Anyone who doesn't hold an active belief in God or god(s) is an atheist. You keep mixing it up with antitheism, someone who actively denies or attacks theism.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in Anubis and that he will weigh your heart against the feather of truth on the day you die? If you don't, are you really going to argue that you've had to take an active leap of faith to not believe the above?

 

[ST-One]

Atheists have no problem taking a leap of faith and acepting that God doesn't exist without substantial evidence

Are you going to play "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" all day, it makes you look dishonest. You've been told why this is wrong over and over again.

I have a absense of belief in gods, I am not making any claim that god doesn't exist.

Which makes you an agnostic - as per the definition of the concept; NOT an atheist - as per the definition of the concept.

BTW, I already answered posts similar to yours - the same 'argument' - in this thread.

Hardly.
The default premise is the agnostics': accepting neither the existence of God, nor God's non-existence.
Both the religious people and the atheists depart from this startinng position - by a leap of faith.

For god's sake, no!
Atheist do not believe in the the non-existence of any god.
They don't believe at all!

Not believing isn't something atheist actively do.

Atheists actively believe in the non-exitence of God, ST-One - as per the dictionary definition of the word.
As I already told you, one can have faith in negative affirmations, just as one can have faith in positive statements.

If you 'don't believe' in the non-existence/existence of God, you're an agnostic.
Personally, I find it ironic how you claim this 'fence-sitting agnosticism-stuff quite pointless' while embracing it.

Let's go with the Wikipedia-definition:

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
​

- Wikipedia
​

 

[ProtoAvatar]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ST-One

You missed a line from that Wiki definition, ST-One:
"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

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

 

[JoeZhang]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Great, so most of here are number 2 - do you need pictures or something?

You can tell when someone has run out of ammo when they keep banging on about the dictionary.

 

[ST-One]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ST-One

You missed a line from that Wiki definition, ST-One:
"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

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

No, it didn't miss it.
I don't agree with it; it's too narrow.

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

- Urban Dictionary (emphasis, mine)

 

[Gepard]

You missed a line from that Wiki definition, ST-One:
"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

And? That just makes us all the broader definition. Whoop dee doo. It still doesn't make ST-One wrong, or turn us all into agnostics, despite your desire to define the nonbelievers that way. And it certainly doesn't give ammo to your claim that disbelief in god is a form of faith.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Great, so most of here are number 2 - do you need pictures or something?

You should ask that about yourself:

I'm using 'atheism' in a narrower sense.

You're using 'atheism' in its most inclusive sense - and interestingly, with this sense, the concept of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' overlap - or near overlap (this, only if you come with some serious semantic hair-splitting - and not even then quite convincing).

You can tell when someone has run out of ammo when they keep banging on about the dictionary.

Not quite, JoeZhang.
You can tell someone has run out of ammo when this someone - you, in this case - recourses to non-sequiturs accompanied by smileys.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ST-One

You missed a line from that Wiki definition, ST-One:
"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

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

No, it didn't miss it.
I don't agree with it; it's too narrow.

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

- Urban Dictionary (emphasis, mine)

Negative atheists (as in, sense nr 1 - you) are usually referred to as agnostics. (emphasis, mine)

You're proving my point, ST-One.