Christians and Aliens

I'm sure it's all about that Christians are just greedy about "GOD" The fact that he/she took the time to create other forms of life means that he/she has other items at hand and is much too busy to spend 100% of his/her time with matters just concerning us.

Pretty much they want to see themselves as the only child.
And that we are too damn special for him/she to just go out and create other forms of life, we are all he/she needs.

you know, something like that...

Other intelligent life would render that whole "gave his only son" thing a bit useless. Which, if I recall correctly, is a big part of Christianity.

Vatican says aliens could exist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

Aliens were created by an alien God.

Not really, most Christians view Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit as ontologically indistinct--hence, the reason we view ourselves as monotheists--and the "only son" thing refers directly to the Incarnation or birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's possible that other intelligent lifeforms do exist and they just didn't fuck up their use of free will as badly as we did, or other forms of animal life in the universe exist but just aren't intelligent, or we truly are the only planet with life. Hardcore atheists don't mind positing that inifinte numbers of universes exist in order to explain why the universe seems geared toward life--out of all the possible universe, one at least would be conducive to life--it's not a bigger stretch than that to view us as being the sole point of life in the cosmos.

Really?

Yeah a number of things--e.g. the amazing weakness of gravity--imply direction in the universe. To get around that, the alternative explanation most commonly offered is that there are an infinite number of universes and ours is just the possible world in which all these little things lined up perfectly.

"Imply direction"? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but that seems like an absurd assumption.

Cosmology and atheism have nothing to do with each other. I'm absolutely sure there are devout cosmologists who also have no problem positing multiple universes - no one's saying they exist yet. Anthropomorphism doesn't support religious belief either; the same cosmological conditions that allow the universe to tick just right don't just make this the place for us, they make it the place for seahorses and rocks and pulsars too. It's presumptuous to look at the nature of the universe as vindicating a particular religious view.

Maybe there is a god but he's got a thing for globular clusters and that's why the universe is the way it is. It's not all about us, we're not even an afterthought; just an unintended product coming out of the processes necessary to make galaxies and globular clusters and so on.

You realize that the old anthropic argument is just another God-in-the-gaps one, right? It boils down to "We're here, so God exists!" I marvel at the hubris in that statement.

I've heard anthropic argument supporters use the alternate universe stuff to try and preemptively pooh-pooh the atheist response. "Look! In order to buy that God doesn't exist, you've got to believe in alternate universes! WHO'S MAKING STUFF UP NOW, SCIENCE?" As if it's dumber to believe in alternate universes than a supreme deity.

I think some of the religious have a problem with aliens because they tend to fear what they don't understand. 'God' is an easy answer for explanations of the universe - akin to saying "well, it is what it is". Myself, I fear religion because it literally cannot be reasoned with or understood by any means. And the people who talk about their religion don't realize that what they're saying makes no sense at all. So as the cliche/truism goes, they use God to justify anything they say or do, without intellectual strain and to be correct without argument or persuading. It doesn't matter what the 'Christian perspective' on aliens is - it is whatever the individual feels like believing. Every one has a different interpretation of the nonsensical concept of religion, and they manipulate it accordingly without evidence or anything like that. It's the worship of the self and ego. God forbid you are wrong about something!

I'm beginning to lose stock in -anything- a religious person says.

That's because it is. Cuchulain's statements reek of second hand "I read about how atheists think in this great book by William Dembski" knowledge, instead of actually speaking to atheists and finding out how they think.

I think the reason the alternate universes response draws so much attention is that a lot of enthusiastic athiests automatically assign the "retard" label to theists, like to poke fun at us for believing in things we can't see or prove or disprove claims about whether or not they exist, and then insist they're always more intellectually open to the big questions becasue they--supposedly--don't have the stumbling block of belief that the theists do. Then, when you run into cosmological evidence that implies some sort of direction, this doesn't even get them to consider that maybe believing in a god isn't that retarded. No, they support the idea that worlds we cant see or prove or disprove the existence exist and we're just living in the one that happened to be suited to life. It's not any "dumber" than theism, it just currently requires the same leap of faith.

I went to UC Berkeley. Trust me, I talked to athiests all the time.

Tom Cruise, you little scamp, is that you?

Again, not trying to be argumentative, but just what is this "cosmological evidence"? I mean, seriously, I'm an atheist, but if someone presented me with incontrovertible scientific evidence of a theological-based galaxy and local solar system, I'd be all ears.

I really have to side with the present minority here. The 'Anthropomorphic Principle' pops up time and time again in modern theoretical physics. It might only be 'God in the Gaps', but guess what, it's also adopted by quite a few reasonable men of science - Dicke, Carter, Penrose (and most notably Sir Fred Hoyle, who is tragically dismissed by many because he stands against the implacable necessity of the 'Big Bang'). Okay, let's go ahead and define it as the 'Anthropomorphic Coincidence.' I have no problem with that, but simply trying explain it away through semantics doesn't change the underlying nature of reality: it is extremely fine-tuned in order to support life. It is my no means necessary to attribute this tuning to an intelligent design or a 'creator.' To this layman, it does appear that a lot of the attack against Anthropomorphism in general, and the belief in God in particular, are rooted in an atheistic supposition, rather than in neutral observation.

How is this a demonstrable thesis?

Until a self-sustaining explanation as to how and why the fundamental forces that govern our reality came into being is actually put forth and sustained, the mathematical probability that the anthropomorphic pre-conditions of inflation, gravity, and electromagnetism are unlikely remains extremely overwhelming.

I'm not saying that anthropomorphism is the necessary answer. But until science comes up with a better one, mathematically, it's better than any other explanation. This is a neutral statement. I'm fine with letting science run its course in pursuit of a better answer, but you (or anyone else) are/is not in a position to dispute where we stand now.

Fair enough.

You're still a poopy-head, though.

Damn you Science! Do you see what you have done to us!!!

Irony at its finest.

I love this answer because it is so repetitive on this "Religion" board. The original question is why some believers espouse the "Aliens are against my religion" stance. Obviously the original poster wants to gain insight into what Christian or other religions view aliens, what are the challenges and threats presented by such a concept. But here we have another "it doesn't matter what religious people believe, they are irrational" post, which in the end simply tries to illustrate why the question is pointless. These irrational people are self indulging delusional Neanderthals whose belief system has no internal logic whatsoever, so why ask?

You might as well just create a sticky with that reply in this topic and supply it as the default answer to atheist who believe the religious are not worthy of even engaging. Save all of us, and yourselves some time.

Going back to the original question, from the Christian perspective I was tempted to reply with the usual fundamentalist/non-fundamentalist Christian divide. However, I do remember a few friends who were quite literal on their Bible interpretation a bit open about the idea of aliens. Of course, their rationale was based on in my opinion out of context interpretations of New Testament passages were Jesus talks about his kingdom and followers not "being of this world".

So on that end, even some of the most fundamentalist Christian believers are somewhat open to the idea, but I don't think this view is prevalent. I would say aliens pose a couple of challenges to believers:

1) What if the alien civilization has other Gods?
We get into another argument of who is the right God, however how is this any different from the current and historical issue of multiple human religions. Possibly the bigger challenge is;

2) What if the alien civilization is more advanced and is Atheist?
Aliens pop up, come from an utopia in which peace and knowledge prosper but have move beyond the idea of a creator. This will challenge the belief system of many, but I don't think the mere presence of an intelligent race with no belief would wipe out religion from the face of the earth (would it accelerate it?)

3) Do aliens have souls?
If they do, do they need to be saved? Did Jesus die for the sins of humanity only?

These are some of the questions that would arise, of course, mostly from a Christian perspective. If you are Hindu, you might not be too bothered by (1) (or even 2), and with (3) you don't feel it is your business to convert anybody.

So some of these questions would probably challenge Christianity and Islam the most.

As for the Vatican's position, or at least the one they seem to be trying to form, they seem pretty open to the possibility but I'm curious about the statement regarding original sin wrt aliens.

So Capitan, what's your take?

They aren't Neanderthals; being religious is a choice. Once one realizes that, they're on the path to at least agnosticism.

I think you missed my point.

Me or the Louse?

EDIT: I'm genuinely curious as to your opinion. This is not some stupid atheist "GOTCHA!" moment.

I meant the Louse.

I don't know, I really haven't given this that much thought. Since I don't view the Bible as a book of science, I don't really feel that Christianity itself is in opposition to life outside of our planet.

Like my more fundamentalist friends, one is tempted to read in too much into some passages here and there in the Bible that seem to leave the door open, but it really does not even address the question I think, since it is merely concerned with the relationship between humans and God.

So for me, I don't think this is something in opposition to my faith. I do admit that depending on the type of alien form, specially the level of intelligence it would definitely might pose some severe challenges to our faith. Sort of the example I mentioned of a more intelligent advanced alien society with no belief in God. It even makes a difference if they at one point did believe in a God or if they never did (it would say a about the human condition).

If it is a form of life that is less intelligent or advanced to humans, then things would be simpler I guess, but there would still be a lot of questions to be answered from a religious perspective.

But maybe this was already addressed in Alien Nation, wasn't it ? :-)

I'd like to believe that most of the religious amongst us will find a way to adjust their mindset, sort of like when "everbody KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe" (thanks, Tommy Lee Jones!). They'll accept the aliens and whatever their belief structure is (another of God's wonders), maybe there'll be exchanges of worshippers, etc. Sadly, the hardcore fundamentalists types, the ones who seem to have an alleged "lock" on how God and the Bible work, will be the first ones screaming "Blasphemer! Unbeliever! Infidel!" at our eighteen fingered visitors. Hopefully, that lot will be in the minority.

If I understand this statement correctly, you're saying that admittedly flimsy arguments can retain merit so long as they're supported by the right people.

I've never heard this argument referred to as the anthropomorphic principle before. A quick google of "anthropomorphic principle" doesn't yield much, although I do see a reference to it in the blog "negative waves." Maybe we're talking about two different things. Can you source this?

So it isn't a principle. It's an observation of an unknown element. This is fine, so long as it isn't used to support either the multi-universe or the deity argument. Supporting an argument by pointing to an unknown element and saying "PROVE ME WRONG!" is still offensive, no matter which side it comes from.

Which brings me to a larger point about faith and science in general: What brings the faithful to campaign for proof of their faith through science? I'm by no means an expert on the philosophy of religion, but wouldn't proof of a deity make the mystery of faith irrelevant? If God decided to make his presence objectively known, then being religious and having faith would be no more interesting or special than going to the toilet. Proving God seems completely counterintuitive. Am I missing the point here?

On that note, lots of people--including the fundamentalists themselves--seem to gloss over the fact that Christ is portrayed in the Bible as having a really dim view of fundamentalists and the established religious order. (Well, actually, some of the fundamentalists notice that but seem to take the weird view that Christ had a dim view of 1st century Jews rather than people like them, which is weird given that he practiced 1st century Judaism.) The parable of the Good Samaritan, for instance, is not only deeply anti-clerical but is quite radical in its main thrust of embracing the other.

Parenthetical: last night, I watched BBC/Discovery's "Walking With Cavemen" with my spawn. It posited that a crucial difference between neanderthals and humans was that neanderthals lacked imagination. There is, apparently, no evidence of neanderthal religion because neanderthals were incapable of imagining life after death.

BTW, the "Walking With ..." series is first-rate stuff for people of any age.

I don't see how that follows at all. Anthropomorphism is absolutely not neutral, because it assumes a design and a designer. It's also very obviously the result of an inability to see beyond one's own importance. Humanity is unusual (as far as we know) in that we're able to observe and philosophize; however, if, say, stars were able to do the same, the sun might suspect that the universe was designed specifically to accommodate it and its brethren, and humanity and life on Earth were just some unneeded side-effect.

But even that would be erroneously assuming some sort of design.

I'm not even sure how one would go about figuring out the mathematical probability of life existing in its current form, given the fact that we're dealing with potentially infinite possibilities in terms of time and space. We don't know what the parameters of existence are, so saying that the odds of something existing or occurring is mathematically unlikely seems a tad disingenuous. Unless we have some evidence of a "beginning of existence" (not just of our universe, but perhaps whatever existed before our universe), you can't dismiss the idea of everything being the result of nothing more than happenstance. Existence has had infinite time and space for variations to pop up and disappear before we emerged. When you consider that, the "miracle" of our existence seems far less miraculous.

There is no cosmological evidence that supports direction. The anthropic argument cannot logically support an idea.

The idea of multiple universes stems from bubble, quantum, and string-related theories, as well as ideas like quantum foam. As a standalone concept, it's just as unfalsifiable as "God magic". Science probably favors it as a hypothesis because it points back in some fashion to the realm of testability (beyond the fact that they're all spiteful atheists).

You sure they didn't mean Republicans?

Buh?

as far as what the bible say there are verse like this:
John 14:2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for [John 13:33, 36] I go to prepare a place for you.


That there is a lot more going on then what is just in the bible. It is my growing opinion that fundies just can't understand what it is that the bible is saying. This opinion of mine about fundies not understanding the bible just keep getting stronger every day. I believe it may be diamond by now, but it just keep on growing strong.

It's a jealousy thing.

Well, there are plot holes, inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible - it would not be published as a work of fiction today. Having to make up different ways of interpreting it is trying to excuse its flaws - I try to judge the book on its literary merits, of which it has few. Because foremost it is a text, rather than lightning inscribed by God, whether you believe Christ is your savior or not. As evidenced by the plentiful interpretations of it.

And yes, there are various ways people have read masterpieces like Crime & Punishment and others - but the basic sequence of events is agreed upon. It's the themes of the novel that are unearthed and debated. While the Bible is all theme and no substance.

Maybe they couldn't get it through their thick head.

There are 60 million galaxies out there. It's impossible to think there isn't any other form of life out there.

Oh, come the fuck on.

At the very least, it's an enduring set of archetypal stories; a dramatic, if non-literal, history of a people; and an attempt at configuring (and re-configuring) a moral code that fit the people of the time.

Say what you will about its literal application, but no literary merit? Give me a break.

Um, The Bible is not a novel. It's an anthology.

No, it doesn't. At least, the Anthropic Principle as widely used in theoretical physics absolutely does not require a designer. The only design that it requires is a design that results in (EDIT: intelligent) life. So yes, obviously there is a design.

I don't see anything fundamentally contradictory in the idea that perception performs a critical role in the way quantum mechanics plays out. Moving from the concept of Waveform Collapse, it stands to reason that the only Universe that has been created is the one in which it is perceived. Honestly, I find the idea that there has been an 'infinite amount of time' in order for the right conditions to be set (or the even more unlikely theory of 'multiple universes') to be far less tenable than a basic version of the Anthropic Principle.

I would recommend 'The Conscious Universe' by by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau as good background for this sort of discussion.

Like I said, I don't mind science coming up with a better idea than Anthropomorphism. My point only is that it hasn't, in that the fundamental forces of reality remain unexplained. It's a falsifiable argument: present how and why the fundamental forces of nature exist in their measured ratios. Until we reach that point, there are basically three options: superstition (I would argue that science is a moving series of testable fictions, but this isn't what we're talking about right now), scientific ignorance (who knows? surely one day we'll figure it out!), or some configuration of the Anthropomorphic Principle by way of Quantum Theory (Waveform Collapse as the determinant to initial conditions in the Universe). If there is another way to resolve our murky understanding, I am more than willing to hear it, but I have yet to come across it. Given the options at hand, I am willing to accept the one that has some basis in reason, even if that reason runs counter to the scientific idea that the observer should remain independent of the phenomenon observed (because really, hasn't that ship long since sailed?).

Oh yeah, aliens. I dont know. I've always through the Little Gray Men were time travelers from a horrible dystopian future, desperately trying to save the past.

Nobody posted the usual atheist response to the Anthropic Principle, in which Douglas Adams points out it's a lot like a puddle of water gaining sentience and thinking that the hole it finds itself in fits it so perfectly, the hole must've been dug with the puddle in mind.

Personally, I don't see how "the universe has to be this particular way in order to support life" becomes "life is the purposeful end result of the universe having been this particular way".

I was going to say something like that, but clearly Adams said it more succinctly than I ever could.

And after doing some light reading, it seems like the Anthropic Principle was meant more for phase space style thought experiments and mathematical modelling, and not an outright statement of "this is the actual history of the universe(s)." And of course when you say "...it is extremely fine-tuned in order to support life," you are implying that life was an intentional end result (and thus the existence of a being capable of harbouring that intent), as opposed to life merely being the byproduct of a Universe that doesn't instantaneously implode or disperse into subatomic gas.

How about "potentially infinite?" My gripe with dismissing the idea that our existence was merely the result of the right dice rolled at the right time in favor of the anthropic argument isn't that we've absolutely had infinite space and time for the right number of dice to be rolled. It's that we have no idea how much space and time there's been and how many dice there are. With this in mind, it's impossible to dismiss the idea on the basis of probability. You can't calculate probability without knowing all of the numbers involved.

And, yeah, Adams sums up my feelings on the Anthropic Principle.

That's a clever quote from Adams. I haven't heard that before.

Two other arguments reminiscent of the anthropic principle:

1) When ID supporters or Creationists cite the complexity of an organ to support design theory. I've also heard people cite how finely tuned our planet is to sustaining life, with a perfect balance of seasons, weather, and biological harmony, such that it implies a master design for life on the planet. They don't consider that life slowly evolved into the given constraints of our environment; instead, they prefer to imagine the less likely scenario of the environment being tailored to its inhabitants.

2) The atheists' nightmare: The Banana! Ignoring cultivation, evolution, and pineapples, theist literalists love to point to the banana as proof of a planner God.

Sure, both of these are easier ruses to spot than the anthropic principle (so much as they're presented in support of a planner deity), but they're no less spurious.

I watched an atheist documentary recently (I forget the title) and according to a scientist, this universe isn't very suitable to life. Rather, the universe seems geared towards the creation of black holes.