Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

Not having a concept of God could be a simple matter of not having been exposed to the concept by others--i.e. humanity and any other races that do have such a concept.

As for the sense of justice and morality...you may notice that even the higher mammals often seem to exhibit traits that look like precursors of our own sense of those things. Not only are they right from the moral perspective--but justice and altruism do in fact further the species biologically as well as physically. So I think you would find major cultural differences--but I'm not sure you'd find that total absence of anything to relate to that you suggest. It wouldn't even be a good thing from an evolutionary standpoint, let alone a spiritual one.



About your comments on a mass extinction event--depending on how one interprets Revelation, there may even be a promise of some sort of cataclysmic event inherent in it. Guesses as to what and when are futile, and there is even Scriptural basis to say that attempting to guess is spiritually destructive. (And I can say, based on behavior I've seen from those who DO try to guess, or get too absorbed in it, that this is true.) So personally I do not see any promise for there not to be a mass extinction event. Added to that is the fact that there is also the promise of a new creation. That cataclysm would not be the end as it would've been had humankind all been destroyed without Jesus' sacrifice ever occurring (which is another thing to note about Genesis).

Now I am not a theologian or a scholar--those are just my thoughts.

 

[Rush Limborg]

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.

Well, then...I accept your call of a "draw".

Still, let me address this, your last post, with an exchange between Keiko O'Brien and Kira Nerys:

"I'm not teaching any philosophy. What I'm trying to teach is pure science."
"Some might say pure science, taught without a spiritual context, is a philosophy, Mrs. O'Brien...."

Also...you say you don't accept the claims of those who lived 2,000 years ago.

Historians do that all the time. In the end...their sources for the history of 2,000 years ago...are the records made by those who lived 2,000 years ago.

 

[Rush Limborg]

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.

He prided himself on being an expert on the Torah and the other Hebrew Scriptures--he had been a Pharisee (something similar to the Hasidic Jews of today). And he constantly emphasized (to the point of debating with Jewish leaders) the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in Jesus.

He also ministered not that long after Jesus's time. Anyone with a "true" history different from Paul's would have been able to contest his claims.

 

[Sci]

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?

If you were that confident in your beliefs, you wouldn't need to justify them to anyone else.

 

[flemm]

He also ministered not that long after Jesus's time. Anyone with a "true" history different from Paul's would have been able to contest his claims.

Paul wasn't an eyewitness to the events of the Gospels and doesn't claim to be. He does claim that Jesus appeared to him, which provoked his conversion, but in any event, he is not a source of any of our information regarding the life of Jesus.

I'm not contesting the validity of what he says, merely pointing out that he is interpreting, so there is really no reason for someone not to prefer a different interpretation, i.e. one that doesn't emphasize the resurrection as heavily.

 

[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?

If you were that confident in your beliefs, you wouldn't need to justify them to anyone else.

Once again...I fail to understand that reasoning.

Again--had I simply left the thread, would you not have interpereted it as meaning that I was unable to answer your claims?

Frankly, Sci, by that logic, I could well point towards every single debate you and I have had--about Section 31, about the nature of rights, about defense policy, and so on--and claim that you were not confident in your beliefs...because you kept coming back to debate my claims.

But again--it is not about "justifying" myself. It is about educating those with questions and challenges, as to why people like me believe what we believe. It is also about gaining experience in regards to how others challenge the claims of Christianity.

As C.S. Lewis once said, it is about being there to provide backup, if you will, for the "weaker bretheren" in matters of apologetics.

And again--I find challenges to my way of thinking to be mentally stimulating. I can't say I care for emotionally-charged clashes, though....

 

[JD]

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people posting about their belief have held those beliefs their whole life and how many are later converts? I'm asking purely out of curiosity and if this is too personal of a question just say so.

 

[Sci]

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?

If you were that confident in your beliefs, you wouldn't need to justify them to anyone else.

Once again...I fail to understand that reasoning.

Again--had I simply left the thread, would you not have interpereted it as meaning that I was unable to answer your claims?

I doubt I would have cared enough to consider the issue one way or the other.

Frankly, Sci, by that logic, I could well point towards every single debate you and I have had--about Section 31, about the nature of rights, about defense policy, and so on--and claim that you were not confident in your beliefs...because you kept coming back to debate my claims.

There's a difference between debating something and trying to justify something. You've come across to me in this thread not so much as debating abstractly your beliefs as seeming to feel a need to justify your beliefs and your faith in your beliefs in this thread.

But again--it is not about "justifying" myself. It is about educating those with questions and challenges, as to why people like me believe what we believe.

Dude, most of us live in predominantly Christian countries and were raised by Christian families. We've heard it all before. We don't need "educated."

 

[Rush Limborg]

If you were that confident in your beliefs, you wouldn't need to justify them to anyone else.

Once again...I fail to understand that reasoning.

Again--had I simply left the thread, would you not have interpereted it as meaning that I was unable to answer your claims?

I doubt I would have cared enough to consider the issue one way or the other.

Indeed.

Frankly, Sci, by that logic, I could well point towards every single debate you and I have had--about Section 31, about the nature of rights, about defense policy, and so on--and claim that you were not confident in your beliefs...because you kept coming back to debate my claims.

There's a difference between debating something and trying to justify something. You've come across to me in this thread not so much as debating abstractly your beliefs as seeming to feel a need to justify your beliefs and your faith in your beliefs in this thread.

And of course...how one "comes across" is as a rule subjective to the other party.

I certainly do not do this out of any desperation. As I said--I am defending the claim that my beliefs are grounded in fact. Take what you will of it, but...I can assure you, my confidence in said beliefs are sound.

But again--it is not about "justifying" myself. It is about educating those with questions and challenges, as to why people like me believe what we believe.

Dude, most of us live in predominantly Christian countries and were raised by Christian families. We've heard it all before. We don't need "educated."

Perhaps you do not...but in the event that, as I suggested, more curious spectators are looking on, wondering if those who hold to a faith can hold their own against opposition...I would contend that they are entitled to proof to that effect.



Now to be honest...this bickering over whether I'm doing this out of desperation is getting dull. It looks more and more to me that this is about who gets the last word on what is a frankly absurd off-topic subject (my motives for this dicussion). So...I'll be going.

Farewell.

 

[rahullak]

Dare I say, Good Riddance?

 

[Thestral]

Le sigh. You're conflating again. I don't believe God created the universe through evolution - I believe evolution is the best mechanism we have to explain the development of life. But it has nothing to say about astronomy, geology, the formation of stars and planetary bodies, etc., etc.

And yet you claimed to believe in a Creator. So where does said Creator fit in? How is this consistant?

I'm not arguing the presence or lack thereof of a creator. I'm pointing out that the mechanism for the creation of the universe wouldn't be evolution, because that's the development of life. Said creator would fit in, as it were, perfectly fine, but the observable - scientific - mechanism wouldn't be evolution.

"Evolutionist" is simply someone who believes in the theory of evolution. To assert that it is a "false claim" that evolution is "some sort of belief system" is to assume that it is an undeniable and undebatable fact. It is not.

Do you call someone who believes in gravity a "gravitist?" How about someone who believes in quantum mechanics to be a "quantum mechanist," or someone who believes in the structure of atoms an "atomist?" Those are the same things as evolution.

I was more taking issue with you saying people like me merely "accept" a creator...

O-kaaaaaaaaaaay....

I don't simply "accept" a creator - God is a critical and defining part of my life. But maybe I misread you.

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.

Why does it have to come from the holy texts to be a defining part of religion? You know there are many important parts of Christianity that can't be explicitly found in the Bible, right? I don't know the Qur'an or other holy books that well; much (all?) of Torah was absorbed into the Christian bible, and I don't know the Talmud.

But ok, for a particular example. Acts 15:29 says (in part) "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols..."

1 Corinthians Chapter 8 deals with food sacrificed to idols, which essentially says: "If you wanna eat food sacrificed to idols, that's alright - it's just food - as long as you're not making anybody question their Christianity."

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.

Well, except its clear from the Old Testament that anyone entering into a covenant with God has to abide by the Law; the New Testament says "Actually that doesn't apply anymore and is no longer correct."

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.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Dare I say, Good Riddance?

That was unnecessary.

 

[label]

Not having a concept of God could be a simple matter of not having been exposed to the concept by others--i.e. humanity and any other races that do have such a concept.

Well, I believe in the Romans 1 principal......that God has made it clear through the very fabric of reality that He is.......a biological God-shaped hole, if you will.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/

For the alien's to not have a similar innate need/concept of a creator would really be a problem for me. It would indeed be the verifiable evidence needed in my book that Thrawn states is a requirement for belief/faith in something.

depending on how one interprets Revelation,

As you might already guess, I'm an amillennialist. While I think there is valuable truths in eschatological pieces like Revelations, I don't believe the types of visions that end-times authors back then translates well out of their culture. Basically, the long and short of it is I don't believe Revelations to be talking about actual events that have yet to occur.

Guesses as to what and when are futile, and there is even Scriptural basis to say that attempting to guess is spiritually destructive. (And I can say, based on behavior I've seen from those who DO try to guess, or get too absorbed in it, that this is true.)

Totally agreed. It's part of what ticks me off about this latest eschatological fad involving this relatively new concept (mid 1850's) of a "rapture" and the whole silly end times crap that people like Jenkins and LaHaye perpetuate. It's just sensationalism to fit right in with our Hollywood mentality (at least here in the states).

So personally I do not see any promise for there not to be a mass extinction event. Added to that is the fact that there is also the promise of a new creation. That cataclysm would not be the end as it would've been had humankind all been destroyed without Jesus' sacrifice ever occurring (which is another thing to note about Genesis).

Now I am not a theologian or a scholar--those are just my thoughts.

And they're good thoughts..........I guess I really can't put a finger on why I feel an extinction event would challenge my notion of God. Certainly history is replete with mass destruction which kills hundreds of thousands so I suppose I really don't have a good logical basis to claim it couldn't happen on a larger scale.

 

[label]

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.

I've struggled with this from time to time.........why doesn't God just set up a booth in Times Square (or concurrently in every city/town/village on the planet seeing is omnipresent ) where people who were actually concerned with whether God's real and what He wants for/from us. I think what I eventually got to is that God wanted there to be a barrier that required Faith. No matter how much Science will uncover about evolution, cosmology, physics......there will always be a gap that requires faith to fill in the blanks. This goes for Theists and Atheists alike.

A logical, thoughtfull Atheist such as yourself generally claims an absence of faith and reliance on only those things you can verify using an empirical model to discover "truth"..........however, this approach itself requires a leap of faith that your current epistemological approach will provide you with the best system by which you can most accurately understand "reality". You have no way of knowing whether it will or will not, nor is it something I could prove or disprove, but yet we all make a priori establishing leaps of faith to allow us to create a system by which we can make sense of the world around us.

 

[label]

Dare I say, Good Riddance?

That was unnecessary.

It really was. Rush has been an outstanding, patient and thoughtful apologist who represents his faith and the Bible very well even if you do not believe as he does.

 

[Thrawn]

A logical, thoughtfull Atheist such as yourself generally claims an absence of faith and reliance on only those things you can verify using an empirical model to discover "truth"..........however, this approach itself requires a leap of faith that your current epistemological approach will provide you with the best system by which you can most accurately understand "reality". You have no way of knowing whether it will or will not, nor is it something I could prove or disprove, but yet we all make a priori establishing leaps of faith to allow us to create a system by which we can make sense of the world around us.

This is sort of what I was trying to argue against. I don't think it does require that leap of faith; I'm not actually claiming my beliefs represent "the best system by which I can most accurately understand reality". 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, so for lack of any reason to believe any of the others, I'm just sticking with what I know.

It's rather a bit like getting an essay question on a test in college about, like, the way the Renaissance changed Europe, and realizing I don't know shit about it except for the artwork of the time, and so writing a really great essay about that. It might not be the best essay, but sitting there at the time, it's what I know and so that's what I'm using. I'm not going to halfass or make up shit to try and sound like I know what I'm talking about in the realms of the other major changes of the period.

I'm making a similar choice here. I'm not an expert on god, what happens after death, the origin of the universe, etc, so I'm just not using that when I write my essay on who I want to be and how I want to behave. The difference here is that there is actually no way we are currently aware of to become an expert on any of that stuff, so I figure this is pretty much what I'm stuck with.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Not having a concept of God could be a simple matter of not having been exposed to the concept by others--i.e. humanity and any other races that do have such a concept.

Well, I believe in the Romans 1 principal......that God has made it clear through the very fabric of reality that He is.......a biological God-shaped hole, if you will.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/

For the alien's to not have a similar innate need/concept of a creator would really be a problem for me. It would indeed be the verifiable evidence needed in my book that Thrawn states is a requirement for belief/faith in something.

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. Some of the things that could occur as part of that process would undoubtedly be very foreign--perhaps even shocking. But that wouldn't invalidate the ultimate reason for it.

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. The physical evidence remains incapable of saying one way or the other why such a need exists. It is the experiential evidence--the weight we place on what we ourselves experience and that cannot be conveyed intact (i.e. making the other person experience for themselves exactly what we experienced) from one person to the other--by which we ultimately make our determinations about faith.

depending on how one interprets Revelation,

As you might already guess, I'm an amillennialist. While I think there is valuable truths in eschatological pieces like Revelations, I don't believe the types of visions that end-times authors back then translates well out of their culture. Basically, the long and short of it is I don't believe Revelations to be talking about actual events that have yet to occur.

I'm not locked in on any one interpretation, myself; that said, I do not have any expectation that it would play out the way the authors of Left Behind portrayed it. I could see there being a connection in some degree to historical events of a more "ordinary" nature, but I am not in the business of trying to guess exactly what that connection is, or trying to put names and dates onto it.

Guesses as to what and when are futile, and there is even Scriptural basis to say that attempting to guess is spiritually destructive. (And I can say, based on behavior I've seen from those who DO try to guess, or get too absorbed in it, that this is true.)

Totally agreed. It's part of what ticks me off about this latest eschatological fad involving this relatively new concept (mid 1850's) of a "rapture" and the whole silly end times crap that people like Jenkins and LaHaye perpetuate. It's just sensationalism to fit right in with our Hollywood mentality (at least here in the states).

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.

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? While mostly geared towards a Catholic perspective, they also have a Christian Reformed theologian (Protestant, Calvinist denomination) who very openly denounces the whole concept and takes it apart from a Protestant perspective. I also heard a Christian Reformed reverend, while visiting someone's church, openly explain why the whole concept is destructive. I thought it took a lot of courage and was very impressed. I am not Catholic, but I thought the book was very good.

So personally I do not see any promise for there not to be a mass extinction event. Added to that is the fact that there is also the promise of a new creation. That cataclysm would not be the end as it would've been had humankind all been destroyed without Jesus' sacrifice ever occurring (which is another thing to note about Genesis).

Now I am not a theologian or a scholar--those are just my thoughts.

And they're good thoughts..........I guess I really can't put a finger on why I feel an extinction event would challenge my notion of God. Certainly history is replete with mass destruction which kills hundreds of thousands so I suppose I really don't have a good logical basis to claim it couldn't happen on a larger scale.

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." 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.

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.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

I've struggled with this from time to time.........why doesn't God just set up a booth in Times Square (or concurrently in every city/town/village on the planet seeing is omnipresent ) where people who were actually concerned with whether God's real and what He wants for/from us. I think what I eventually got to is that God wanted there to be a barrier that required Faith. No matter how much Science will uncover about evolution, cosmology, physics......there will always be a gap that requires faith to fill in the blanks. This goes for Theists and Atheists alike.

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 (and now you can tell that I'm a Methodist ). We could not simply have been made as puppets; anyone who has experienced rape or knows someone who has knows very well that what is done to you against your will is not free will. I realize that is a very graphic and powerful example, but I do not use it lightly: I believe that an assault upon free will is of a magnitude equal to or even greater than murder.

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. You could say, in effect, that for finite creatures love comes with an inherent risk. The risk was the possibility of betrayal, which we did.

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. Therefore, while God reveals Himself in a variety of ways, both bold and subtle, there always remains some room for interpretation of our experiences. 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.

The active decision process, though, suggests that we are not asked to follow blindly, but to consider that choice. Blind faith is also (to my understanding) a lesser thing than faith chosen with less than our full capabilities. (So please understand from that, that I do not exclude children or those with disabilities--the key is to the best of our full capabilities, and I believe God is fully aware of what those capabilities are from person to person.)



Oh...and regarding the leap of faith that we all must make, I believe that would be the assumption we all make that we do not exist in a solipsistic reality and that the evidence of our senses is indeed real and not a delusion.

 

[Thestral]

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.

 

[rahullak]

Dare I say, Good Riddance?

That was unnecessary.

It really was. Rush has been an outstanding, patient and thoughtful apologist who represents his faith and the Bible very well even if you do not believe as he does.

It was meant in jest. I felt Rush Limborg was being a touch petulant, leaving the thread like that. I'm sorry if it hurt anyone's sensibilities.

 

[label]

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?