posted
I would like to know how people coped with the fact that there was life on another world, mainly how religion explained it, any religion I don't remember OSC explaining it in Enders game. Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why must religion explain life on other worlds any more than it did life on other continents? I'm sorry, I suppose I don't understand the basic assumptions behind your question. Explain to me first why you feel religion should explain life on other worlds and why people should have such trouble coping with the concept. Consider also that we've been slowly touching on science fiction in mainstream culture for about fifty years now. Most people don't find the idea of life on other planets too alarming.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, not all religions assume that Earth is the only world with life, let alone sentient life.
There are religions that consider Earth to be just one of countless inhabited worlds.
So some would be just fine with the discovery of aliens, even if Carl Sagan portrayed them -all- as freaking out in "Contact". Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious how people talked about it and how like religious fanatincs explained it.It dosen't have to do anything with science.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO!!!! the first when they weren't to smart about extraterrestrial life and I have read all the books.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they probably didn't react all too favorably with their first alien encounter. It involved space ships scorching half of China. That tends to rile people up sometimes.
Religious fanatics, I've no doubt, had the usual set of reactions: A. THE END! IT'S THE END! THE END IS COMING! B. If we all drink the Kool-Aid, the Buggers will take us to an extraterrestrial paradise. C. It's sin that brought them. All sin.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grahssss-happer, to be thankful is a virtue. I am accepting acolytes to learn the art of answering questions correctly.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that's the answer you were looking for, I'd say you asked the wrong question. Glad you're satisfied, though.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Yes, I actually thought that was a throw-away joke answer. I am currently considering the fellow may have been sarcastic, though I can't imagine why)
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting that you ask the question to an author whose religion pretty much spells out there is life on other planets. Not that he would have to explain himself in his novels.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't identify any religion, modern or ancient, real or fictional, that says that aliens can't exist.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually, there is a disconnect, but not in the existence of aliens. It is in whether or not to embrace them as "people." And the books do address this.
In the later books in the Ender series, they obviously struggle to connect with the piggies, and Demosthenes' categories of Ramen, Varelse, etc. help to deal with this.
In the shadow series, Carlotta discusses the philosophical connotations of aliens species with Graff (I believe in one of the chapter intros.) She says that humans are made "in the image of God" and therefore she will fight to maintain the species. Graff asks her what she would do if God wanted the Buggers to win the war, and she replies, "He'll need other hands than mine for that."
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree with what he is saying, as many, many people thoroughly doubt extraterrestrials exist, claiming religion says so. I more so like to see how they react, and see how religion examines it.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that most religions don't say they can't exist (as opposed to many religious people who say they can't). Mormonism is one of the few I can think of that has the existance of aliens on other planets as part of the theology, without referencing UFOs. It isn't, however, an explicitly stated teaching. Another mostly between the lines (a lot of lines) belief.
At any rate, I don't think Mormons in general would be very surprised if aliens were discovered. They might be surprised if the more intelligent ones didn't look at least Star Trek humanoid.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you could bring this thread to a cool place, a dark place, but with witt, so it isn't boring. Then I can arise, then I can have my ten thousand posts.
No I Can't. Your threads are the monsters of our nightmares now, if you posted, we would only flame you again
There flashed into Orincoro's mind, a dozen images of Hatrackers killing newbies. But with the images, came a sense of superiority so great, he could not bear it, and he entered their emoticons for them.
If you can make the rack feel as you've made me feel, then perhaps we can post in peace.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Father Pio once said that the world is much too great and beautiful to be lived in by only one race. If he had no problem with aliens, I don't see why other Christians should have
Btw, OSC's books are one of the few that actually show religion in the future. I don't know why so many s-f writers miss that bit...
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Father Pio once said that the world is much too great and beautiful to be lived in by only one race. If he had no problem with aliens, I don't see why other Christians should have
What, does Father Pio speak for all Christians, or do you not see why Christians should ever disagree about things?
quote:OSC's books are one of the few that actually show religion in the future. I don't know why so many s-f writers miss that bit...
Many SF authors believe that the human race is getting smarter and will soon abandon such stupid superstitions as religion.
I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition, but it's a common belief, and one that we sadly see by some of the posters here on Hatrack.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's hardly fair, oolung is simply stating an example and an opinion.
Religion will always be around, the question is, in which form, with what beliefs. I have hope that the religions of tomorrow will be more flexible and instead of presenting questionable answers, encourage questioning answers.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that religion will ever be abandoned, regardless of intelligence. It is an important element in social structure, perpetuating morality and just plain common decency (hopefully). Religion will have to grow to adapt new life forms, as it did in the Hundred Worlds. I would like to think that it would take the diversified course described in SftD, etc; offering different worlds for different beliefs. I tend to believe, however, that it would go more the way of the Foundation Series: controlling the population with religion.
But as to the original question: I think that any religion that does not already include the idea of off world life would immediately adapt to include it, and claim they knew all along, rather than admit they could be wrong.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Einstein, what I meant was that if even some of the 'authorities' have no problems with accepting the notion of extraterrestial beings, then many of us lesser folks can sleep peacefully knowing we're not violating any rules. There was also a smiley at the end, to indicate that you _don't_ have to take the statement too seriously
As for the other question, I agree with Wolf and vonk: I believe most humans have a need to believe in _something_. Even atheism can sometimes be regarded as a kind of religion.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by oolung: Even atheism can sometimes be regarded as a kind of religion.
Only by the religious, who seek to diminish the positions of those who do not believe. Atheism is not a belief set, it is not an organization, it is not a tradition and it is NOT a religion. To be fair, there are those who have belief sets which define themselves as a DENIAL of the existance of God. Many call that athiesm.
The problem is, in its strictest sense athiesm is the opossite of theism. That is, belief in a spiritual structure with a God or Gods at its pinnacle. So a-theism is the lack of belief, NOT the denial. Many call this "agnosticism," but truthfully these words are synonymous, and agnosticism was invented to take the place of "politically correct" atheism.
Douglas Adams, who called himself "a radical athiest," though he admitted, mainly to avoid having conversations about agnosticism, believed that there was no God, and that all logic eliminated the usefulness of theism as an explanation for anything. He argued that theism has become a burden on intellectual discovery, rather than a tool used for understanding and guiding our actions. He believed that humans could guide their own actions. But even Adams admitted that if evidence suggested the contrary, that God really did become a reasonable answer to a question in his life, then he would believe God existed. Even a "radical" athiest doesn't have a set doctrine which denies God in perpetuity.
The statement that athiesm is "a religion of a kind" is ridiculous. Its like saying that people who like Blue are a religion of a kind. That is, it assumes something very deeply causative about why people like Blue; it assumes also that everybody likes Blue for the same reason, that we all KNOW Blue to be the best color, and that we are set against all other colors for specific reasons.
This would be stupid, nay is stupid, because unlike religions, which TELL people the nature of their beliefs and the origins of their beliefs through dogma, athiest is the description of a person who does not subscribe to the existance of God, and that is ALL the word means. The extra meaning which IS loaded onto "athiest" by the religous and by athiests alike, can only be applied to the individuals in question. When a religion describes athiesm, that description serves only to reinforce the dogma or belief set of that religion, against an undefinable outside force. When athiests describe themselves, the descriptions are entirely singular and personal.
Consider this, any religion or belief set existing as a patch of land inside a wall. The religious live inside. Or imagine athiesm as being inside the wall, and religion surrounding athiesm. The religion can define ANYTHING inside the wall, including all the people, because they can be seen and can be heard. The religion cannot define the people or lands outside, because the wall blocks their view. When the religion expands past its original borders, the wall also expands to encompass the religion. Believers can never go outside the religion, they can only invite others to jump INTO the religious land. If a believer goes outside, his perspective and the church's perspectives are lost to each other. This is IMO why discussions about belief dont ever work: its like shouting over a big wall.
Point is this: I think anyone inside a "religion" will see others, "the outside," as people like them, who must beleive and define themselves within a belief set. This may be true, but that belief set need not be rigidly defined, it can be personal and unique for each individual, and it need not include God. The religious don't want to accept this because they are used to the idea that people are given reasons to believe like dogs are given food, its the only thing on the menu, so eat. This is my cynical view of "religion" (not faith necessarily), but only from being on the Outside, looking in. I'll never understand because I don't believe, and if I ever do, I will probably never understand how anyone couldn't believe. We can never communicate across lines like this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Einstein, what I meant was that if even some of the 'authorities' have no problems with accepting the notion of extraterrestial beings, then many of us lesser folks can sleep peacefully knowing we're not violating any rules.
There are many Christians that wouldn't agree that they are "lesser folk" in comparison to some Catholic priest, or feel that they can trust this Father Pio have all the answers.
In fact, the entire reformation was kicked off because somebody didn't trust the Catholic authorities to be correct about the rules.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, hmm, yeah, I didn't put it right. I mean that there are SOME (I'm not saying all or even many) atheists who treat their lack of faith as the only possible option. They behave as if all believers were to some point stupid (as far as those questions are concerned). What they say is not: they are believers and I'm not, but we all have the right to believe what we want. Instead, they say: I don't believe and you shouldn't believe either. If you do, you're making a mistake. And some atheists of this kind will also say that not only are they nonbelievers, but they don't even consider a possibility of changing their opinion. They don't believe there can ever be any argument that could convince them. So I think one could say that this is (_in_a_way_) not quite unlike some believers' (or rather fundamentalists) attitude (saying: only me and those who think like me are right, and we'll never change our mind). Not from a 'formal' point of view, but from an 'emotional' one. Actually, this applies to any given way of thinking, not only religious. You could say that about (SOME) communists, royalists, vegetarians, non-vegetarians... There, I hope that made a bit more sense...
Einstein: what you say is of course true. Once again I stress that my statement was not to be taken quite seriously.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think on problem is that there is no "argument" that convinces people of a religious idea. Athiests sometimes respond to religious prosthetizing emotionally BECAUSE the religion appeals to your emotions for acceptance. You can't write a proof which describes a religion, in one view, religions are all emotionally manipulative, and require that the believer ignore logical problems in order to except "divine" intervention. For example, science says its physically impossible to walk on water, yet christians believe it to be possible anyway; its not a scientific question because christians claim a "truth beyond science."
You have to see this too from the perspective of an athiest. We are surrounded by people who we see as being a part of a manipulation based on emotional responses we have directed elsewhere. To some non-believers, and to myself, the negative aspects of the church seem obvious, and the fact that Christians and other religious groups (though Christians predominate in the US) lack enough self perception to see that their religion functions in a certain way that is beneficial, and that there are ways in which the religion does not function well. To a religious person, the church hopefully the true expression of their faith, but to non-members, it is easy to see logical problems and historical faults which the religious ignore by choice or tradition. I. e., it is easy for a modern Catholic to say that the church is a "perfect" expression of the will of God, but it is equally easy for a non-Catholic to look at the track record of revisions made in the Catholic church. It hardly looks like the same church it did a millenium ago, and yet Catholics are taught to ignore this, or understand the changes in a way which doesn't compromise the efficacy of their beliefs.
Its so tough to talk about religion, and we shun discussion of it because, a) some athiests respond emotionally and intolerantly to discussion b) believers do the same thing c) people are taught how to manipulate eachother so that they can believe one thing, understand another belief and still not see how anyone else could believe that other thing. Its like that old point about geographical faith, isn't it AMAZING that such a large pecentage of people living in the middle east hear the call to Allah? Isn't it REMARKABLE that people living in Rome so often hear the call of Christ and become devout Catholics? Its amazing how where you are effects who you are, and yet we deny that this has anything to do with societal pressures, that it is ALL faith, or that it is ONLY society and never real faith.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
@ Joldo & Orincoro![[Smile]](smile.gif)
