Im taking an astronomy class this semester and was cruising some astronomy forums today and noticed an interesting topic concerning intelligent life on other planets and religion.
The general consensus on the forum was that if intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, it would be a huge blow to religion.
Many of you know that I am a religious guy. I believe that it would actually HELP religion. I dont believe that we are God's only creations. If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, who is to say they would not have some form of religion?
I saw a movie a few years ago called "Enemy Mine" and it has become one of my favorite movies now. For those of you that have not seen it, it involves two races at war with each other, the Humans and the Drak.
A Human pilot and a Drak pilot crash land on a planet. At first they try to kill each other, but eventually learn that they must rely on each other to survive. The human (Dennis Quaid) notices that the Drak is always reading from this small book, and asks him what the book is about. The Drak tells him that it is a book about a great prophet that came to their people and taught them how they should live their lives. He reads a little from his book, and basically quotes the golden rule. Dennis Quaid says, "I have heard this before," and the Drak says, "Of course you have. Truth is universal.
Eventually they overcame their differences and became best friends.
So what do all of you think?
1) If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, would it be a blow to religion?
2) If intelligent life were discovered, would they have their own sense of right and wrong? Is truth universal?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
1. It would not be a blow to MY religion, but I think it would cause many fundamentalists to question their faith. Rigidity in religion leaves little room for expanded knowledge. That said, religion will ultimately overcome...it always has. It was a huge blow to religion to discover that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe but we (humanity) got over it.
2a. I think they would have their own sense of right and wrong but (b) that it might not be the same as ours. Truth is ill-defined in this context, I think. We could go around in circles all day trying to define it, actually. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:1) If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, would it be a blow to religion?
It would certainly shake the faith of some, but by no means all, religious people.
Of course, the same thing happened with the discovery of a heliocentric universe and evolution. Some people abandoned religion, some people rejected the discovery, and other people incorporated them both into their worldview.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not sure of what religion either of you belong. As for Latter-day Saints (Mormons) life on other planets is a tiny theological teaching. Now, what would be challenging is what the intelligent life was physically like.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't see how the discovery of alien life would shake anyone's faith. I don't see how the existence of aliens would change what god said, or didn't say here on earth.
Now whether aliens are good or evil in the eyes of god... might be some debate on that depending on how the aliens reacted to us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Enemy Mine is the last good movie Lou Gosset Junior made. AFAIK.
It's been years since I've seen it. Good movie, IMO.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I am not sure of what religion either of you belong. As for Latter-day Saints (Mormons) life on other planets is a tiny theological teaching. Now, what would be challenging is what the intelligent life was physically like.
I don't know of a specific Mormon stance on alien physiology (not saying there isn't one, just that I'm not aware of one), but I would think that in general aliens that were physiologically human would be a much greater blow to current scientific theories of the origin of human life than it would be to current religious beliefs on the subject.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Noemon, there is no alien physiology stance. However, there is a lot of "folk theology" that declares that intelligent life has to look nearly human. It has to do with us as Childeren of God made in His image.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think the discovery of alien life would by itself shake many people's faith. The nature of the aliens and how they interacted with us COULD change that however.
There is a science fiction short story where a planet is discovered with a marker that lists an important date. Through calculations they figure out that the inhabitants were all wiped out from a star that went super nova, and the light reached earth on April of 1AD (The Birth of Christ).
The inhabitants were all believers in Jesus and knew the star was going super nova as an advent to his birth, and the fulfillment of prophecy.
If we encountered an alien race that were all Buddhists, with very insignificant variation from our own Buddhism, I would be VERY intrigued.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I myself am LDS. I believe that aliens that where NOT physioligically human would be a blow to religion. Since most religions believe that God created man in his own image, it would be easier for religion to accept alien life if it resembled us physically. Like Noemon said, it would hurt the theory of evolution.
As far as the Latter Day Saints belief, if you watch the video released about six or seven years ago by the church where the President of the Church and the Council of the Twelve bear their testimonies, Neal A. Maxwell says that he believes that God created man on this earth as well as other planets.
I dont believe there is an "Official" stance on the subject however.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is a science fiction short story where a planet is discovered with a marker that lists an important date. Through calculations they figure out that the inhabitants were all wiped out from a star that went super nova, and the light reached earth on April of 1AD (The Birth of Christ).
The inhabitants were all believers in Jesus and knew the star was going super nova as an advent to his birth, and the fulfillment of prophecy.
The story you are talking about is called "The Star" by Arthur C. Clarke.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I believe it was on "Amazing Stories" in the late 80s as well - although it could have been a different series.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Since most religions believe that God created man in his own image, it would be easier for religion to accept alien life if it resembled us physically.
Many of those religions don't believe that the "image of God" is a physical image, so what the aliens looked like wouldn't matter theologically.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Besides, God didn't create humans in His image. Humanity was a consequence of the Fall. I'm surprised you didn't all know that, it's a pretty general doctrine, isn't it?
Oh, and no need to flame me and accuse me of saying that I'm better than humanity and all that. I just pointing out that, scripturally, there are definite differences between the physiology of Adam and modern humans. Like the whole "mortality" business.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It would clearly be a blow to the more virulent kinds of religion, the sort that didn't really feel comfortable admitting that the earth isn't flat. It would not be a blow to the modern, insidious kind, which takes care not to make any assertions except the morally hand-wavy kind.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Um...I think that you're misusing "virulent" here. The "insidious" kind would seem to be the more "virulent" by most standards, don't you think?
Actually, I thought this page was going to be something about the deep field images proving that the universe is really, really old. Or something like that. Because...what do extraterrestrial intelligences have to do with astronomy? That connection doesn't really jell for me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was using 'virulent' to mean 'fast-acting, violent, extreme'. The insidious kind is much slower to infect people, but harder to get rid of once it's gotten a foothold. You might say that the Black Death was virulent: It infected like lightning and killed in days; while AIDS is insidious, being hard to acquire but impossible to get rid of.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Many of those religions don't believe that the "image of God" is a physical image, so what the aliens looked like wouldn't matter theologically.
Thanks for saying this much more succintly than I could have - needless to say I agree.
I think finding out there's life on other planets would be fascinating and I don't think it would shake my faith at all.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe will really confound some aetheistic friends of mine, since they firmly believe intelligent life does not exist anywhere in the universe, especially on planet earth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe will really confound some aetheistic friends of mine, since they firmly believe intelligent life does not exist anywhere in the universe, especially on planet earth.
<snicker>
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I'm LDS. A couple of years ago I was teaching the Gospel Doctrine (adult Sunday school) class when this topic came up. One person said there's life on other planets but it doesn't look like us. I asked him for a scriptural reference, which he couldn't give, but he was absolutely sure he was right.
A few weeks later, I found what I consider my answer to the question in Doctrine and Covenants 76:24. (LDS scripture, mostly revelations to Joseph Smith for those who aren't familiar with it.)
The previous verses were referring to Jesus Christ, then verse 24:
quote:That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
To me, that verse says that there is intelligent life on other planets and it physically resembles us, as we were created in Heavenly Father's image. I understand that not everyone will read that verse the same way and that non-LDS people won't recognize the validity of it.
Also, I love to read and watch science fiction and fantasy - this doesn't interfere with that at all.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think that some people are far too eager to have their faith explain everything with a final, succinct answer. "Are there aliens somewhere in the universe?" "The Bible doesn't say anything about aliens, so NO!" When actually, a much more reasonable response would be, "The Bible doesn't say anything about aliens, so who knows? That would be interesting to learn. I wonder what that would mean to the rest of my beliefs ..."
I tend to only extend my faith as far as it needs to go to support the things that I have learned to trust. I feel I can rely on my church, on god, and on my moral stance, and so I have faith in the things that support those beliefs. But when something is irrelevant to those trusted beliefs (like extraterrestrial life), I don't feel that I need my faith to give me an answer one way or another. There's no point in trying to force a faith-based answer to an irrelevant question — all you're going to do is set yourself up for needless crisis and disappointment if the answer you chose was wrong.
But I think, from reading this thread, that pretty much most religious people here are on the same page about that, so ... yeah Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
CaySedai: But at the same time we have so much flora and fauna on our own earth, is it impossible that God created planets that might be inhabited by human beings but at the moment are populated by animals and plants of immense diversity? Dinosaurs date to a time far earlier then humanity (not trying to start a creationist debate). Using JUST the scriptures it seems feasible at least that we could encounter life forms on other planets that if they were intelligent (would look very similar to us) and if they did not, they would likely be unintelligent.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Cay, the other way to read that quote is to note that it says nothing about the image of these other sons and daughters. We could well be in the image of God, while many others are not.
One could also note that that verse uses the word "begotten" in an unusual way. Normally, we use the word "begotten" to refer to someone's natural children, not to their spiritual offspring. So that verse is already toying with the language in a new way ... it could easily be speaking very broadly and figuratively, and may not be meant to be taken completely at face value.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I've ordered the coffee mug version of that strip.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Okay, this is probably going way over the line, but I have to caution you about thinking that superficial similarity to the human form will necessarily equate with intelligence. I mean, not like you're going to meet many extraterrestrials anytime soon, or at least not before having those kinds of conceptions forcebly altered, but still.
Hmm...I think I just said something unneccessary.
I'm interested in KOM's ideas about "sudden onset fundamentalism", though. That's not something that I've heard about before.
Though I still have to contend the idea that discovering extraterrestrial intelligence could have any significant impact on people who still don't believe that the Earth is a planet. They'd probably just claim it was all a hoax.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think there's another subsequent discussion I can't find.
My POV is that the Bible didn't tell me about chocolate, either, but chocolate doesn't test my faith. Only my resolve not to eat too much.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 1) If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, would it be a blow to religion?
2) If intelligent life were discovered, would they have their own sense of right and wrong? Is truth universal?
1. I don't think so. The bible says God created us in His image. It says nothing about creating other beings on other planets in other galaxies. After all, he made the cockroach.
2. That one is a thinker. I believe it is a universal truth. Although, what is right and wrong today is different than what was right and wrong in generations past. Not in an absolute value way (murder is murder), but in general, people are less sensitive to "smaller" sins. Maybe another being on another planet is farther advanced than us and their computer games are much more violent and, therefore, less sensitive to "smaller" sins. On the other hands, they may be Quaker-ish and we would be burned at the stake for being witches by flying down to their planet.
Good question though. I have struggled with Science vs. Religion myself. My faith has never waivered, but I wonder what the religious sect has to say about the age of the universe. What if we develop a telescope that can see far enough in space to see the beginning of time.
Maybe another thread.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
I’m reminded of what Isaac Asimov said in a footnote in his article entitled “The Fateful Lightning” published in his anthology “The Edge of Tomorrow.” The article was about Ben Franklin’s invention of the lightning rod and how some of the clergy of the day thundered from their pulpits how lightning was the JUDGMENT OF GOD and how it was just evil and stuff to attempt to thwart the JUDGMENTS OF GOD by putting up evil lightning rods. But when the churches (which were usually the tallest buildings in town) kept getting hit and the brothels (which put up lightning rods) were not getting hit anymore, well then, the clergy started to lose their thunder on that issue. Asimov also mentioned the discovery of a certain anesthetic which helped to ease the pain of childbirth. And certain (male) clergy again thundered from the pulpits that it was a women’s lot to suffer. After all, they said, Eve was told BY GOD that he would “greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” and that meant they were meant to suffer in childbirth. It is evil to try to thwart what God has decreed. Then the clergy kind of backed off on the rhetoric when Queen Victoria said something like, “Time out, guys, I’m taking the antithetic, thank you very much!”
So anyway, Asimov’s footnote was that NO SENSIBLE RELIGION HAS EVER BEEN HURT BY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT.
I tend to agree with him on that.
Cay, concerning that Gospel Doctrine class, your take on it is most likely the one best supported by scripture - that is that the inhabitants on other worlds created by our Creator are created in His image in the same sense that we are created in his image.
What that person you mention speculated on in the class, that they may not look like us, is only speculation. I think you did right in asking him for some documentation. I’m not aware of any scriptures that would support what he said. But that does not stop me from having a couple of my own hypotheses about what they might look like and their chemistry and such - which might be way wrong. Probably are wrong. Maybe I’ve read too much Hal Clement and Isaac Asimov. But anyway, I reserve my own speculations to gab fests with my friends.
At any rate, another layer of meaning for D&C 76:24 is that the inhabitants of other worlds are saved by the same Savior and Atonement that saves the inhabitants of this world. (really broadens our understanding of the scriptural phrase in Alma 34:10 “an infinite and eternal sacrifice,” doesn’t it?) So when it says that “the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” it is also the same sense in which we become “begotten sons and daughters unto God” as taught by Alma to those he had just baptized, “And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.” ( Mosiah 5:7)
Then there are the scriptures: Moses 1: 27-39 in which Moses is shown other worlds, and several scriptures which say that, “the course of the Lord is one eternal round.”
So what it all amounts to is that the official Mormon doctrine on the subject is this:
Moses was shown many other worlds created by God through His Only Begotten Son.
Moses was shown the inhabitants of those other worlds.
He learned that various worlds were in various stages of development (the “eternal round” thing) and have yet to /have already gone through/ or whatever/ the same stages of development our Earth has gone through or has yet to go through.
The “inhabitants thereof” are the spirit offspring of God.
And (now, this is the BIGGY doctrine) that the work and glory of God “is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” on whatever world He has created for His children. And that is why He creates worlds for His children - to further their progression.
So that is the Mormon perspective on it.
And I said all that so that I could say this:
The discovery of intelligent people on other worlds would NOT shake my faith.
But if they turned out to be like the bad guys in stories like, say, “Independence Day” who come here to kick ass and erase names, then THAT would kind of shake my faith somewhat.
Oh yeah, another thing. I really loved the stories about the “People” by Zina Henderson. The stories are about humanoid aliens marooned on Earth. They have mental powers that Earth humans don’t have, and that causes them to get persecuted as witches until they either isolate themselves or learn to blend in by hiding their powers. One of the things that I loved about the stories is that the “People” are devout Christians because that religion is so compatible with the religion of their home world.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Zenna Henderson was one of my very first science fiction authors - I love the People. ;-)
My response when teaching that class was the same whenever we came across a concept that I was unfamiliar with or unsure of - I would always ask for a scripture reference. That's because I honestly didn't know the answer but wanted to.
My personal feeling is that there are other worlds, many if not all are inhabited by intelligent beings who recognizably resemble us just as we resemble the Father. They won't be alone on their planets, they will live with animals and plants as we do.
But, I'm not a learned person in the scriptures. (I was totally shocked when I was called to teach Gospel Doctrine!) I'm open to learning more. I think about all kinds of possibilities.
One thing I said many times in my class when speculation came up is this: It's nice to think about, but it's not essential to my salvation.
Oh, and another thought ... Arthur C. Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I don't have a problem believing (in a separate way from my faith in Christ) that these inhabitants of other planets could be more advanced than we are and can visit our planet. I also don't have a problem believing that Heavenly Father's control over the universe is indistinguishable from science (as we humans can understand it).
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
If we find them on THEIR home planet, they won't be aliens. We will be.
Probably refuse to give us green cards.
And build a fence.
That'll be proof of intelligence.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: One thing I said many times in my class when speculation came up is this: It's nice to think about, but it's not essential to my salvation.
Right on! And don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. Sure it's fun to speculate but keeping it to essentials is the most important thing.
BTW, do you like Madeleine L'Engle too?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Clarke’s short story “The Star” had a way different tone than the Twilight Zone episode that aired around Christmas time in 1985. The story had a Jesuit Priest totally losing his faith because the supernova that destroyed a beautiful civilization turns out to be the star of Bethlehem that heralded Christ’s birth.
In the TV version, which Christianized the story a bit, has a part that isn’t in the short story where the priest’s best friend reads to him some of the translated text left by the civilization. They say something like, “Don’t morn for us . . . if this cache of our accumulated knowledge can be found and help some other civilization, then it has all been worth it.”
Or some positive message like that. Anyway, I really like both versions (separately but equally) and wish I had the TV one on tape.
But I can’t help but wonder how they slipped that past A.C. Clarke.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The story had a Jesuit Priest totally losing his faith because the supernova that destroyed a beautiful civilization turns out to be the star of Bethlehem that heralded Christ’s birth.
Yes and no. More than ever, he knew that God and Jesus are real.
He just found it impossible to still love them.
Which, in many ways, could be considered worse than losing your faith.
[ February 01, 2007, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
And speaking of Clarke, he took a good natured, maybe even well deserved, poke at religion in his novel “The Fountains of Paradise” where, as a subplot, a robot supercomputer probe comes zipping through the solar system. It’s purpose is to exchange information with whatever civilizations it encounters. So among the knowledge downloaded to it from earth are all the religions texts. After analyzing all that stuff the supercomputer pronounces something like, “What a crock! Have a nice day.”
Of course, Clarke said it way better than I just did, but that’s the gist of it anyway. Great book, though.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Hmmmm, I never thought of "The Star" in quite that way, Mr.P. Now I'm going to have to go read the whole thing again before I go to bed.
Have a nice night. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Mr.P
Please. You may call me Porteiro.
MPH and mph are also fine.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Samuel Bush: ditto on Madeline L'Engle.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So anyway, Asimov’s footnote was that NO SENSIBLE RELIGION HAS EVER BEEN HURT BY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT.
While comrade Asimov has a point, it's worth pointing out that in the absence of science, you don't get sensible religion. There's no ecological niche for it; fanaticism is inherently more appealing, especially to ignorant people with lice. Those hellfire-and-brimstone preachers you quote so disapprovingly are not some kind of aberration; that's the default state. It only retreats when somebody points out that what they are saying doesn't actually make any sense, backs it up with good economics, and then doesn't get burned at the stake for it.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
1) If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, would it be a blow to religion?
As has been said by several others, it all depends on how well the individual religious person is able to adapt to new knowledge. Even now, many people are consistantly denying certain knowledge that interferes with their ('comfortable') way of viewing the world.
2) If intelligent life were discovered, would they have their own sense of right and wrong?
Probably, yes. But I doubt if it would be necessarily compatible with ours.
2a) Is truth universal?
Yes, it is. It is also very slippery. What I mean by this is that it'll never be possible to confine Truth into a very short text. Because the truth usually lies between the words. And, sadly, many people are unwilling to allow for a text to have multiple meanings, therefor pushing one interpretation (usually the most obvious, because thinking is soooo hard....) as the sole truth and creating more confusion as they find that in this way, many truthful words contradict each other.
originally posted by The Pixiest: Now whether aliens are good or evil in the eyes of god... might be some debate on that depending on how the aliens reacted to us.
Nah... Is it impossible for you to conceive the opposite idea? That the aliens are the beautiful enlightened people and we are the wicked ones? More logical would be that God approves of all of his creations, the more so if they're willing to keep an open mind.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
My $0.02.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
1) If intelligent life were discovered on another planet, would it be a blow to religion?
2) If intelligent life were discovered, would they have their own sense of right and wrong? Is truth universal?
1.) To most mainstream religions, yes. Certainly the Judeo-Christian variety. But I'm sure many believers could make adjustments to the faith, or reinterpret it in a way to accommodate the alien species.
2.) My guess is yes; to live intelligently, you need to make value judgements about what is favourable and what is to be avoided. Those become the basis of moral value judgements.
As for truth being universal, that depends on what definition of 'truth' you're using. If you take truth to be metaphysical or inherently religious, no. If by truth you mean non-subjective facts describing reality, then yes.
Edit to add:
I don't really understand the implied reasoning in the OP that aliens having *some* sort of religion would actually lend credibility to a given Earthling religion. Islam doesn't make Christianity more credible. Together, they do tend to indicate that a large proportion of the human race shares certain values (the gist of the golden rule, for example).
Also, if aliens had a belief system even vaguely resembling Christianity, I think the number of commandments they have would depend on the number of digits on their limbs.
[ February 01, 2007, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think the discovery of intelligent life on other worlds would be a blow to religion in general.
I'd rather address the idea that the discovery of human-like beings on another planet would be a cripling blow to evolution. I'm not sure that it would be. As far as I know, there are no strong scientific pronouncements at all about what intelligent beings would look like on another planet. I think the discovery of human-like beings on another planet would simply fill in some already recognized gaps in evolutionary theory. Rather than be evidence that "evolution is wrong" it would simply be evidence that the human form is a likely end result of natural selection. If we found human-like beings on more worlds, we would more likely simply take it as more evidence that the "human form" is somehow more efficient than other forms for creating a dominant intelligent species.
Likewise, I don't necessarily believe that finding another intelligent species who believed in God would be a particularly stunning blow to atheism. If religion is a delusion created wholesale from the fears and dreams of a species evolving into intelligence, wouldn't it be just as likely that extra-terrestrials would also encounter religion somewhere along the way towards their development of intelligence and civilization? Seeing as the concepts of "creator(s)", "Saviors", "miraculous (and even 'virgin') births", "dying gods", "blood sacrifice", etc. are so prevalent across cultures among humans, is it really that much of a stretch that an extra-terrestrial intelligence might not also independently come up with many of those same concepts? Do you think it would take all that much similarity for the average Christian to recognize similarities and declare them "evidence"? Do you think the average non-Christian would suddenly convert just because an alien race also had a savior myth?
Now, if we discovered an extra-terrestrial species with a "Book of Xyzzlex" that told of Jesus's crucifixion, death and resurrection on a far away world called Earth, and his subsequent visit to them and preaching to them of a pretty-much verbatim Sermon on the Mount, then you might have a stronger case for Christianity, specifically. (At least as long as the physical evidence of such a thing were readily available to skeptics.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:If you take truth to be metaphysical or inherently religious, no.
That should be obvious. That kind of truth isn't even "universal" here on Earth. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I'm also puzzled by the reasoning that human-like alien species would hurt the theory of evolution. Wouldn't that just indicate that certain planetary conditions encourage certain survival traits, and that evolution is the guiding force of life everywhere?
Of course, if the alien planet contained no carbon, orbited around a star ten times as distant as our own, had gravity 100 times weaker than Earth, and was filled with seas of liquid nitrogen but the aliens were *still* physiologically human, that would be a blow to evolution.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
There's a lot on this post from the POV of religious people, I thought I'd chip in as a hard core evolutionist =). It is my suspicion that in the unlikely event that we were to come across an alien race of equal or greater intelligence than us, we would find religion to be a uniquely human phenomenon. These aliens would probably be more peaceful than we have proved to be in the past, due to their evolving from a more complex and altruistic social structure. There is also a chance that they would be rather violent, as most of the more intelligent life forms on Earth are predators, but I believe that the more violent a society, the less quickly they advance. As far as "universal truth", I assume that you are talking about moral truth. I would not think this would be the same, except as far as altruism serves the common good of the species, and is therefore evolutionarily favored.
EDIT: Oh, and they would probably have an opposable thumb, or something similar. No, this is not proof that God has an opposable thumb. It is necessary to manipulate tools. Dolphins are very smart, but they're never going to be able to build anything, or communicate in a permanant way. Flippers are not very good for writing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:1.) To most mainstream religions, yes. Certainly the Judeo-Christian variety.
Why?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
typing on the wii. I found the evolutionary question facinating. but if the human form is indeed the end result of evolution, wouldn't it make sense that all the phylums that have existed or do exist here would also be found there? Or perhaps I should say their flora and fauna should have strong similarities to earths.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The general consensus on the forum was that if intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, it would be a huge blow to religion.
I disagree.
I'm evangelical Christian (for lack of a better term). I don't see it as a conflict at all.
Just because God doesn't mention life on other planets or worlds in our Bible, doesn't mean He didn't or couldn't create such things. He may not mention it, but He doesn't say it ISN'T there, either. God can do whatever He wants with the universe.
I would have no problem with it. (I'm not into "limiting God")
FG
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce:
These aliens would probably be more peaceful than we have proved to be in the past, due to their evolving from a more complex and altruistic social structure. There is also a chance that they would be rather violent, as most of the more intelligent life forms on Earth are predators, but I believe that the more violent a society, the less quickly they advance.
Where did you get this? It's not based on anything we know. Or does the 'my sneaking suspicion is' qualifier apply to this part as well?
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:1.) To most mainstream religions, yes. Certainly the Judeo-Christian variety.
Why?
Because Judeo-Christian doctrine and scripture is inherently human-centric; their tenets are based on the dynamics of human interaction, and the entire history of the religion takes place on earth. It would take a deliberate reinterpretation to accommodate an alien species.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
but if the human form is indeed the end result of evolution, wouldn't it make sense that all the phylums that have existed or do exist here would also be found there? Or perhaps I should say their flora and fauna should have strong similarities to earths.
Why? All evolution dictates is that reproducing entities with random genetic mutations favourable to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. We can't say any more than that. Maybe the flora/fauna categories are irrelevant. Maybe they're not even carbon-based.
Edit: sp. Thanks rivka.
[ February 01, 2007, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
euripides: my post assumes their are humans or at least humanoids on the planet in the first place
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
That still doesn't imply that the rest of Earth's species could also be found there.
But I get what you're saying; that if another planet with conditions similar to Earth were found, evolution could be expected to direct species in comparable streams. I actually think that's incorrect. Evolution is random and not straightforward. A change in the evolutionary history of a species at one point can take it on a completely different track in the future. Those other 'routes' can be accommodated because there is usually more than one solution to an evolutionary problem; as species diversity on this planet shows.
So in short, if there were two planet Earths in identical solar systems, the species on one would not necessarily be similar to the species on the other.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Euripides, that is my suspicion. More like an educated guess. Complex social structures require more intelligence to operate. People might say "well, ants and termites have a complex social structure, are they intelligent?" I would argue that there is a fundamental difference between social structure like we have, and what I would call "hive structure" that social insects have. The former is more based on abstract ideas while the latter is governed by simple rules and instinct, out of which arises a complex structure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Because Judeo-Christian doctrine and scripture is inherently human-centric; their tenants are based on the dynamics of human interaction, and the entire history of the religion takes place on earth. It would take a deliberate reinterpretation to accommodate an alien species.
Tenets.
Tenants are renters.
Otherwise, your first sentence is correct. But your second one is not. Kangaroos are mentioned nowhere in the Torah, yet I know of not a single Torah-believer who has any trouble with their existence. They just aren't relevant.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce:
Euripides, that is my suspicion. More like an educated guess. Complex social structures require more intelligence to operate. People might say "well, ants and termites have a complex social structure, are they intelligent?" I would argue that there is a fundamental difference between social structure like we have, and what I would call "hive structure" that social insects have. The former is more based on abstract ideas while the latter is governed by simple rules and instinct, out of which arises a complex structure.
That doesn't validate your guess in any way. 'These aliens will have a more complex society than us' is not necessarily a corollary of 'These aliens are just as or more intelligent than us.'
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Tenets.
Tenants are renters.
Sorry, wrong spell-check word.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Otherwise, your first sentence is correct. But your second one is not. Kangaroos are mentioned nowhere in the Torah, yet I know of not a single Torah-believer who has any trouble with their existence. They just weren't relevant.
Kangaroos are not intelligent, and the moral imperatives of religion don't apply to them. Would that be the case with an intelligent alien species?
I concede that aliens are not explicitly ruled out. The evidence for religion being historical/circumstantial constructs will increase however, if we do find intelligent aliens. It will not be sufficient as proof beyond all doubt; nothing can be.
The question was 'will it be a blow to religion', not 'will it utterly invalidate religion.'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The evidence for religion being historical/circumstantial constructs will increase however, if we do find intelligent aliens.
That depends entirely on whether they have religion/s and what kind.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: . The evidence for religion being historical/circumstantial constructs will increase however, if we do find intelligent aliens.
That's assuming all religions have it as doctrine that Earth is the home of the only sentient beings in the universe. Not all do.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides That doesn't validate your guess in any way. 'These aliens will have a more complex society than us' is not necessarily a corollary of 'These aliens are just as or more intelligent than us.'
You're completely misunderstanding my reasoning. Because complex social structures require intelligence (assumption), intelligent beings are likely to come from complex social structures. You agree with that, assuming my assumption is correct, right?
I'm not saying that all things with a more complex society than us will be more intelligent than us. I'm just saying that if they are more intelligent than us, then it is likely that they will have a more complex social structure, because individual brilliance does not account for much. Some gorillas can be taught sign language, but since they are comparitively solitary animals, they can't teach it to other gorillas, so the knowledge doesn't get passed on.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The evidence for religion being historical/circumstantial constructs will increase however, if we do find intelligent aliens.
That depends entirely on whether they have religion/s and what kind.
How so? Unless they know the story of Jesus, discovering another species with a non-Christian religion would weaken Christianity's case, not help it. That would go for any other religion.
Only if the aliens somehow followed Jesus would they serve as circumstantial evidence for the universality of Christianity.
If you mean 'religion' more generally, in the sense that the idea of a supernatural entity is universal, then I agree; aliens worshipping a completely different god would then serve as circumstantial evidence for the prevalence of creator-figures across unconnected cultures (i.e. that the idea of religion is universal).
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: . The evidence for religion being historical/circumstantial constructs will increase however, if we do find intelligent aliens.
That's assuming all religions have it as doctrine that Earth is the home of the only sentient beings in the universe. Not all do.
I explicitly stated, "to most mainstream religions." Scientology wouldn't be dealt a blow by the discovery of an alien intelligence, for example. If anything, the discovery would help its credibility.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides That doesn't validate your guess in any way. 'These aliens will have a more complex society than us' is not necessarily a corollary of 'These aliens are just as or more intelligent than us.'
You're completely misunderstanding my reasoning. Because complex social structures require intelligence (assumption), intelligent beings are likely to come from complex social structures. You agree with that, assuming my assumption is correct, right?
The conclusion still isn't a necessary corollary of the assumption. But as a guess on probability, yes.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Because Judeo-Christian doctrine and scripture is inherently human-centric;
I disagree. It should be God-centric.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
So what we know as Christianity is actually the product of god's interaction with humanity, while the same entity chooses to interact with aliens by giving them a different set of moral imperatives? Yes, that's possible.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If we found an alien world populated mainly by marsupials, we might remark how alien that seemed--but that is pretty much how Australia used to be at one time--most environmental niches occupied by marsupials. There even used to be marsupial lions in Australia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what we know as Christianity is actually the product of god's interaction with humanity, while the same entity chooses to interact with aliens by giving them a different set of moral imperatives? Yes, that's possible.
You posited discovery of intelligent life on another planet, in and of itself, being a blow to religion, not discovery of intelligent life with a different moral imperative.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The issue of alien life having a religion being good for religious people here on earth to me makes complete sense.
I do not mean in the Christian sense, the Jewish sense, nor even Islam. By religion I mean believing in a higher entity, or a creator.
Almost all religions have some sort of creator figure.
Religions can be different in what they believe and how the will of their god should be carried out, but the fact is they still believe in a higher entity. (The Microsoft thing was a joke by the way)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
** Gross-out warning **
Recommended reading: Kren of the Mitchigai. It's the story of an alien of a race that's biologically wired for evil: that is, they must eat their own children to survive (no other food source); they develop intellectually through eating other adults; their only art form is extracting musical screams from the children whom they of course eat alive.
I don't think the Mitchigai's existence would shake my faith in God. I still hope they don't exist. (To get that level of pure evil, the author had to propose a past of genetic engineering -- evolution alone couldn't manage it.)
**
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's the story of an alien of a race that's biologically wired for evil: that is, they must eat their own children to survive
I don't see how such a thing is possible. There's got to be a finite amount of energy stored up in the bodies of that race. If they keep eating each other, they'll just keep dwindling until the last one starves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: That still doesn't imply that the rest of Earth's species could also be found there.
But I get what you're saying; that if another planet with conditions similar to Earth were found, evolution could be expected to direct species in comparable streams. I actually think that's incorrect. Evolution is random and not straightforward. A change in the evolutionary history of a species at one point can take it on a completely different track in the future. Those other 'routes' can be accommodated because there is usually more than one solution to an evolutionary problem; as species diversity on this planet shows.
So in short, if there were two planet Earths in identical solar systems, the species on one would not necessarily be similar to the species on the other.
Assuming evolution is truly random, the odds that we would come across humanoids much less humans would be astronomical as to be virtually impossible. Human beings compared to other life forms are certainly not the most advanced in every respect, thought overall I would posit that they are.
So assuming we actually found other human beings, it seems impossible to me that if evolution was responsible for both our existence and theirs, that there would not be at least comparable flora and fauna on both planets. Not necessarily even vertebrates and invertebrates (though that seems at least fundamentally necessary if there are humans) but I doubt we would find humans and find out that they have learned to photosynthesis and that they breath carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, and nothing else exists or ever did besides them and their evolutionary forefathers.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: Microsoft/Bill Gates: Money
LOL!
Atheist: There is no god, and Darwin is his prophet.
Will B, that is just sick! Where can I find a copy?
Wouldn’t it be cool if the SETI program finally discovered an alien intelligence in the hope of learning from them how to solve our problems, and the message SETI gets back and translates starts, “In the beginning God crated the heaven and the earth, . . .”
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's the story of an alien of a race that's biologically wired for evil: that is, they must eat their own children to survive
I don't see how such a thing is possible. There's got to be a finite amount of energy stored up in the bodies of that race. If they keep eating each other, they'll just keep dwindling until the last one starves.
The children eat grass until they reach sexual maturity, hence there is energy input to the system. There's some species of frog in Africa that do the same thing.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
[ February 01, 2007, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Why would this make them evil?
I mean, what if the children aren't sufficiently intelligent to be sentient, or at least rarely so intelligent, and thus the culling only kills the ones that would never have developed into sentient adults anyway? You know, like they're chickens or something, just chickens that happen to be born from the same parents. The ones smart enough to make it to adulthood are the ones smart enough to join into the larger society (which must exist if they have art, even if it's a really disturbing kind).
After all, if the children were smart, why haven't they used their numerical superiority to cage up the adults and use them only for reproduction (and punishing criminals )?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: There is a science fiction short story where a planet is discovered with a marker that lists an important date. Through calculations they figure out that the inhabitants were all wiped out from a star that went super nova, and the light reached earth on April of 1AD (The Birth of Christ).
The inhabitants were all believers in Jesus and knew the star was going super nova as an advent to his birth, and the fulfillment of prophecy.
It has been a long time since I read that story, but I recall it differently then you. I don't recall that the aliens were believers in Christ. I only remember that they knew they were going to die so they preserved their culture.
It was the priest/astronaut (?) who made the connection to the birth of Christ. I remember it as an irreverent story when I read it.
The message to me was we are insignificant to God and He may not be all that nice. Killing an innocent civilization just to herald the coming of His Son. Geesh. It was a little offensive to me to suggest God would do that.
I certainly didn't read that they were willing sacrifices. I kinda want to re-read it so I can see if I missed the boat.
Of course I was very Mormon when I read the story. I wonder how I would interpret it now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They weren't willing sacrifices. There is no mention of that in the story. They knew that their civilization was going to die, so they left a record of it, much like the episode "Inner Light" in TNG.
quote:The message to me was we are insignificant to God and He may not be all that nice.
I just looked over the story again, and you're spot on.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:So what we know as Christianity is actually the product of god's interaction with humanity, while the same entity chooses to interact with aliens by giving them a different set of moral imperatives? Yes, that's possible.
You posited discovery of intelligent life on another planet, in and of itself, being a blow to religion, not discovery of intelligent life with a different moral imperative.
Sorry, then I needed to add a qualifier to my statement.
However, even if we discover aliens with moral values similar to our own, I wouldn't necessarily see that as evidence for the validity of Christianity. The golden rule for example, is a sound rational principle which benefits those who practice it. Cultures which respect the principle are more likely to become civilized, etc. Frankly, I don't think anything short of aliens believing in Jesus would be evidence for the truth of Christianity. The Bible still needs a lot of adjustment and reinterpretation to accommodate aliens.
Either way the discovery will only serve as circumstantial evidence, more weight in numbers for or against a certain theory (religion or evolution).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: That still doesn't imply that the rest of Earth's species could also be found there.
But I get what you're saying; that if another planet with conditions similar to Earth were found, evolution could be expected to direct species in comparable streams. I actually think that's incorrect. Evolution is random and not straightforward. A change in the evolutionary history of a species at one point can take it on a completely different track in the future. Those other 'routes' can be accommodated because there is usually more than one solution to an evolutionary problem; as species diversity on this planet shows.
So in short, if there were two planet Earths in identical solar systems, the species on one would not necessarily be similar to the species on the other.
Assuming evolution is truly random, the odds that we would come across humanoids much less humans would be astronomical as to be virtually impossible. Human beings compared to other life forms are certainly not the most advanced in every respect, thought overall I would posit that they are.
So assuming we actually found other human beings, it seems impossible to me that if evolution was responsible for both our existence and theirs, that there would not be at least comparable flora and fauna on both planets. Not necessarily even vertebrates and invertebrates (though that seems at least fundamentally necessary if there are humans) but I doubt we would find humans and find out that they have learned to photosynthesis and that they breath carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, and nothing else exists or ever did besides them and their evolutionary forefathers.
I don't think we will ever find aliens who are physiologically human, and never suggested it.
My post quoted and responded to this: "wouldn't it make sense that all the phylums that have existed or do exist here would also be found there", which I think is an assumption we can't make, even accepting your premise (that we find other humanoid aliens) to be true.
My second post explained why I think so: because even if one species in a closed ecosystem is similar to one species in the other, we can't assume that the evolutionary history leading up to their development are the same, and we certainly can't make assumptions about the rest of the species to that level of detail.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush:
Wouldn’t it be cool if the SETI program finally discovered an alien intelligence in the hope of learning from them how to solve our problems, and the message SETI gets back and translates starts, “In the beginning God crated the heaven and the earth, . . .”
Not really. The Christian God is an extremely unpleasant sort of entity IMHO, especially in the Old Testament.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
But it still might be kinda funny, eh?
I wonder if anyone would feel that the discovery of sentient life on other planets might shake their faith in humanism? What if you discovered a race superior to yourselves in every objectively measurable respect, but it didn't share any of the core tenets of humanist philosophy? Would you be willing to give up your cherished concepts lauding the superiority of mankind, or would you label those aliens "evil" and go to war with them?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Humanism can be a very wishy washy umbrella term.
I wouldn't call myself a humanist, but finding another race superior to humanity wouldn't shake my respect for the rights and dignity of human beings.
One of the most important criteria for being human is possessing sentience and the faculty of reason. I ascribe to an objective system of morality, so unless the more intelligent aliens can point out an error in my reasoning (e.g. that my policy on this issue is incorrect because it conflicts with my principles or encroaches on the rights of others, that the premises of my principles are flawed, etc.), I will remain convinced that my system is true, and will continue to act on it.
So, when can we expect these superior aliens to arrive? Are they your cousins?
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Heh heh, I do rather work as a object lesson in demonstrating the most likely answer, don't I?
What if the aliens don't share your concepts of things like "rights" and "objective morality"? Heck, at least I know what the first of those terms is supposed to mean...what do you mean by "objective morality"? I got the impression that you don't believe in God much...so are you positing some other objective standard for morality? By what means does it possess authoritative standing?
More to the point, what makes you think that aliens with no respect for human morality would sit around and argue with you? I didn't say they would do that. They lack that particular humanist idea as well. I suppose you might think it the only reasonable way to settle a philosophic dispute, but they consider it a simple practical issue. If you don't act as they wish, they might simply kill you, for example.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:What if the aliens don't share your concepts of things like "rights" and "objective morality"?
That's fine, until they tread on my rights. My morality doesn't demand that I convert everyone I meet.
quote:Heck, at least I know what the first of those terms is supposed to mean...what do you mean by "objective morality"? I got the impression that you don't believe in God much...so are you positing some other objective standard for morality? By what means does it possess authoritative standing?
It has nothing to do with authority. What is good is what furthers the life of man qua man (this can be extended to include sentient intelligent aliens, I would think). According to that criterion, good results in happy productive life, while evil results in death and suffering. You've read my landmark, so you know I consider myself at least partly an Objectivist.
quote:More to the point, what makes you think that aliens with no respect for human morality would sit around and argue with you?
Um, nothing? I didn't say they would. So is this an excuse for declaring war on any intelligent alien species with a moral code different to ours?
quote:I didn't say they would do that. They lack that particular humanist idea as well. I suppose you might think it the only reasonable way to settle a philosophic dispute, but they consider it a simple practical issue. If you don't act as they wish, they might simply kill you, for example.
Bloody nutcase.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: Euripides wrote: Frankly, I don't think anything short of aliens believing in Jesus would be evidence for the truth of Christianity. The Bible still needs a lot of adjustment and reinterpretation to accommodate aliens.
Good point. But heck, the Bible still needs a lot of adjustment and reinterpretation to accommodate humans. That is to say, accommodate how a lot of Christians have acted over the centuries and still act.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Samuel Bush:
Wouldn’t it be cool if the SETI program finally discovered an alien intelligence in the hope of learning from them how to solve our problems, and the message SETI gets back and translates starts, “In the beginning God crated the heaven and the earth, . . .” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The Christian God is an extremely unpleasant sort of entity IMHO, especially in the Old Testament.
Interesting point. I’ve heard a lot of people argue that the God of the Bible is a mean, nasty, cantankerous old bounder. And it just occurs to me that that view of God could be used to support another old argument that man created God and not the other way around, ie. that God created man. Because if that is true, that humans created God, then it would make a lot of sense that humans created a God who is mean, nasty, and cantankerous since humans are mean, nasty, cantankerous bounders a lot of the time.
Of course there is the other possibility: God is actually a really really nice guy and that humans have misinterpreted the Bible to make God seem nasty in order to justify their own nastiness so they won’t have to put forth the effort to let the “better angels of our nature” shine through.
Just some random thoughts.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
New discoveries often force a reshaping of the widely held beliefs of mainstream religions. Remember what happened when Galileo made his discoveries supporting Copernican theory? Accusations of heresy! Censure by the Church! However, several in the Church decided that, just because obscure biblical passages referred to the "established" position of the earth, it didn't mean that the rest of the scripture was therefore meaningless and invalid.
Personally, I believe that asserting that we are the only intelligent life in such a vast universe is exactly the sort of terrestrial arrogance exhibited by the pre-Coperinican philosopher/scientists. That is, the earth is SO important, the entire solar system and universe revolves around us. How is this really different from believing that Earth is unique in producing life?
Would it shatter my faith? Would it be a big blow? Perhaps, but only if I always took a literal interpretation of the text in all of the Bible. As it stands, however, I don't, so it wouldn't bother me all that much.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:
quote:It's the story of an alien of a race that's biologically wired for evil: that is, they must eat their own children to survive
I don't see how such a thing is possible. There's got to be a finite amount of energy stored up in the bodies of that race. If they keep eating each other, they'll just keep dwindling until the last one starves.
That reminds me of a fictional alien species I read about once:
1. It reproduced through mitosis, splitting into two identical individuals.
2. It had a life expectancy of 70 years.
Wha?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bando Commando:
quote:just because obscure biblical passages referred to the "established" position of the earth, it didn't mean that the rest of the scripture was therefore meaningless and invalid.
Actually I thinks its more the Bibles almost complete ambiguity on the question of astronomy that made Christian scholars concede that there was room in Christianity for the Bible and Galileo. I've yet to see one person quote a scripture that even hints at the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe or the solar system.
Interestingly enough had Christians had access to The Book of Mormon, accepting Galileo's proofs would have been quite natural. Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
quote:It has nothing to do with authority. What is good is what furthers the life of man qua man (this can be extended to include sentient intelligent aliens, I would think). According to that criterion, good results in happy productive life, while evil results in death and suffering. You've read my landmark, so you know I consider myself at least partly an Objectivist.
What if aliens, of overwhelming power and mental superiority, gave you a choice between your humanist morality (based on what is best for man qua man) and certain extinction?
How can your humanist philosophy allow you to chose extinction rather than giving up your humanist philosophy? The real problem might be whether giving up that philosophy to avoid extinction would save you, presumably the aliens would be smart enough to realize you were only giving it up in order to save your species.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
What are you on about? My moral system condones self-defence and would have me choose the lesser evil, which is certainly not extinction.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Well, then, that's what I was wondering. So you would give up humanism if the alternative were extinction?
I wonder how the various theotropic religionists would respond to the same question. Anyone care to answer for their own particular religion?
Would you give up your religious beliefs simply because the alternative was extermination?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Depends what you mean by 'give up.' Does it involve murdering other innocents? Genocide of another alien species? That would influence my response.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Survivor, in another thread you recently posted a specific death threat against certain innocent people.
quote:Originally posted by Survivor:
I wouldn't mind getting a DNA test, except that I dislike human doctors and have decided to kill many of them the next time any of them try anything on me.
The possibilities are:
A) You are serious and need to seek professional council immediately.
B) You are an irredeemable jerk with a desperate desire for attention, and need to seek professional council immediately.
I'm going to bet on B. Either way, I want to have nothing to do with you, and will no longer respond to any of your posts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No worries, survivor, you can get a DNA test without coming in contact with any human doctors. There are plenty of DNA test kits you can acquire -- then just swab your cheek and send the kit in to a lab. I doubt a medical doctor will have anything to do with it, the tests on your DNA will probably be supervised by a lab technician and performed by a machine . The request to check if you are human is, of course, a bit esoteric, so an appropriate lab would have to be found, but given there are places selling personal genome sequencing nowadays, that shouldn't be a problem
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Hey, I didn't kill any of the doctors last time they were annoying me. I figure that gives me a headstart of about...15 or 20 before I'd even need to dig into a hypothetical future offense for additional justification.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Arthur C. Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I don't have a problem believing (in a separate way from my faith in Christ) that these inhabitants of other planets could be more advanced than we are and can visit our planet. I also don't have a problem believing that Heavenly Father's control over the universe is indistinguishable from science (as we humans can understand it).
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)