If you think that merely sending a message was the only point of the Incarnation, then you know absolutely nothing at all about Christianity.
If you think I was theorising about a hypothetical only point of Christianity, you weren’t paying attention.
You regard Kierkegaard’s analysis as pompous sophistry; Kierkegaard characterizes your conception of faith as superficial plebeianism. This conflict has been going on for as long as Kierkegaard has been read. By summarizing his argument, I had hoped to offer one interpretation of faith for RahRahMah to consider. If its existentialist slant makes Kierkegaard’s argument too cryptic for the average believer, Christians can turn to other sources for a discussion of the nature of faith. At least RahRahMah can now choose among a more diverse set of alternative attitudes toward faith, including attitudes that mainstream Christians would find controversial.
This may not be what is asked of the question, but maybe approaching it from the other side may input into the discussion.
I would probably be what you consider not-one-bit religious. But, during my school years, many religious groups were taking kids to surf camps and other such ‘candy-to-a-baby’ campaigns. To tell you the truth, we scored some un-real waves - you get my drift?
Appart from it shady history in being intertwined with politics, I realy don’t see any harm. Religions, in general, stand for ‘good things’, and i’ll be the first to admit i’m guilty of the odd ‘why me god?’ or ‘please help me god’ in my time. I think all those religious books that have evolved with time, mean well - but as they evolved, I think most of us can agree that the politics of the time has had some role in the overall content that was ‘decided’ for that period (there is a good post about this on this cite - we have all seen it i’m sure). So for me, as long as it doesn’t get too poluted with politics, it does no harm. And even in pure scientific terms you cannot really dismiss God. Otherwise you are being just as close minded as the accused.
But for way too many people (no, not everyone), faith is wishful **non-**thinking.
This board certainly contains a minority view of creationism and evolution, at least as far as the U.S goes. Here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html
In the above link, you’ll find that, here in the U.S. at least, only 10% of us think that evolution happened without God’s help along the way (I’m among them). Fully 44% believe that humans were put here about 10,000 years ago (hard creationists, I guess you could call them). Another 39% believe that evolution happened, but with God’s guidance (soft creationists? soft evolutionists?). That’s 83% that don’t buy evolution on its own. Those numbers have been pretty consistent over time.
For all the posts above that claim that religious people aren’t mostly creationists, I say Bah! The VAST majority of people in the U.S. are either hard or soft creationists. My family and most of my friends happen to be less deluded, and I that used to give me the false impression that the rest of the US was the same, but somewhere, in this great and diverse country, there are 83 people out of 100 who think that God is directing the course of evolution, actively creating anti-biotic resistant bacteria and constantly mutating HIV to keep it one step ahead of our medication. Now, there’s a God to believe in.
I would imagine that those folks don’t regularly visit the SDMB, so we’re all sort of preaching to the choir (ha!).
I am a Christian who attended public school. Geology, Biology, and Philosophy: three classes where Creationist concepts have been under attack. My astronomy teacher even said there was no longer an arguement for anything other than evolution.
All i can say is nothing is for sure. We humans must have a oversized ego to believe we can figure out the inner workings of the universe and life itself. There will always be mystery and uncertainty. Are Christians taking the easy way out? i dont think so. AT school christians were practically mocked by people who knew absolutely nothing about the counter-arguements to atheism. Christians are bombarded with all these anti-idealogical concepts, and hopefully become stronger for withstanding it. If you are going to argue against it, take the time to in depth research the counter-evidence-- which is out there.
I hope im not being sacri-ligious (probably spelled that wrong), but many christians of today are compramising their beliefs. For instance: micro-evolution is visible over a generation, so how can i doubt that? but speciation is yet to be viewed. Many people have adopted a hybrid of science and faith, maybe because they dont have the courage to pick a side, or maybe because thats what seems to make sense to them.
my apologies for the long reply
Maybe you are right. But maybe many of them are more uncertain about ‘God’ than they are about science. It is much safer to go with the ‘God’ option. It is the mistake that many people make - science is NOT out to disprove God. Science is about admiring his craftsmanship.
Religion has ‘hard-coded’ what God expects of you (control the masses and all that) so, who are they to argue? They just follow.
Of course there are the exceptions - on both sides. Those scientists which try to disprove god, and those religious people who try to disprove science.
[QUOTE]
We humans must have a oversized ego to believe we can figure out the inner workings of the universe and life itself.
[/QOUTE]
Didn’t God create us this way? Maybe that is our destiny?
oops! ignore that las quote thing.
Until science has answered all the umpteen billion, zillion questions concerning existance all we have in place of its continued failing attempt is… faith!