Alien Ideas: Christianity and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

CRISIS magazine via CERC ^ | BENJAMIN D. WIKER

[Technogeeb]

Only if you think I'm lying about what the Christian I am speaking of said to me...

A lot of Christians say a lot of things, and sometimes out of ignorance of what the bible actually states. While I'm not surprised that you know one who believes that the bible rules out extraterrestrial life, the simple fact is that discovery of such life would only destroy your friend's view of Christianity, not that of all (or even a tiny percentage of) fundamentalists.

In fact, a literal reading of the bible (and a literal meaning of extraterrestrial) asserts, rather than denies, the existence of extraterrestrial life. Fundamentalism only insists that the bible is perfect, not that any given individual's interpretation of it is perfect.

In which case, you don't matter and are just looking for some kind of argument.

Not to assume his motive, but I think A.J.Armitage was just trying to let you know that your argument in post 61 ("if aliens are ever proven to exist, Fundemental Christianity... are DONE!") is flawed. While I don't dispute that the views of one of your Christian associates might be "DONE", the fact is that the discovery of extraterrestrial life is quite clearly compatible with scripture; so much so that some fundamentalists with whom I have talked have insisted upon, rather than denied, their existence.

From a philosophical standpoint, Christianity, and even fundamentalist Christianity, is a lot more robust than you would believe. More than one fundamentalist I know even finds it compatible with evolution (of species, not of post-Adamic man) and an "old" earth; considering the creation account in Genesis 1 on the sixth day using a word equally valid as "eon" as "day", and the second, special creation of Adam in Genesis 2 (after the days of creation, and NOT on the 6th day) using the word yasar (created from existing materials) instead of bara (created via evocation, like the creation in Genesis 1).

In other words, a "literal" (fundamentalist) interpretation of scripture would REQUIRE the existence of men before Adam (since they were created on the 6th day/eon, while Adam was created after the 7th day when God rested). In the same way, a "literal" (fundamentalist) interpretation of scripture REQUIRES the existence of extraterrestrial life. Enoch and Elijah were "taken", and living, sentient creatures not of this earth (extraterrestrial) are found throughout the Old Testament (Cherubim of Ezekiel in their flying wheels, etc). They might be what we would call "angels" today, but that label in no way reduces the fact that they are not terrestrial in origin. Of course, the Fundamentalists do not require the existence of any extraterrestrial life beyond that which is specifically mentioned, but they certainly don't rule it out either (or if they individually do, it is from personal, rather than biblical, reasoning).

[Mark17]

Because the laws of nature are universal, and these are physically hard problems for us.

Yes, I don't think the laws of phyics are repealed for anyone. If these supposed "space beings" were to travel from another galaxy, they would be about 2,000,000 light years away. People seem to think traversing a distance like this is as easy as a trip to grandma's house. It isn't. One can't make that type of journey by physics, or any other known form of aerodynamics. I don't think the human mind is capable of truly understanding how vast space really is.

[Pahuanui]

Your emotional response to having the flaws in your 'logic' pointed out to you indeed indicate someone who would not have lasted through a tour of duty in the Corps. I'm pleased they saw fit to throw you out and protect its honor.

What flaws did you point out? I didn't notice any arguments from you only insults. Please point me to where you pointed out faulty logic. Now you are a LIAR.

You probably wouldn't notice any arguments coming from me, since it is quite clear you do not understand what one is or how to construct one. I direct your attention to the post from you that I originally commented on. To whit:

In science, one neve knows the destination, but you can observe trends. The trend, for several hundred years now, is that naturalistic explanatations continue to grow in power. Every time someone declares something to be irreducibly complex, it gets reduced. As for whether you can "explain" the origin of life through laboratory experiments -- show me the difference between water freezing in your home freezer and water freezing in a northern lake.

Who do you think you are talking to - some idiotic dimwit? I want to know the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of life. Since you said life comes form non-life, and you believe it so dogmatically, you are obligated to back that up with evidence. Let's have it. I don't want to hear any guesses or "trends" or speculation - I want evidence. Anyone can guess. What is a "trend"?

Now, let's play "Deconstruct the House of Cards"

Who do you think you are talking to - some idiotic dimwit?

You had to ask? Clearly, he believed he was talking to an idiotic dimwit.

I want to know the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of life. Since you said life comes form non-life, and you believe it so dogmatically, you are obligated to back that up with evidence. Let's have it.

It is evident from the statement you were responding to that the poster most certainly did not state that life comes from non-life. He/she stated that it was an assertion on your part, and maintained that it was testable. Further, after you assume and state the the poster indeed does hold this position, you then state that he/she does so dogmatically, which is clearly both (a) false and (b) a fact not in evidence. Therefore, the poster is not obligated to supply any evidence for something he/she has not stated.

The problem seems to lie in your inability to grasp that you must respond to the actual arguments made by other posters, not try and attribute positions to them and then, like some macho drunk at a bar, call them out when they don't bother to repond to your rather predictable and formulaic challenges.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, Tinkerbell.

[Pahuanui]

Tell you what wimpy knees, why don't we compare notes to see who knows more about the USMC, shall we? You can start with telling me what the abbreviations stand for in my last post.

Again, you seem to experience crippling cognitive dissonance: I never stated I knew more than anyone else about the Marines, only that I know about them. My uncle was one, and so was my former partner in my last job.

I think the only abbreviation we need concern ourselves with here is DOA. As in how your posts always come out.

[MHGinTN]

If I point out one of the offered assumptions and show that it is not necessarily a requirement, would the entire house of anthropic cards fall? Not likely, but the notion that our sun's energy is an absolute necessity for life is on very shaky grounds because tidal forces in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn will produce sufficient energy for the sustaining of life above a minimal temperature level. It is now thought that there are life forms here on earth that may never have been in sunlight, drawing their requisite energy for metabolism from the energy escaping through faults in the tectonic plates where heat escapes at the ocean floors and sulfur compounds are in abundance. But let's explore the anthropic principle because no less than Stephen Hawking is now in that speculative camp and I've had a moderate correspondence with him, indirectly (have to go through the Cambridge Library for faxing to him, and of course his aides), over that very issue. I'll cite a 'neutral' source, then perhaps we may take it from there. This should be fun!

Anthropic Principle: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

Note that if some of the finely-balanced quantities were not finely-tuned then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre-selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed. This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically.

There are several vexing facts about the Universe:
· Horizon problem
· Flatness problem
· Matter/Anti-matter asymmetry
· Cosmological constant
· ....

It appears as though we live in a special universe. Some quantities seem to be highly improbable values, for example, the flatness of the Universe is disturbing. Several questions are:

· Are these special values simply the way our Universe is (that is, is it a coincidence that our Universe has these properties)?
· Is there a deeper level to the physical nature of the Universe which we do not understand (which makes our type of Universe the most probable type of Universe)?
· .....

*************

You cited several weak arguments for the antrhopic principle notion, such as the necessity of our sunlight in the origin and maintenance of life froms. I offered a simple refutation, but of course I have no proof that life yet exists on those moons of Jupiter and Saturn since none have been found, YET. Let's discuss the vagaries of the anthropic principle, hopefully with the aid of Physicist and Right Whale and radioastronomer and others, if they would like to join in. [Uh, by the by, can we leave off the macho chest thumping? I appreciate your service to this country ... without Marines there might not even now be a Unites States due to the rising sun and the bloody thumping you folks gave them to place them back on their islands. Let's enjoy a spirited discussion without the catcalls back and forth. ... That goes for anyone trying to tweak the jarhead, also!]

[My2Cents]

Mark, I've never really understood that verse, about the sons of God taking the daughters of men. Where are the offspring? Makes for interesting speculation. But I agree that earth has been visited from the outside universe many times. In fact, we are occupied territory. But some of us have been recruited to the Resistance. The ultimate visitation we are about to celebrate next week.

[VadeRetro]

Interesting post. Life on the Jovian moons? I hope we can get out there to check.

We don't have as many examples as we could use for 1) possible universes, and 2) independently originated life.

[A.J.Armitage]

Only if you think I'm lying about what the Christian I am speaking of said to me.

No, I don't think you're lying. I think you're more than a little slow, but not lying.

Even the slightest knowledge of fundamentalism would be enough to show that no one fundamentalist speaks for all of us. You seem to think some random, to us anonymous person you met has the authority over us that the Pope has over Catholics. Actually, the Pope has less authority to speak for Catholicism than you think random fundamentalists of your acquaintance have to speak for fundamentalism.

In other words, you've declared that a belief system you know less than nothing about will be destroyed by new knowledge that has nothing to do with the central tenants of the system. And then, when this is pointed out, you whine and squeal about an accusation no one made. (Which itself is suspicious, but I won't probe any deeper.)

Not overly quick on the uptake, eh?

[A.J.Armitage]

Mark, I've never really understood that verse, about the sons of God taking the daughters of men. Where are the offspring?

Killed by the flood.

[MHGinTN]

PING-a-ling-a-ling

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[js1138]

Otherwise I will have to conclude that you believe what you believe based on a mere leap of non-rational FAITH.

Are you saying that people who believe things on faith are stupid?

[Johnny Shear]

Not overly quick on the uptake, eh?

I'm just not brainwashed and weak like you obviously are.

Now...Go spread the word of the Lord a little more, you hypocrite.

[A.J.Armitage]

You got insults, but no arguments.

That's because you're wrong, and you know it. You just don't have the cojones to admit it.

[stuartcr]

Why do you think that original sin and hell and suffering are just for earthlings?

[Vinnie_Vidi_Vici]

Second, if there are intelligent aliens, why aren't they here?

Probably because of that "Prime Directive" thingy!

[exmarine]

Actually, other posters here have found my arguments quite plausible, your insipid vituperations notwithstanding. By extension then, you are also calling into question the intellectual capacity and logic of others on this thread. You have expounded very little logically, but your primary purpose seems to be to disrupt and "bait" people into harsh exchanges. I will not play your game any further. You do not have the guts to state your positions on any matter whatsoever as you are well aware that once exposed, you become extremely vulnerable; thus, you hurl your scurrilous insults at people you do not even know as a means of protecting yourself and your worldview (whatever that may be) from scrutiny. I made the mistake of responding in kind which I see now was a mistake. I have no desire to sink to your level of gutter discourse. This exchange is ended.

[Johnny Shear]

Look hypocrite...

I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you over this. You're the one who's insulted me from the first time you've posted...Read down through...All because I shared some information I got from a Fundementalist Christian...One who believes God created man on earth and life nowhere else. Thus, no life lives outside of earth...Thus, if we ever find it, that type of Chrisitanity will be proven wrong. And many other types of "Religions" too, I can only assume.

If you've got a problem with that information, I simply don't care...You can work-out your own level of "Faith" in what you believe or...Tell yourself that you believe.

Now...Go preach to someone who doesn't know you're a lying hypocrite...Maybe you can fool them with your tripe.

[exmarine]

I can see that you are well-versed and knowledgeable in this area. Your counter-arguments are thought-provoking. It is plausible that energy from the earth's crust would be sufficient for life, however, that is only one factor out of many. There are, of course, other factors I did not mention: Amount of hydrogen in the universe, for one. Does Jupiter, with its immense gravitational pull, also not serve as a bulwark of sorts, protecting the Earth from collisions with various space rocks? One could justifiably extrapolate from the anthropic principle that the universe and solar system are fine-tuned expressly to support life on earth. Of course, this conclusion springs from my judeo-Christian worldview. I believe it can be shown, if a person be honest, that one's worldview is the basis and starting point for all scientific and moral beliefs. With the advent of naturalism in the 19th century, science shifted from its based in judeo-Christian thought ("uniformity of natural causes in an open system") to "uniformity of natural causes in a closed system." Indeed, the explosion of scientific breakthroughs from the 16th to 18th centuries are directly attributable to theistic men (many of them Christian), to wit: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Bacon, etc. Indeed, Christian thought. is responsible for the scientific breakthroughs in history - anyone who takes an objective look at the past will have to admit this. These breakthroughs did not come from China or Asia because those worldviews did not have the correct philosophical foundation that would enable such discoveries. For instance, relativistic worldviews (e.g. "both and") is not conducive to scientific discovery, since it is plain that the universe is ordered. In the late 17th century, a shift occurred with the faulty philosophies of Hegel, Hume, Kant, Freud, Darwin, Marx, et al. Science is philosophically driven. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist because one interprets the evidence through the lens of his particular worldview. Presently, science is being monopolized by dogmatic neodarwinian naturalists who are terrified that judeo-Christian thought might creep back into the picture and people may begin to question the status quo (which is happening). Where am I going with this?

[stuartcr]

To some, it's easier to believe in alien life than it is to believe in resurrection and virgin birth. Permanent death and non-virginal birth are obvious on a daily basis.