Christian faith in TrekLit?

[LaBarre]

A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

It's also possible that Jesus the carpenter never said or did some of the things attributed to him. They were only written down decades after the fact, sometimes by people who didn't even claim to have observed them firsthand. Stories often grow in the telling.

There's nothing you've said here that Lewis hadn't contemplated before making this statement about the truth claims of Christianity. He'd heard it all before.

What Lewis did was to draw a line. He was only the latest in a long line to do so, but in recent English history, and as a learned don, his views drew massive attention.

What he essentially did in this statement was to force his contemporaries (and us) who grew up within and benefited from societies infused with judeo-christian beliefs and based on christian moral ethics - to make a relgious decision.

In doing so, he framed his construct carefully so as to stymie namby pamby, well-maybe-maybe-not, fence-sitting.


Make a choice. Don't try to wriggle, don't try to make Jesus fit into your particular lifestyle and on your terms.

That's not how it works. The beauty of the Lewis construct is that it emphasises our individual responsibility and ability as free thinking individuals to make a choice.

Everything else is white noise.

 

[Daddy Todd]

In doing so, he framed his construct carefully so as to stymie namby pamby, well-maybe-maybe-not, fence-sitting.


Make a choice. Don't try to wriggle, don't try to make Jesus fit into your particular lifestyle and on your terms.

Well, Flying Spaghetti Monster is MY co-pilot, so I guess I've made my choice.

 

[LaBarre]

In doing so, he framed his construct carefully so as to stymie namby pamby, well-maybe-maybe-not, fence-sitting.


Make a choice. Don't try to wriggle, don't try to make Jesus fit into your particular lifestyle and on your terms.

Well, Flying Spaghetti Monster is MY co-pilot, so I guess I've made my choice.

Great. Thank you for your honesty.

It's always good to know where people are coming from.

BTW, you might find CIF Belief on the Guardian website an interesting spot to discuss FSM, because her noodility has been a much praised if somewhat mysterious presence on the boards for some years now.

 

[LaBarre]

And although the last few pages have been a lot of fun and provided some interesting views along the way about the truth or otherwise of Christianity (to which I've been very much a party), I'm still awaiting an answer to what I originally posted:

I don't find hostility as such to Christianity in post-TOS star trek literature - merely avoidance of it for the most part. I suppose that's something to be grateful for.

And while I don't understand their timidity, I don't totally blame the overwelmingly western-based authors for steering clear of one of the key (and still contentious) sources of Western civilisation, in favour of skimming the surfaces of eastern religions and philosophies to their overwhelmingly western readership.

However, I am very uncomfortable with the portrayal of the Holy Order of the Kinshaya so far, because the military theocracy for this alien species (Singular Destiny), is so obviously a swipe at the current and historic Catholic/Orthodox (and anglican) Church, in its borrowing and abuse of nomenclature peculiar to them - Vicar, Deacon, Bishop, Archbishop etc.

In the absence of any willingness to honestly address the concept of Christiniatiy and its relevance or otherwise in the future, THAT is a very unfortunate recent development in Treklit, IMO.

Any takers as far as ST literature is concerned?

 

[Christopher]

I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes.

Because, if the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to reality, and that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, there can only be one conclusion--if a specific faith is held to be true, than a different faith proposing opposing answers to the question answered by the first faith--than both cannot be true. They can both be false...but that only means that there is another philosophy out there which does give the truth.

Bull. That attitude comes from taking religion too literally, as if it were a matter of concrete fact. It isn't. If there is some higher, divine essence to the universe, it's surely far beyond anything the human mind can comprehend. So the only way to process or interpret it is through metaphor, through symbolism. And if there is a truth that vast, that all-encompassing, then no single human metaphor or symbol could be sufficient to encompass all of its meaning. It would take many different metaphors to convey its essence.

Haven't you ever heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant? One feels the trunk and calls it a snake. One feels the leg and calls it a tree. One feels the tail and calls it a rope. And so on. Each description is different, seemingly contradictory, yet they're all ultimately describing different facets of the same truth. None of them is exactly right in itself, but each of them conveys an aspect of the truth, and by combining them all, the different observers can get some glimmer of what the whole entity is like. They come closer to the truth by admitting their own limitations and opening their minds to seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

Swami Vivekananda said that all human religions are like fingers of the same hand -- each one different and independent, yet all part of the same greater whole, working together.

 

[Almost Unique]

The problem with the claim that there is an elephant is that it assumes the perspective that knows there is a whole elephant and knows that each blind man has a different part. It's very interesting because the illustration sounds so humble, but is actually as arrogant and absolutist as any biblical literalist. It takes the transcendant perspective while pretending not to.

 

[Christopher]

^Huh? I can't figure out what you're saying. Anyway, I'm not making any kind of absolutist "claim." Personally, I don't believe there is any divine essence to the universe. I'm just saying that if there were, it's profound arrogance to assume that any single human-invented belief system would be capable of accurately describing even a fraction of its true nature. And that it's therefore small-minded and unjust to claim that some "Law of Non-Contradiction" requires that one religion be objectively right and all others be objectively wrong.

Besides, as I said, human religions are metaphors. Maybe they're metaphors for some higher divine essence to the universe, or maybe they're just metaphors for a good and just way for human beings to live their lives and relate to the universe around them. Either way, it's petty and narrow to assume that only one of those metaphors can contain any truth. Since they are metaphorical, they can be different without necessarily being contradictory. They can all be taken as different interpretations of the same underlying truth, whether that truth is genuinely divine or merely philosophical and moral. The point of the parable (at least as I'm using it) is not that there has to be a God; it's that different interpretations of the universe can be compatible if you don't get too hung up on the details and differences.

 

[Almost Unique]

I understand your viewpoint. Mix and match, pick and choose, end up with a standard that ultimately comes from within one's self.

All I'm getting at is that conscience constrains me to submit to a standard outside of myself.

 

[Christopher]

^No, I'm trying to convey the opposite. I'm talking about being open to points of view that aren't one's own -- respecting the possibility that others can see the universe differently than you do but not be any more "wrong" in their perspective than you are. I'm saying that the insistence that other belief systems must be false doesn't express faith or divinity, only self-centered arrogance. The only way to gain any wisdom is to admit that your own perspective on reality is not infallible, that you can learn things by listening to other viewpoints, and that at least you should respect others' right to have differing religious viewpoints without denouncing them as fraudulent.

 

[Almost Unique]

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be exclusive. I am simply pointing out that to be totally inclusive is impossible; you would have to exclude the exclusivists, becoming another kind of exclusivist.

To say that Islam is one way (as opposed to "the" way) is to essentially "denounce it as fraudulent."

I may not be the best at explaining what I mean, I just wanted to point out a basic inconsistency in some points of view.

 

[Almost Unique]

I would like to make clear that I approve of religious freedom in america, that the practice and belief of any and every religion or philosophy/idealogy is legal. That's good.

It doesn't follow, however that just because they're all legal that they're all true to some extent.

 

[Christopher]

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be exclusive.

An abstract entity can't claim anything. Certain practitioners of those faiths claim them to be exclusive. Others are able to interpret those faiths more flexibly. At least, they are able to tolerate the right of others to disagree sincerely rather than denouncing them as wrong or fraudulent.

I am simply pointing out that to be totally inclusive is impossible; you would have to exclude the exclusivists, becoming another kind of exclusivist.

And that's a straw-man extreme that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not saying you have to be "totally inclusive." I'm merely pointing out the folly of the assertion that some alleged "Law of Non-Contradiction" requires all faiths but one to be wrong. I'm saying it's mistaken to treat religious faith merely as some kind of concrete factual thing rather than the far more abstract and metaphorical thing that it is. Contradictory facts cannot all be true, but contradictory metaphors and symbols can all be facets of a greater truth. I'm not saying they all have to be. I'm merely saying that they can be, and that the intelligent perspective is to allow room for doubt, to admit that one's own beliefs don't absolutely have to be the exclusive, all-encompassing truth of the universe, but might just be part of something greater.

To say that Islam is one way (as opposed to "the" way) is to essentially "denounce it as fraudulent."

No, it really isn't. Disagreeing with another point of view DOES NOT require denouncing it or insulting it.

Besides, Islam is one of the most flexible and inclusive religious traditions in the world, which is why it's so widespread. There are very, very few things that a Muslim is required to believe in order to be a Muslim. The rest is just tradition. No religion is monolithic. Every faith has many different interpretations and variants, no matter how absolutist its texts or its institutionalized practitioners may claim it to be. And there's plenty of room for mutual understanding where the bell curves overlap.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes.

Because, if the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to reality, and that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, there can only be one conclusion--if a specific faith is held to be true, than a different faith proposing opposing answers to the question answered by the first faith--than both cannot be true. They can both be false...but that only means that there is another philosophy out there which does give the truth.

Bull. That attitude comes from taking religion too literally, as if it were a matter of concrete fact. It isn't. If there is some higher, divine essence to the universe, it's surely far beyond anything the human mind can comprehend. So the only way to process or interpret it is through metaphor, through symbolism. And if there is a truth that vast, that all-encompassing, then no single human metaphor or symbol could be sufficient to encompass all of its meaning. It would take many different metaphors to convey its essence.

I don't quite follow your meaning, Chris. Suppose God did reveal certain truths--a religion, if you will--to man. Those truths would not contradict each other.

Haven't you ever heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant?

Of course I have. In the field of philisophical apologetics, you have to be a veritable illiterate to not have heard of this fable.

One feels the trunk and calls it a snake. One feels the leg and calls it a tree. One feels the tail and calls it a rope. And so on. Each description is different, seemingly contradictory, yet they're all ultimately describing different facets of the same truth. None of them is exactly right in itself, but each of them conveys an aspect of the truth, and by combining them all, the different observers can get some glimmer of what the whole entity is like. They come closer to the truth by admitting their own limitations and opening their minds to seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

None are "exactly" right? None of the blind men are right at all!

All that parable actually says is that the conclusions of all the religions are wrong--and that the truth contradicts said conclusions. An elephant is not a snake, or a tree, or a rope. It is an elephant.

In the same way--you can say that all religions are factually wrong--but you cannot say that the "contradictions" are merely "apparent". An atheist says God does not exist, a theist says God does exist. A polytheist says there are many gods, a monotheist says there is one god. There is no middle ground. God either exists or he doesn't.

I'm not saying you have to be "totally inclusive." I'm merely pointing out the folly of the assertion that some alleged "Law of Non-Contradiction"--

..."Alleged" Law of Non Contradiction?

--requires all faiths but one to be wrong.

As I said, you could claim that all existing religions are wrong--but you cannot say that it doesn't matter which ones are factually right (if any) and which ones are factually wrong. The Law simply says that only one POV among contradictory POVs can be right--not that one will be right.

I'm saying it's mistaken to treat religious faith merely as some kind of concrete factual thing rather than the far more abstract and metaphorical thing that it is.

And yet you said--

I'm talking about being open to points of view that aren't one's own -- respecting the possibility that others can see the universe differently than you do but not be any more "wrong" in their perspective than you are.

So...are you open to points of view such as my own--that religious faith can be a "concrete factual thing"--or are you not?

Is it not, indeed, narrow-minded and intolerant to simply "assume" that religious faith is merely "abstract and metaphorical"--and to flat-out dismiss any claims to the contrary?

With respect, Chris, I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. Is "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" simply limited to some religious points of view, and not others?

Contradictory facts cannot all be true, but contradictory metaphors and symbols can all be facets of a greater truth. I'm not saying they all have to be. I'm merely saying that they can be, and that the intelligent perspective is to allow room for doubt, to admit that one's own beliefs don't absolutely have to be the exclusive, all-encompassing truth of the universe, but might just be part of something greater.

Would you, then, be willing to doubt and to question your premise that no religions can be concretely and factually true--and that your statements stemming from this belief don't have to be absolute, exclusive, and all-encompassing?

 

[Sci]

I don't quite follow your meaning, Chris. Suppose God did reveal certain truths--a religion, if you will--to man. Those truths would not contradict each other.

We live in a universe where light can be both a wave and a particle and where a cat can be both dead and alive. Is it really so hard to imagine that if God revealed a grand Truth to people, that they might not be capable of adequately comprehending that Truth and therefore describe it in adequate and falsely exclusionary terms?

An atheist says God does not exist, a theist says God does exist. A polytheist says there are many gods, a monotheist says there is one god.

And an agnostic says that none of you actually know one way or the other.

There is no middle ground. God either exists or he doesn't.

Depends on your definition of "God," doesn't it?

 

[Christopher]

I don't quite follow your meaning, Chris. Suppose God did reveal certain truths--a religion, if you will--to man. Those truths would not contradict each other.

You must have either a very low opinion of God or a very elevated opinion of humanity if you think that the human mind could grasp more than a fraction or an approximation of a genuinely divine truth. Heck, it takes many different disciplines of science even to comprehend the physical reality of the universe.

At best, a given human being could comprehend a portion of a divine truth, filtered through that human's own neurology, psychology, and experience. Even our perception of the merely physical world is an interpretation rather than an exact perception of reality. What you perceive of the world around you is actually a construct created within your brain based on its experiences and expectations, and that construct can differ from the objective reality itself. That's why optical illusions work -- because they exploit your brain's expectations and cause it to create a perceptual model that contradicts the objective reality of the illusion. The very fact that we humans are mortal, physical beings means that our perception of reality is imperfect.

So it follows that the same would be true of any divinely revealed truth, if such a thing exists. It would be filtered through the finite perceptions and preconceptions of the human receiving it. It, like the physical world, would be interpreted by analogy with precedents existing within the interpreter's brain. And since different recipients of divine revelation would have different thought patterns and life experiences, they would filter the divine truth through different analogies, comprehending different facets of the greater, transcendent whole. Thus, they arrive at different interpretations of the revelation even if they're all sent the same revelation.

See, this is what you're missing about the parable of the blind men and the elephant. It's about the limitations, the incompleteness, of human perception. Recognizing that we don't know everything is the first step toward gaining wisdom. Assuming our knowledge is infallible merely traps us in ignorance.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I don't quite follow your meaning, Chris. Suppose God did reveal certain truths--a religion, if you will--to man. Those truths would not contradict each other.

We live in a universe where light can be both a wave and a particle--

Ah...technically, light has wave-like properties and partical-like properties.

Carry on.

and where a cat can be both dead and alive.

From that article:

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.

Again, you oversimplify the paradox. (As far as the box is concerned...at the risk of humor, I have this to say: "Open the stinking box!")

Is it really so hard to imagine that if God revealed a grand Truth to people, that they might not be capable of adequately comprehending that Truth and therefore describe it in adequate and falsely exclusionary terms?

Not at all--assuming it was left to man to do the describing.

An atheist says God does not exist, a theist says God does exist. A polytheist says there are many gods, a monotheist says there is one god.

And an agnostic says that none of you actually know one way or the other.

Which is actually a quite healthy position at the beginning--but only so far as it involves objective analysis of both positions. Being agnostic for the sake of being agnostic (i.e., shrugging off the controversy with "oh, we don't know", and not attempting to answer the question for himself) is simply evading the issue--straddling the fence, as it were.

There is no middle ground. God either exists or he doesn't.

Depends on your definition of "God," doesn't it?

 

[Rush Limborg]

I don't quite follow your meaning, Chris. Suppose God did reveal certain truths--a religion, if you will--to man. Those truths would not contradict each other.

You must have either a very low opinion of God or a very elevated opinion of humanity if you think that the human mind could grasp more than a fraction or an approximation of a genuinely divine truth. Heck, it takes many different disciplines of science even to comprehend the physical reality of the universe.

At best, a given human being could comprehend a portion of a divine truth, filtered through that human's own neurology, psychology, and experience. Even our perception of the merely physical world is an interpretation rather than an exact perception of reality. What you perceive of the world around you is actually a construct created within your brain based on its experiences and expectations, and that construct can differ from the objective reality itself. That's why optical illusions work -- because they exploit your brain's expectations and cause it to create a perceptual model that contradicts the objective reality of the illusion. The very fact that we humans are mortal, physical beings means that our perception of reality is imperfect.

So it follows that the same would be true of any divinely revealed truth, if such a thing exists. It would be filtered through the finite perceptions and preconceptions of the human receiving it. It, like the physical world, would be interpreted by analogy with precedents existing within the interpreter's brain. And since different recipients of divine revelation would have different thought patterns and life experiences, they would filter the divine truth through different analogies, comprehending different facets of the greater, transcendent whole. Thus, they arrive at different interpretations of the revelation even if they're all sent the same revelation.

See, this is what you're missing about the parable of the blind men and the elephant. It's about the limitations, the incompleteness, of human perception. Recognizing that we don't know everything is the first step toward gaining wisdom. Assuming our knowledge is infallible merely traps us in ignorance.

Your argument is based on the assumption that God is somehow incapable of revealing and explaining divine truths in a manner that mankind can understand.

You are also assuming that divine truths would somehow be inherently complex to the extent that mankind cannot possibly comprehend it. Thus...you may be somewhat correct in claiming I have an elevated opinion of mankind.

I certainly believe man is inherently a rational being, and capable of understanding certain revealed truths--truths which God deems necessary for salvation and sanctification.

Is our perspective limited? Of course! That is why God would chose to reveal truths which we would be incapable of discovering ourselves. However, I would say that despite this mankind is rational enough to meditate on these truths and, effectively, take it from there.

In effect, returning to the elephant fable, one could imagine God as holding, among other roles, the role of someone who is not blind, who explains to the blind men, "It's an elephant," and then proceeds to guide them through the process of proof (such as helping them feel over the whole elephant).

 

[Sci]

Ah...technically, light has wave-like properties and partical-like properties.

<SNIP>

Again, you oversimplify the paradox.

I am, indeed, oversimplifying things, but the point is still illustrated: The Universe is far more complex than anyone used to think or than it would seem to be from practical experience.

(As far as the box is concerned...at the risk of humor, I have this to say: "Open the stinking box!")

There is no middle ground. God either exists or he doesn't.

Depends on your definition of "God," doesn't it?

I certainly believe man is inherently a rational being,

Don't worry, life will disabuse you of that notion eventually.

 

[Christopher]

I certainly believe man is inherently a rational being,

That is exactly my point. Rational beings are able to admit that their own assumptions may be incorrect, and that it is arrogant and intolerant to dismiss alternative points of view as automatically wrong. Only irrational fools assume they are in possession of the absolute truth about anything.

 

[captcalhoun]

who is this 'God' person anyway?