Faith and Life Outside Earth

SafeSurfer

Would the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe have any effect on your faith and beliefs?

PDN

No more than intelligent life (such as dolphins) existing on this planet.

krudler

watch the movie Contact, deals directly with this issue and its a great film. life on other planets discovered, planet goes batsh1t as science collides with faith over it. Its pretty arrogant to assume that in an infinite number of infinite universes we are the only things of a higher intelligence than animals.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

Its pretty arrogant to assume that in an infinite number of infinite universes we are the only things of a higher intelligence than animals.

And there I was thinking that we are animals!

krudler

PDN wrote: »

And there I was thinking that we are animals!

What like as if we...evolved?

PDN

krudler wrote: »

What like as if we...evolved?

Quite possibly, but that is another thread - as you well know.

Fanny Cradock

We have had the same discussion a number of times before:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055878319
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055565606
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055346908
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055917448

And so on...


As for the multiverse or many-worlds theories, krudler, you do realise that these hypotheses fail the basic requirements of science. Namely, any hypothetical universes are unobservable. In short, we don't know that other universes exist and we can't say that other life exists in these hypothetical realms. Listen to this talk by George Ellis if you want to know a little more.

prinz

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe have any effect on your faith and beliefs?

None whatsoever. These other lifeforms could have more faith than we do.

dvae

If e.t. life arrived tomorrow it would not change my faith what so ever.
In fact because God created the heavens and stars we would have something in common. We would share the same God.
Because there is no mention of e.t. life in the bible i would doubt they exist anyway.

Fanny Cradock

Krudler, you're not nearly as witty as you think. I won't simply ignore or delete your unacceptable posts in future. OK?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

krudler

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Krudler, you're not nearly as witty as you think. I won't simply ignore or delete your unacceptable posts in future. OK?

Was a valid point though

Fanny Cradock

It was not a valid point. You were just trying to provoke a reaction.

krudler

Err, yes that would be the point of making a point? this is a discussion forum no?

SafeSurfer

dvae wrote: »

If e.t. life arrived tomorrow it would not change my faith what so ever.
In fact because God created the heavens and stars we would have something in common. We would share the same God.
Because there is no mention of e.t. life in the bible i would doubt they exist anyway.

That may not be how other intelligent life sees it. After all on a tiny planet like earth billions of people don't believe they share the same god as you. And millions of others don't believe that a god like figure created the heavens and stars etc, so you don't have even that belief in common with fellow earthlings, what makes you think that alien life would share your beliefs.

Im curious how contact with et would not cause one to re-evaluate the beliefs one holds.

If for example you are Catholic and you believe that the pope is in direct contact with god and is therefore infallible, what happens when it can be proven that the pope is wrong.

The Christian Church believed the earth was flat (wrong) the Catholic church believed the earth was at the centre of the universe (wrong) the Catholic church believed that the sun rotated around the earth (wrong).

If et contact was made and we learned we were but one of millions of forms of life in the universe would that not cause all humans to think afresh about their lives and their place in the universe.

I for one would feel somehow less unique. It would lead me to further question the belief in an omnipotent god who demands to be worshipped.

There are been many beliefs in many gods over many millenia. All the believers in those past gods belived intrinsically that their god or gods were the one correct belief system. Why should any of the belief systems, currently widely held be correct?

PDN

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That may not be how other intelligent life sees it. After all on a tiny planet like earth billions of people don't believe they share the same god as you. And millions of others don't believe that a god like figure created the heavens and stars etc, so you don't have even that belief in common with fellow earthlings, what makes you think that alien life would share your beliefs.

So why would an alien disagreeing with a Christian be any more convincing than an Iranian Muslim doing so?

prinz

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If for example you are Catholic and you believe that the pope is in direct contact with god and is therefore infallible, what happens when it can be proven that the pope is wrong.

Does the Pope have a special minutes package with free texts to God or what?

Of course it would affect my view of the world and our place in it, but it would have none on faith, belief in God. Mobile phones affected how I viewed the world but they didn't affect faith in God.

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

Err, yes that would be the point of making a point? this is a discussion forum no?

A discussion forum is a place to have a discussion. It not a place to post stupid one liners with the intent of pissing people off. No more of this, please.

Gurgle

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the pope is in direct contact with god and is therefore infallible, what happens when it can be proven that the pope is wrong.

Only statements declared infallible are considered infallible, and these are carefully chosen un-disprovable statements.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Christian Church believed the earth was flat (wrong) the Catholic church believed the earth was at the centre of the universe (wrong) the Catholic church believed that the sun rotated around the earth (wrong).

The 'flat earth' idea has not been seriously considered by any culture or branch of science in over 2,500 years.

The geo-centric model was developed by the Greeks around 500BC, and stood for nearly 2,000 years until Copernicus started picking at the holes in the model.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If et contact was made and we learned we were but one of millions of forms of life in the universe would that not cause all humans to think afresh about their lives and their place in the universe.

Not really, plenty of people (myself included) already believe that we are but one of millions of forms of life in the universe.

SafeSurfer

prinz wrote: »

Does the Pope have a special minutes package with free texts to God or what?
.

I don't think its a mobile. Probably a big old fashioned red bakelite landline.:D

Im not sure of the ettiquete of texting god. Seems a bit too informal, maybe would be ok if you didnt use txt spk.

SafeSurfer

PDN wrote: »

So why would an alien disagreeing with a Christian be any more convincing than an Iranian Muslim doing so?

I don't understand. Convincing for who? Do you mean both the christian and muslim would try to convince the alien that their belief was correct?

candy-gal1

Who knows? it shouldnt but who knows?!

Canis Lupus

Lets just hope an alien doesn't arrive and start bringing back people from the dead, changing water into wine, walking on water, curing individual cases of blindness/leprosy and so on and so forth cos then **** would really kick off.

JoeB-

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the multiverse or many-worlds theories, krudler, you do realise that these hypotheses fail the basic requirements of science. Namely, any hypothetical universes are unobservable. In short, we don't know that other universes exist and we can't say that other life exists in these hypothetical realms. Listen to this talk by George Ellis if you want to know a little more.

Not necessarily true... The Fabric of Reality is a book by physicist David Deutsch, and in it he provides evidence that the many worlds hypotisis is correct. This comes down to inteference patterns seen when shining light through slits.

It's also how quantum computers work.. and these have been demonstrated to work, in the real world... there is no classical explanation as to how Shor's algorithm works, to find factors of numbers without resorting to many worlds... it is only by farming out the massive numbers of calculations (to other universes) that it works, and it does work.

JoeB-

PDN wrote: »

So why would an alien disagreeing with a Christian be any more convincing than an Iranian Muslim doing so?

For many reasons...

They may be able to explain the origin of the universe, life, conciousness, and faith, without resorting to God. They may be able to provide compelling evidence that they themselves are the God of Christians... i.e newspaper reports published on their home planet about how members of their species came to Earth and conned us. They may have a recording of the exact events detailed in the bible, and they may be able to show conclusively that Jesus was not divine.

They may have compelling evidence of a God which contradicts the concept of a Christian God.

Would any of this be at all compelling to you?

Fanny Cradock

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Not necessarily true... The Fabric of Reality is a book by physicist David Deutsch, and in it he provides evidence that the many worlds hypotisis is correct. This comes down to inteference patterns seen when shining light through slits.

It's also how quantum computers work.. and these have been demonstrated to work, in the real world... there is no classical explanation as to how Shor's algorithm works, to find factors of numbers without resorting to many worlds... it is only by farming out the massive numbers of calculations (to other universes) that it works, and it does work.

One swallow does not make a summer!

I don't deny that there is evidence for the multiverse. The question we then ask is this evidence any good? You wont get consensus because much of quantum physiscs is down to interpretation of data.

My understanding is that established physics is extrapolated to produce the hypothetical physics behind the multiverse (there are a number of competing hypotheses even within the multiverse theory). Ultimately, due to the limitations of light, we can not observe multiple universes. So it seems to me that given our current understanding the multiverse is as much a theory of speculative physics (not necessarily wrong, of course) as it is a mixture of ontological preferences, faith and metaphysical hypothesis.

If you want to discuss this further I would suggest taking it to the science forum.

JoeB-

I accept what you say about going to the science forum, but 'd just like to make a final point, as it's relevant.

You mention that there are several 'intrepretations' of what quantum theory means... and what the equations tell us about the real world, the one we find ourselves in.

David's book is exactly about that issue, what our current accepted theories tell us about the world, or about the fabric of reality.

He says that it's very clear, and is implicit in the equations of quantum theory, that the multiverse theory must be true... that we must accept what these theories tell us, even if it seems counter intuititive... that to hide from the obvious implications, while similtaenously saying that quantum theory is the most precise theory we have ever had, and that it gives answers to greater precision than ever before.. is silly, we must be brave and accept the implications for things like a multiverse.

I can't be sure if he's right... I always tend to think each author is correct, after I read their books.. this is because the material is very complex, and each author sounds very knowledgeable. I'd imagine most people are similar.

I used to believe in John Cramers, 'retarded waves' interpretation of quantum mechanics... juries still out I suppose.

Off to the science forum now...

Fanny Cradock

Yes, it is tempting to settle on one view because it is made well. I'll check on the science forum to see how your thread goes.