James G
Member
In another post, Gleaner63 made an interesting point that I think would be interesting to explore:
"as far as we know, the Earth is the ONLY planet of it's type that exists in the entire universe. If that holds up, that would make the earth far from insignificant, it would make it unique."
In response to that, I would like to ask the following questions:
1. Do you think we are alone in the universe?
2. If we are not alone, what implications does that have for religious belief?
caddy
Member
I'll take a shot:
1. Yes
2. Significant, but I'm not worried.
A good short assessment here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/green_men.asp
Jeremy
Member
lol @ link to Answers in Genesis.
Anyway, to answer the questions:
1. I like Arthur C. Clarke's way of looking at it. "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering." I don't know if there is any other intelligent life, but given the vastness of the universe I have to acknowledge it as being very plausible.
2. Pfft. It's been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is millions of years old and humans did in fact evolve from simpler organisms, and yet religion keeps on truckin'. I doubt little green men would offer much of a speed bump at all. The religious fanatics will happily ignore or deny whatever they don't wish to believe in.
caddy
Member
^
You'll let me know when the "concrete" evidence is there right Jeremy? Until that time I will be the one on the "skeptical" end of things.
You can "probability" and "possibility" this until you are blue in the face. That produces NOTHING of value here now does it?
When the shoe is on the other foot and one of us "skeptical" believers asks for "pictures" or "proofs" all you guys want to do is talk about the "odds" and "probabilities" !
Odd how that works...
Jeremy
Member
When the shoe is on the other foot and one of us "skeptical" believers asks for "pictures" or "proofs" all you guys want to do is talk about the "odds" and "probabilities" !
Because we know it's a false-face. You demand proof for a scientific theory that has a mountain of evidence behind it, and has stood up for 150 years, yet you believe in virgin births and resurrections and 900 year-old people and unicorns and leprechauns without a shred of evidence. I know that game, I played it for many years. You'll take on an air of "skepticism" (though you don't know the meaning of the word) whenever something contradicts your bronze-age mythology.
There are a thousand good sources for information on evolution if you wish, including here at this site. This thread isn't one of them, since that wasn't the topic of the OP. The topic of the OP is very much something only open to possibilities and probabilities, since we have no evidence of any other kind. Which is something I freely admitted. No, whatever your bronze-age religious text may or may not say about life on other planets is not admissible as evidence.
yahweh
Member
Caddy,
Jeremy said it is plausible that we are not alone in the universe. How can concrete evidence be given for something that is just a belief of a possibility.
The shoe is not on the other foot since no one is claiming that they are 100% sure we are not alone. We ask for proof of your god because you claim that he is 100% real as described in the bible.
caddy
Member
^
And many would say in the last 30 is crumbling...
Keep in mind Jeremy ToE is still theory, even though many think it has transcended "theory" status and has gone on to "fact."
Still even ToE is not enough to keep men from making "Orthodox" statements about belief in God. That to me is encouraging. Kudos to Kenneth Miller and a whole host of others, or should I say Thanks be to God who Draws sinful men to Himself when and where they are.
Jeremy
Member
caddy, it's like a beacon if ignorance when someone says something is "theory and not fact". You clearly don't understand what a theory is at all.
You know, it wasn't evolution that got me questioning and ultimately rejecting my faith, but the celebration of ignorance among Christians was certainly part of it. Scientific theories are defined in high school science, this is not complex stuff, yet believers consistently enjoy demonstrating how clueless they are on the subject.
Ty
Moderator
"Keep in mind Jeremy ToE is still theory, even though many think it has transcended "theory" status and has gone on to "fact.""
Yep. Someone who doesn't even understand the terms is trying to lecture people on the science involved.
Learn what "theory" means, and what "fact" means, and maybe you can avoid embarrassing yourself. Well, no, probably not. But at least you'll know what two words mean. That can't be a bad thing.
WarbVIII
Member
Caddy you work in the health field(as mentioned in another thread,by you), so that being the case how do you feel about the 'theory' of disease and how is that different and more proven than the 'theory' of evolution? I would suggest/assume(insert joke here)/think that if you are capable of accepting the first theory you would be able to accept the second considering that the first theory is only possible via the second theory as are things like inoculations,and serums, and vaccines(especially new ones that work by changing to meet/combat new diseases). I wonder at the mental gymnastics you must do to even work in your field.
Sorry I know it was off topic,my bad. I would say it is very probable we are not alone in the universe,though I think intelligent(insert next joke here) life is uncommon. Life itself would surprise me by not being present on probably millions or billions of worlds in the cosmos..as far as religion goes why would facts fuck up their racket considering they haven't yet?
vorjack
Moderator
1. Do you think we are alone in the universe?
Given the immensity of the universe (200 billion galaxies and still counting) and the Law of Large Numbers, I think we have to assume that there is life on other planets. However improbable life is, it still must be replicated numerous times throughout the universe.
2. If we are not alone, what implications does that have for religious belief?
Impossible to say. I suspect that the initial reaction will come directly from the mythology of the religion (they're demons/angels!) or will fall into well worn patterns (let's share with them the love of Christ! You translate the Bible into their language, I'll preach, and he'll hand out Jack Chick tracts.)
In the long run, though, a lot is going to depend on the make-up of the aliens themselves. And since we can barely speculate about that, I don't think we can even guess what the long term effects will be.
joe agnost
Member
Caddy wrote: "Keep in mind Jeremy ToE is still theory, even though many think it has transcended 'theory' status and has gone on to 'fact.'"
After all of the crap you've posted to the various threads dealing with science - you still get this elementary bit of information wrong?!!?
Hopeless... that's the only way to describe Caddy's self inflicted ignorance.
Daniel Florien
Administrator
I think there is probably some kind of life somewhere. I don't think it has any implication for religious belief — perhaps logically, but not practically. Apologists like C.S. Lewis believed there was life on other worlds. They would adapt their doctrine and beliefs eventually, just like most will with evolution.
caddy
Member
So Joe Agnost, ToE is not a "theory" any longer, huh? Tell us when did it pass from "theory" and into absolute "fact"?
WarbVIII, I do work in the medical field. I love operational science and work closely with our Infectious Disease Doctors who deal with real world virus' on a daily basis.
I look back at the history of science for the past 500 years and I am reminded that there were MANY "wrong turns" by the mainstream science of the day, including Ptolemy's earth-centered universe ( replace by Copernicus's sun-centered theory ), Galen's theory of the four humors of the blood ( replaced by Harvey's work on blood circulation ), something I know a lot about since I am on the Blood Util committee for our hospital, the theory that now - extinct land animals crossed to different continents by means of now - submerged "land bridges" ( replaced by the theory of plate tectonics ), and other now rejected theories as discussed in the landmark work by Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thus, opponents of Darwinism are not, as this kind of objection suggests, asserting something that has no precedent in the history of science. The fact that you think it does shows that you are ignorant of much of that history and just accept BLINDLY what some people are telling you. I'm not so Naive.
Darwinism has gained and maintained its position because it is a THEORY that scientists very much want to be true, because it removes one of the main lines of argument asserted by religious leaders; that there must be a God because no natural force could explain the diversity of life. By removing that line of argument, science enhances the authority of scientific leaders in competition with religious leaders on the matter of great public importance. That is what the famous debate between T.H. Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce was all about: who would be humiliated and who would control the podium. We are seeing a bit of a snag these days with "Global warming theories." One could only hope that there was that much dissension in the ranks when ToE begin 150 years ago.
The question remains: Most scientists CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE of DESIGN and HAVE NO GRASP of how they would DO SCIENCE given that fact.
Still, to me, even with all that said, Evolution is not so important to me--as it is to you ( and many in this forum. ) I am constantly reminded that God is sovereign over that "theory" staying in place just as much as He is those handful of men whom He would lead to Himself DESPITE the adherence to the "theory."
My 2Cents
joe agnost
Member
Caddy embarrassed himself by saying: "So Joe Agnost, ToE is not a 'theory' any longer, huh? Tell us when did it pass from 'theory' and into absolute 'fact'?"
The fact that you misunderstood my reply, and asked the question you did above, just underscores how willfully ignorant you are!
You have been explained what a "theory" is in science - the ToE won't graduate from "theory" to "fact". The ~theory~ of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the ~facts~ of evolution.
Your idea that scientific theories graduate to ~fact~ just underscores your ignorance. I say it's "willful" ignorance because you've been explained this before and don't seem to want to understand it.
JohnMWhite
Member
Mindless appears to be an appropriate word in this case.
Anyway, I agree with the point that religions would simply adapt with further logical and liturgical contortions to maintain the authority of their teachings. In fact the catholic church has pre-empted this with a suggestion from the pope that alien life would make no difference to their teachings - some other intelligent species, he says, may not have fallen as humanity did and may not have required a christ to die to redeem them. This sort of presupposes that salvation is only planetary or species-wide, and what happened to humanity being created in god's image? I will try to find the exact article, from what I recall it just made things even more confusing.
As for the actual existence of intelligent alien life, I would be surprised if there were not some out there, given the size of the universe. I'm not sure what, if any, profound implications this would have on mankind if it were discovered to be true. In books, movies and tv series we often see the assumption that the discovery of aliens would be earth-shattering for our civilisation. I don't really see how. For the religious, it would be a trick of the devil, demons infesting earth, evidence of angels or just an acceptable part of science which does not change their personal relationship with god. For the rest, it'd be like learning that a new house is being built across the street. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic here, but I don't see what it changes or challenges.
Ty
Moderator
"In the long run, though, a lot is going to depend on the make-up of the aliens themselves. And since we can barely speculate about that, I don't think we can even guess what the long term effects will be. "
Vorjack, I admit that while I think life may be fairly abundant in the universe, for the reasons you list, I fall into the camp of those that believe that physics will keep us from ever interacting in any meaningful way.
Physics is a harsh mistress, and she sets the speed limits and enforces them vigorously.
JohnMWhite
Member
Yeah, I agree Ty. I should probably have mentioned, when I say I don't see what impact the existence of aliens will have on us, I mean just the knowledge of their existence. Obviously if they land on earth and start interacting that would change things as much as any meeting of two cultures, but I find it very unlikely a species would manage to travel here from their home planet. Not impossible, certainly, but the physical interaction I see as a bit besides the point anyway.
Elemenope
Moderator
LOL. I loved the Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Prepares a Toast, but thought the Chronicles of Narnia sucked.
But, I was referring to his space trilogy, wherein he tries to tackle the theological issues with extraterrestrials (among other things). Space devil, etc..
Daniel Florien
Administrator
I enjoyed Perelandra. Much better than Chronicles of Narnia, where the allegory was too transparent.
You must log in to post.
