Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
If extra terrestrial life was discovered
Options
Comments
-
"It'll have to go."0
-
A great sacrifice from whom exactly (anytime you say "Jesus" also repeat the sentence with "God" instead please, and see if it still makes sense)
Yes, it still makes sense.So God demonstrated the problem was with us, not him, be pouring his entire wrath on himself?
God didn't change His standards. Instead He showed us the penalty we deserved to suffer, and He showed us the immense cost of sin. It's a far more powerful image, a God who redeems His people, over an incompetent god who claims that His standards are non-standards.Nothing silly if you completely ignore the silliness (see above)
Except, I really don't see how possibly it is "silly" as you've put it.0 -
Er, yes it is. The evolutionary development of things like altruism is quite well understood. We have a much much better idea of why a human for example would consider it immoral to hurt a child than we do have an idea for why God would consider it immoral to hurt a child (he "just" does, I suppose).
It's not altruism if it is done for self-centred purposes. Doing it for our genes is still selfish, hence the title of Dawkins' book.And you can also ask why does God exist rather than not exist and why is he one way and not another way.
Sorry what?
My point is that if there is order and if there are scientific laws governing the universe, it's entirely valid to ask what accounts for them.
I've explained why contingent and necessary beings are distinct before on this forum and on the Christianity forum many times before. The infinite regress argument in the philosophy of religion in and of itself doesn't make sense. There has to be a terminating cause.If you assume there has to be an intelligent reason behind everything its turtles all the way down, something Christians are more than happy to ignore when it suits them.
Not at all. It's a logical thing to ask, what accounts for this instead of claiming that it isn't a logical question to ask.Well no actually it isn't. To be inherently selfish we would have to be the center of the system. Since we aren't, it isn't. We live and die for our genes.
Our genes, us same thing. It's still selfishness. What about those who aren't related to us?Only if you don't understand what nature is already telling us. Remember the "fittest" is the person able to survive long enough to mate as much as possible)
Morality and what can and does occur in nature are poles apart. It doesn't take much to find this out.In general it is not possible to do what is best for you at the detriment of others. People who act that way end up either dead or simply unable to mate, or not mate as much as those who co-operate with their fellow man.
Why isn't it? People get screwed over on a regular basis."Good" and "evil" are words humans came up with for concepts that they think about. Who ever said they are required to have objective grounding? Is the universe required to provide us with an objective something simply because we think of it.
In using them Sin City is presuming I have the same understanding of "good" and "evil" as he does.Or to put it another way, can I have my unicorn now ...
Sounds like weaselling out of the debate. It is entirely valid to observe reality and to probe into why these things are. It is only by observing how morality works on a daily basis that I can conclude that it is more than likely not subjective.When presented with decent answers you ignore them, or dismiss them, or say something stupid like Lots of people thinks morals are objective therefore they are.
They really aren't "good answers". Honestly.You don't take this topic seriously, so why would you expect to encounter answers you consider decent.
Except I do and I've legitimately criticised your POV.That question has already been answers, you just don't like the answer because it doesn't require God (in fact it simply highlights how silly "God did it" is as an answer)
I've shown you how it is lacking.We consider things "good" because have evolved certain behavior that has proven beneficial to are long term survival as a species, or more specifically the survival of our genes.
What is "beneficial"? Why do you presume that I should hold the same understanding as you do? This brings up the exact same problem as some of the earlier things I pointed out.What people believe about moral action is irrelevant. Some people believe the world is flat, some believe dragons exist, some believe Muhammad saw an angel in a cave.
I agree, it is. That's probably because morality isn't subjective, but objective.What matters is that survival of the fittest, ie evolutionary biology, (as it is actually stated, not some silly Christian straw man) explains moral action almost perfectly, or at the very least with an astounding success found little in few other places in science.
It sounds like you're deducing a moral philosophy out of a biological theory. A cursory look online shows that not even most scientists subscribe to this moral philosophy, this is why I question your claim that it is "fact" when it is nothing of the sort.You have a hard time with this either because you don't understand (which at this stage really you don't have much of an excuse for) or because you don't like the implications of it since it explains morality without requiring a "God did it" at the centre of it all.
Not at all. I have real objections that nobody has properly addressed to date.0 -
philologos wrote: »Not at all. I have real objections that nobody has properly addressed to date.
Not liking the answers doesn't mean you haven't been answered. You, on the other hand, have failed to answer a LOT of questions over the years. But never mind that, you can keep running away forever, right?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,604 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48051
they found the solution to the israel/palestine conflict engraved on a martian rock.Quick get out the red carpet!
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/what-earth-shaking-evidence-did-mars-rover-curiosity-just-find0 -
Advertisement
-
I fully realise I'm speaking to the wind here, but Dawkins explains -- in considerable detail, and in very simple language -- why the religious understanding of the title of his book is wrong. With particular reference to a religious writer named Mary Midgley, but his explanation will fix yourunderstanding too. Read the first page of Dawkins' book. It's short and easy to understand.philologos wrote: »It's not altruism if it is done for self-centred purposes. Doing it for our genes is still selfish, hence the title of Dawkins' book.
Good to hear that you finally accept that your deity has a "terminating cause" too!philologos wrote: »The infinite regress argument in the philosophy of religion in and of itself doesn't make sense. There has to be a terminating cause.0 -
In all seriousness though, can we get back on topic? Not trying to mod :pac:0
-
In all seriousness though, can we get back on topic? Not trying to mod :pac:
Thanks Liam.
So, if Curiosity did find signs of life on Mars, what will the pope say?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/mars-rover-curiosity-discovery_n_2167207.html
Quick, more Bible edits.
How about a "New" New Testament.0 -
It's not self centred, it's group centred. And if you are thinking of others before and/or to the expense of yourself, for whatever reason, it is altruism.philologos wrote: »It's not altruism if it is done for self-centred purposes. Doing it for our genes is still selfish, hence the title of Dawkins' book.
Groups that self sacrifice for the good of the group (behave altruistically) are most successful than groups who do not.
There is zero reason to assume that materialisic/non-magical science cannot provide this simply because it has not yet done so.philologos wrote: »My point is that if there is order and if there are scientific laws governing the universe, it's entirely valid to ask what accounts for them.
Further assuming that god is the answer without a shred of evidence as you are doing, is not asking, it's declaring something irrationally.
And then God does not actually offer an explanation at all in the first place as you will be unable to explain what mechanism he used to create the laws of nature or why he did.
It is only a problem for you claims of god, and it only doesn't make sense because your concept of god does not make sense.philologos wrote: »The infinite regress argument in the philosophy of religion in and of itself doesn't make sense. There has to be a terminating cause.
If you declare that everything must have a cause, then you must explain what caused god, then what caused that and so on...
If you are then declaring that God doesn't need a cause because of magic etc, then why can this not apply to the universe or another non-magical explanation? Why can't the universe exist is an infinite cycle? Or arise form a infinitly existing structure like quantum foam?
Or why can't the the universe itself not be the result of an infinite regress?
Why can't the universe have a cause, then that cause have a cause and so on ad infinitium?
An infinite regress is only a problem for your fallacious arguments that require a specific, nonsensical answer, but there is no reason to believe that one can't exist.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I’m a bit puzzled here.Thanks Liam.
So, if Curiosity did find signs of life on Mars, what will the pope say?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/mars-rover-curiosity-discovery_n_2167207.html
Quick, more Bible edits.
How about a "New" New Testament.
I admit, I don’t have the enthusiasm to read through 13 pages of this thread, but a quick and possibly unrepresentative glance backwards shows quite a number of posters who seem to assume that the finding extraterrestrial life would present a problem for religious belief, but no very clear articulation what that problem would be. And I’m not really seeing it myself.
If the extraterrestrial life that was found was sufficiently intelligent, and sufficiently powerful/competent, it would be something of a boost for the proponents of intelligent design, since we would now have evidence for a plausible candidate for the intelligent designer that ID postulates, but so far lacks. And, conversely, it might take a bit of wind out of the sails of those who sneer at ID (including, in the interests of full disclosure, myself). But that does seem pretty marginal and, anyway, most of the commentators here seem to assume that the implications for religious believers would be negative, not positive.
So the discussion might proceed a bit more fruitfully if, instead of assuming a challenge to religious belief which they do not bother to state, posters would say what challenge exactly they think the discovery of extraterrestrial life would pose.
(And my apologies if someone has already done this, and I have failed to spot it. I’ll be grateful for a link to the post concerned.)0 -
I agree that it won't change a thing for them unless the aliens have developed some kind of rational critical mind rays (patent pending!) that they use to help people realise how silly it is to believe in all this stuff. Then it might cause them problems.
Of course if we were able to communicate and explore each other's cultures it's possible that they would have very different gods (if the aforementioned ray gun doesn't exist) that might cause some debate but I'd bet they would still centre around giving easy meaning to this life, a life after it and some cosmic justice so they would probably end up relating their stories.
I guess one argument is with regards dominion; At least in the judean religions yahweh created man in his image so any alien life that looks different is less close to god and that god also gave dominion over all animals on earth to man so there would be an issue here that god would need to sort out. Does he want us to treat the sentient beings he loved more than animals (by making them smart) as equals even though he didn't bother to love them so much to make them in his image.
Then there's the issue of heaven. Are they allowed in or have they a separate deal with yahweh and do they have sin in them? When god made their planet was there a perfect garden and did their ancestors feck it up?
That's more than I planned to write but ideas kept flowing!0 -
if we discover 12 aliens.......and they all have a different religion......surely one of them must have a german pope.....0
-
OK, you’re assuming intelligent life, which I suppose focuses the discussion a bit (if perhaps removing it from anything we’re likely to face in the immediate future!)I agree that it won't change a thing for them unless the aliens have developed some kind of rational critical mind rays (patent pending!) that they use to help people realise how silly it is to believe in all this stuff. Then it might cause them problems.
Of course if we were able to communicate and explore each other's cultures it's possible that they would have very different gods (if the aforementioned ray gun doesn't exist) that might cause some debate but I'd bet they would still centre around giving easy meaning to this life, a life after it and some cosmic justice so they would probably end up relating their stories.
Yes, obviously, intercultural communication and the exchange of ideas could present challenges to existing beliefs. But I don’t see any a priori reason to think that it would pose a challenge to theistic beliefs in particular.
You’re assuming that the notion that humanity is made “in God’s image” means that humanity looks somewhat like God. A mistake, I think - even my childhood catechism (pre-Vatican II, and not exactly cutting-edge technology) assured me that the way in which humanity imaged God had nothing to do with what we look like - “this likeness to God is chiefly in the soul”, or something like that (and a quick spot of googling suggests that right back in the early church they were making the disctinction between what God looks like and what it is for us to be an image of God). So our hypothetical alien could look nothing like us, but still have the capacities that are taken to image God in us - intelligence, will, reason, creativity, morality, etc - and so be an image of God. And I think that would provide a context within which the question you raise about dominion could be addressed.I guess one argument is with regards dominion; At least in the judean religions yahweh created man in his image so any alien life that looks different is less close to god and that god also gave dominion over all animals on earth to man so there would be an issue here that god would need to sort out. Does he want us to treat the sentient beings he loved more than animals (by making them smart) as equals even though he didn't bother to love them so much to make them in his image.
Again, you’re assuming that the “perfect garden” corresponds to a physical location on this planet, which I think is a position that most believers do not hold, or at worst could move away from without any great difficulty. And there’s certainly nothing in Jewish or Christian teaching which suggests that heaven (a state of being, not a location) is confined to those originating on a particular planet. And if we’re postulating aliens who have intelligence, will, reason, morality, etc, then, yes, obviously, they could sin.Then there's the issue of heaven. Are they allowed in or have they a separate deal with yahweh and do they have sin in them? When god made their planet was there a perfect garden and did their ancestors feck it up?0 -
"... But that's not what 'in God's image' means! ..."
Yes, but most randomly encountered religious lay people take it in a more word for word manner.
Sure well read smart religious people have a different take on things.
Actually I'm pretty sure a fair number of creationist do take that line fairly literally. The logic being that Jesus is part of God and was present at the beginning before God made mankind and thus we are made in Jesus physical image. Also used to explain who god was talking to after he punts out Adam and Eve.
Edit: when ever people tell me that Christians don't think xyz or do think zyx, I am reminded of the following from Niles and Daphne's weddingTV, Fraiser wrote:Niles: We're having a civil ceremony.
Gertrude: Without a minister? ... I will not bear witness to a God-less union ...
Martin: Gertrude, I favor a church wedding too but this is their day, not ours. Maybe we should just let them decide how it's going to be.
Gertrude: If people got to decide things for themselves, no one would go to church ...
Frasier: Mrs. Moon, you have my personal guarantee that this will not be a God-less union, for if you truly believe in the omniscience and omnipresence of the Lord, then surely we're always in his presence.
Gertrude: No, he lives at the church.
While Phil and others might hold strongly rationalised and deep philosophical positions the people we encounter every day frankly don't.
They hold small minded, intolerant views based around all kinds of craps.
So after you've delt with some "God hates Fags" wack job someone telling you that's not what Christians believe because they themselves believe some variant of God is Love...
No that's just your position and as much as you can hold it you can't just pull out the "No real Scotsman" excuse. We've had pages and pages of why Aliens wouldn't effect Phil's deeply held views... or rather pages of "I believe because of [reason]..." presented as this is what Christians really believe.
Great. What about The Felps Gang?
Does god hate Aliens?
What about the Pope?0 -
You have this conversation with many people that you randomly encounter?"... But that's not what 'in God's image' means! ..."
Yes, but most randomly encountered religious lay people take it in a more word for word manner.
Look, if the primary school catechism from fifty years ago was telling kids that “image of God” doesn’t mean we look like God, I’m going to require some evidence before I accept that “most” lay believers now think that it does.
Oh, creationists, right. In general, I’d expect the discovery of [intelligent] extraterrestrial life to present challenges to the beliefs of creationists. But I have to point out in the present context that most creationists do not believe that the Son possessed fleshly form or human nature prior to the Incarnation, so I think the specific reasoning you suggest wouldn’t stand up.Actually I'm pretty sure a fair number of creationist do take that line fairly literally. The logic being that Jesus is part of God and was present at the beginning before God made mankind and thus we are made in Jesus physical image. Also used to explain who god was talking to after he punts out Adam and Eve.
But I don’t think you can plausibly generalise from creationists to “people of faith”, which is what the OP asks about.0 -
Peregrinus, have you read a novel called "The Sparrow", by any chance...? You might find it interesting: I found it an entertaining enough read. Basic premise, the Jesuits send the first manned expedition to a nearby planet that is broadcasting music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_%28novel%290 -
Neither read it nor heard of it, I'm afraid, but I'll put it on my Book Depository list. Thanks.Peregrinus, have you read a novel called "The Sparrow", by any chance...? You might find it interesting: I found it an entertaining enough read. Basic premise, the Jesuits send the first manned expedition to a nearby planet that is broadcasting music.
I do recall reading a short story years ago by, I think, Isaac Asimov which dealt with Jesuit missionaries going to evangelise new planets and discovering that they have been preceded on all of them by a Christ-like figure who always ends by being crucified by the locals.0 -
I have all sorts of conversations with people I randomly encounter... you don't? You're lucky.Peregrinus wrote: »You have this conversation with many people that you randomly encounter?
All I can say is clearly a lot of people weren't paying much attention... and 25 years ago when I was in primary we definitely didn't cover it.Look, if the primary school catechism from fifty years ago was telling kids that “image of God” doesn’t mean we look like God, I’m going to require some evidence before I accept that “most” lay believers now think that it does.
I specifically asked some of them if they meant physical present in the Garden.Oh, creationists, right. In general, I’d expect the discovery of [intelligent] extraterrestrial life to present challenges to the beliefs of creationists. But I have to point out in the present context that most creationists do not believe that the Son possessed fleshly form or human nature prior to the Incarnation, so I think the specific reasoning you suggest wouldn’t stand up.
The others I didn't bother.
Are creationist not people of faith?But I don’t think you can plausibly generalise from creationists to “people of faith”, which is what the OP asks about.
Must we discuss things in such a way as to cover people of all faiths at the same time?
Is it not reasonable to say one group may react like this another like that?0 -
Advertisement
-
Creationists are people of faith, certainly. It's just that they are not normative for people of faith.Are creationist not people of faith?
Must we discuss things in such a way as to cover people of all faiths at the same time?
Is it not reasonable to say one group may react like this another like that?
It's comparatively trivial that, if someone has a belief that humanity is the unique intelligent life-form in the universe, the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life will challenge that faith. I don't think we can get a 14-page thread out of that startling insight.
But I understant the OP to be referring to people of theistic faith generally. In that sense, the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life only presents a challenge to people of faith to the extent that a belief that humanity is unique in this regard is a usual or necessary characteristic of people of theistic faith. Showing that it's a belief commonly held by creationists (and, I would point out, we haven't even shown that, yet) doesn't tell us anything generic about people of theistic faith.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Creationists are people of faith, certainly. It's just that they are not normative for people of faith.
It's comparatively trivial that, if someone has a belief that humanity is the unique intelligent life-form in the universe, the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life will challenge that faith. I don't think we can get a 14-page thread out of that startling insight.
But I understant the OP to be referring to people of theistic faith generally. In that sense, the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life only presents a challenge to people of faith to the extent that a belief that humanity is unique in this regard is a usual or necessary characteristic of people of theistic faith. Showing that it's a belief commonly held by creationists (and, I would point out, we haven't even shown that, yet) doesn't tell us anything generic about people of theistic faith.
So... am I to include my polytheistic friends in that? They'd be overjoyed to meet aliens with different gods. It wouldn't be a problem from their point of view...
Wait no... I can't do that I have to talk about people of faith in general as one massive group?0 -
I'm not saying you have to talk about people of faith in general as one massive group.So... am I to include my polytheistic friends in that? They'd be overjoyed to meet aliens with different gods. It wouldn't be a problem from their point of view...
Wait no... I can't do that I have to talk about people of faith in general as one massive group?
I'm saying that the question raised by the OP isn't worth a lot of time, attention or interest if we answer it by saying that "people who believe humanity to be unique will be challenged by evidence that it isn't". Well, duh!
The interest lies in exploring whether theistic faith as such would be challenged by the discover of intelligent extraterrestial life, surely?0 -
-
There's nothing specifically in the Bible that's going to be really embarrasing for religious Jews/Christians if aliens arrived.
Why? For the same reason that non-believers consider it to be a exhaustive tome written by bronze age men. It's a rambling book which concerns itself only with what goes on with their part of the world, at that time, and completely misses any bigger picture in terms of the sun, stars and our minuscule place in the universe. Of course it starts with the creation of earth but when that description is shown to be nonsense, that, and other stories quickly become "metaphor" or subject to "context".
So the bible-reader uses it's glaring insularity as a defense against those who might suggest that, somewhere, in it's hundreds of pages, it would have been worthwhile for God to mention that we live on one planet of trillions, in a universe inhabited (in this hypothetical situation) by countless other species.
I used to like the term ID before it was hijacked by creationists who were trying to stay under the radar.Peregrinus wrote: »If the extraterrestrial life that was found was sufficiently intelligent, and sufficiently powerful/competent, it would be something of a boost for the proponents of intelligent design, since we would now have evidence for a plausible candidate for the intelligent designer that ID postulates, but so far lacks. And, conversely, it might take a bit of wind out of the sails of those who sneer at ID (including, in the interests of full disclosure, myself). But that does seem pretty marginal and, anyway, most of the commentators here seem to assume that the implications for religious believers would be negative, not positive.
I have no problem with the concept of a designer - given evidence. That said, unless these aliens had evidence themselves of a designer, than I don't see their existence alone as any more evidence that exists currently.0
Advertisement