Has faith evolved? (beliefs, evolution, doctrine, Christ, religion)

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings, greetings! :-)



first off, I wouldn't assume faith is "amorphus": mine sure isn't!

And in the Baha'i view, the evolution of religion is initiated by God Himself through sending a new Divine Messenger periodically both to:

• correct past human mistakes and distortions of the true religions He had already revealed (through His Messengers), and
• proclaim new, updated social teachings in line with an evolving humanity's changing needs and growing abilities.

To cite just two examples,

• Certain former dietary laws, those of both Judaism and Islam, prohibited eating pork. It's possible that this was because doing so tended to cause disease in those times and places. Now we have solutions to prevent this, and in Baha'i law dietary restrictions have been eliminated.
• Both Christianity and Islam (possibly Judaism, too, but I can't say for sure) explicitly permitted slavery (though Islam did place certain restrictions on it--arguably another example of religious evolution). The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith, in contrast, explicitly outlaw it!

As goes the saying, there is progress! :-)

Best,

Bruce

Bruce, the claim that faith is amorphous is a claim that belief has fuzzy edges in the weak case, and also a claim that faith has a fuzzy centre in the strong case. If it can be demonstrated that two Bahai have the same belief or faith based on consideration of the same materials considered sacred to the Bahai then both the strong and weak claim can be refuted. This is impossible to prove based on the subjective nature of faith/belief (unless you want to claim the sacred materials belong to God: I would reject this claim).

[BruceDLimber]

Hi again!

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Bruce, the claim that faith is amorphous is a claim that belief has fuzzy edges in the weak case, and also a claim that faith has a fuzzy centre in the strong case. If it can be demonstrated that two Bahai have the same belief or faith based on consideration of the same materials considered sacred to the Bahai then both the strong and weak claim can be refuted. This is impossible to prove based on the subjective nature of faith/belief (unless you want to claim the sacred materials belong to God: I would reject this claim).

I wouldn't say scripture "belongs" to God, but rather that it originated from Him.

But that aside, I think your claim that consensus of belief is "unproveable" is at best a huge overstatement given that:

1. Baha'i belief is necessarily of individual origin given that we have no clergy and everyone comes to this belief on his or her own via individual investigation and decision (membership can't be inherited), and
2. There is such tremendous consensus about Baha'i teachings and what our goals are that the claim of our beliefs' being "fuzzy" is spurious on its face! We aren't like other religions that have fragmented into hundreds of thousands of different sects.

Unity. Works for us. :-)

Peace,

Bruce

[wizanda]

Depends if you classify the word “religion” as “the faith” as Paul often did.....or if you classify faith as the same as Christ did and a feeling from the heart, that all people have.
Faith is also the substance that people are fed with in heaven (God’s song), it is beyond wisdom and beyond unconditional love, as the fabric of heaven is made of (transcendental)…..it is that original essence of faith, that God created the heaven's from, with enough faith from nothing to go “I am”…

[TruthInCatholocism]

Almost Phylosophical... The Answer is in the definition.. as Broad as it can be...

Example: Does Faith "Evolve" develop: gain through experience
Of course it has

Does Faith "Evolve" work out
Many Faiths Especially Christian Faith has not "Evolved" in that sence... There are no new theorys based on The true Meaning (Faith) of Christianity

The Good News Jesus Has Died for our Sins and Resserurected How has that changed?

So in Sence its a touph Question... Do to the Very Broad Meaning Of Evolve...

*Head Hurts*

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Victor

Has your faith evolved?

Take Sam Harris view on the matter:
The moderation we see among non-fundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. (The End of Faith, pg. 19)

I happen to agree with him. Let me know your thoughts.

I, too, agree, but Harris seems to think exposing certain tenets of faith to doubt is something new and a constitutes hammer blows to religion itself. If that assessment is right, he's stupid or ignorant. In the Bible, the God-concept evolved from little more than a tribal deity to a universal Father.

I think the "hammer blows of modernity" are good for religion in that it forces it to evolve.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Booko

I would add:

1a. It was never a tenet, but there were good reasons to include it to solve some problem that arose centuries after the beginning of the religion, but needed to be dealt with.

Some of the things tossed in Vatican II would likely go here...like no meat on Fridays and that sort of thing...and who knows, priestly celibacy in time might end up in the same boat, though that's your Church's call and not mine.

2a. It was and still is a tenet, but was tossed overboard as a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater (other tenets that fell into category 1.)

Some of those "hot button" issues fall into areas like that. One of the more obvious areas would be matters of sexual mores and the changes in marriage and divorce rates and increase in STD transmissions, children living in poverty, etc. Looking at it from a purely scientific and non-religious pov, the connection is pretty hard to miss. Unfortunately, sexual mores have fallen out of fashion, and some of them we were probably better off keeping. (I'd just as soon we keep the repression part lost permanently.)


3. The system is designed to adapt.

As you know as a Baha'i it's part of my belief that the system of religion is in fact designed to adapt. That's why we get periodic Messengers, and sometimes they update things that are no longer needed. Sometimes they toughen up things that were there before.

The difference is, the *Messengers* get to make the changes, because they have infallible knowledge.

We don't have that sort knowledge, so our place is to follow the tenets that exist as best we may. If it's truly outdated, God will handle it in time.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

I can understand the progression, but my catholic mind can't exactly follow the tenets that are no longer needed. If they are mere practices, customs, traditions, then I can understand, but an actual tenet?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Jay

I find it unhelpful to equate 'religion' with 'faith'.

That is excellent observation! I was thinking the same thing. I figured Sam would clear that up later in the book.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Victor

Has your faith evolved?

Sure, my personal faith has evolved, changed in response to my experiences and exposure to different ideas. This is a different thing than what I think Harris is getting at though.

Take Sam Harris view on the matter:

The moderation we see among non-fundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. (The End of Faith, pg. 19)

It sounds to me like Sam Harris is saying that moderate 'believers' are simply watered down versions of conservative fundamentalists. He also seems to equate religion with faith, as I see a couple of others have already noted. I disagree with the idea that religion has not evolved...I think very much that it does evolve and that this is a necessary thing. I think it's true that the 'hammer blows of modernity' are part of the process of this evolution, but not that it has exposed certain tenets to doubt. He seems very much focused on the idea perhaps that only a literal-factual approach to all of Scripture can be considered intact when this really has only been a issue since the Enlightnement in the Western Church.

I disagree with the idea that the evolution of religion is linear; rather I think it is more like the branching out of a tree. No religion today is exactly like it was during the time of its conception...older religions tend to have more diversity in them than newer religions. Various cultural factors and properties of the religion itself affect diversity, branching, and longevity of the religion itself. The religions may share a common trunk and root, (mystic experience, and the golden rule); all of the tips of the branches represent the forms of those religons today.

[Victor]