Not as we know it

Finding life on other planets would be yet another lethal blow to the long held ideas of many believers. But they've proven themselves to be often impervious to reason before, that will not change. So the discovery of life elsewhere will be explained as being fully compatible with the bible/koran/etc. Never mind that that rather humongously important bit about life elsewhere isn't mentioned anywhere, and that for so long life was assumed by many of them to be exclusive to earth. Some bible verses will be held up as suggesting that they foretold life to be present elsewhere. Never mind that that will once again merely be reconciling things after the fact of new discovery, completely contradicting ideas held sofar. The gullible will swallow it, in much the same way many of them previously swallowed the idea that "On the third day...etc' was a metaphore for peptides etc forming out of previously lifeless matter to grow the biosphere as we know it today. They'll probably even claim it strengthens their ideas, in some very tortured, desperate way of thinking.

Well, will their missionaries reach us before our missionaries reach them?

Strangely enough, I've often thought that we as a species are far far more threatened by religiously-motivated aliens than by aliens who just want more raw materials or Lebensraum. There is all the water and raw materials you need in space without sinking yourself down a gravity well. To do that, you need the impulse to *convert*. And, if humanity is anything to go by (n=1 of course), what we can't convert, we try to destroy.

Now excuse me while I phone home...

Hi Helio,

"Now excuse me while I phone home..."

I understand that that will be a very expensive, very long distance call? :)

"Finding life on other planets would be yet another lethal blow to the long held ideas of many believers"

In which universe?

"But they've proven themselves to be often impervious to reason before, that will not change."

Unfalsifiable beliefs -like just repeating over and over that you might be right, therefore you can't be wrong... yeah they're stupid.

GV

I'm not sure that finding life elsewhere in the universe would challenge the theology of anybody but died-in-the-wool fundamentalists. Not since Galileo have sensible Christians believed that the earth (and humans on it) is the center of the Great Scheme Of Things.

Some of them still do believe Jesus was, though, so what happens if the aliens turn up with *their* three-eyed redemptive tentacled squid Jesus, and insist that *it* is the Way, the Truth and the Life? Calamari instead of Calvary??

What then? Eh? Eh?!

Helio

He'll be totally accepted as a three eyed, redemptive tentacled squid - just as long as he's not gay!!

The question reminds me of a book I keep looking at in the library - The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. I half think it sounds like a good read, but I keep putting it back on the shelf because I'm never quite in the mood for priests in space.

Does anyone happen to have read it, and if so, would you recommend it?

(Synopsis from Amazon)
Father Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit linguist, heads a team of scientists and explorers on an expedition to the planet Rakhat, where contact has been established with two apparently primitive races, the Runa and the Jana'ata. The narrative shifts back and forth between 2016, when contact is first made, and 2060, to a Vatican inquest interrogating the maimed and broken Sandoz.

If we go away past Mars we will discover an Universe of mind boggling immensity.
Travelling at the speed of light it would take over 90 billion years to cross its diameter. There are an estimated 70 sextillion stars (70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000) in the observable Universe, plus all the other matter.
Plenty room for life intelligent or otherwise.
To the creationist, this must raise the question, what was it all created for? The almost endless replication, the same seemingly superfluous quantities of matter, going on and on and on.

Maybe they think that god had to try quite a few dummy runs before she got Mervyn Storey *just right*.

Given Helio's views on the resurrection (and donkeys), and the topic of this thread, I thought the following quote might be relevant,

"We simply must accept the fact that Captain Kirk is no longer alive," Spock, from the original series of Star Trek.

It's absolutely an academic point as I do not believe in the Fall (or indeed in creation for that matter) but there does seem to be a supposition among some bloggers that alien beings would have been necessarily disobedient and consequently in need of a saviour. What if this little world of ours were literally the only lapsed planet in the whole universe?

To compare finding life on other planets to finding unknown life on this one is absurd. Finding previously undiscovered life on earth is for Christians, just one more example of god's creation. Finding life, especially intelligent life on other planets would present an entirely new realm of complicated problems for them. Do they have a soul? Were they also created in god's image? Were they created before or after humankind? Have they reached a greater level of perfection in the eyes of god? Are humans therefore obsolete from god's point of view, a flawed experiment?

I don't know that we will find life on other worlds in my lifetime, I don't expect it. But I might live to see the day when we can create living creatures from non living matter in a laboratory, even other human beings. What will Christians say then?

Ok, 14 posts in and I have yet to discover the point;

"Finding life on other planets would be yet another lethal blow to the long held ideas of many believers"

Why? What long held ideas?

Perhaps by "believers" you don't mean "believers in God" but "believers in earth as the only planet containing life"...now, those believers might have a problem...

I don't really understand what problems this raises for Christianity....anybody?

"Never mind that that rather humongously important bit about life elsewhere isn't mentioned anywhere"

Is it humongously important for a book about the salvation of humaity to mention "oh, and there are also lots of aliens". Is that "humungously important" to the narrative of the Bible? I don't see how.

"Plenty room for life intelligent or otherwise.
To the creationist, this must raise the question, what was it all created for"

Surely it's precisely the theist who raises this question anyway.

You atheists seem to want to ignore precisely that question, or pretend it doesn't have an answer.

BI

The Christian theory as I understand it is that the universe was created by god for the purpose of creating man. If other life on other worlds are discovered, especially if they prove superior to us, that discovery would explode that theory.

Athiests don't merely ignore the question of the purpose of creation, this one finds the question itself absurd.

Galileo angered the Catholic Church for at least two reasons. First he broke its monopoly on knowledge of the physical universe by proving its theories that the earth was the center of it around which everything else rightly revolved to be wrong. But he proved it in a way that anyone else could test and verify his conclusions for themselves independely of what the Church said about it.

Second, that fact put the question of the purpose of the universe in doubt since heavenly bodies revolved around other things besides earth which might be as important or more important.

They saw their entire intellectual ediface develop a rift that would cause it to one day crumble and it has. If they were proven wrong about one thing, they might be wrong about everything else they said too.

It's been a losing battle for them ever since. They are resigned to the now indisputable reality (except by some fools) that the earth is an insignifigant flea spec in an endless ocean of time and space. By that measure, the notion that it was created for the purpose of mankind is laughable and pathetic.

Marcus;

"The Christian theory as I understand it is that the universe was created by god for the purpose of creating man."

I'm afraid your understanding leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps that's why you're such a vehement atheist...because of a number of misunderstandings. :)

As I understand it the Christian theory is that God created the universe for the purpose of...the universe. All creation is good. Not only that, but there are many many things in heaven and earth...doesn't it say something like that somewhere in the Bible...many of which we know very little about.

There is reason to suppose that God wishes to have a close relationship with humanity...there is absolutely no reason to suppose that he doesn't wish to have that relationship with all life in the universe.

"If other life on other worlds are discovered, especially if they prove superior to us, that discovery would explode that theory."

What theory...that one in your head which isn't exactly true?

Marcus,

I suppose I must be one of the 'fools' you are talking about.........?

To the best of our knowledge, the planet on which we live is unique in the universe, and gives every impression of having been designed with human life in mind.

The Bible says: "The heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19v1) - looking through a telescope it is hard to disagree with that!

Speculation about extra-terrestrial life is based on evolutionary assumptions - which is why no aliens have so far been observed landing in Donegall Square to say 'Hello' - and why this kind of thinking - while great fun - is pretty futile.

In Scripture and in Christ, God has revealed Himself to the inhabitants of this planet. Seems to me we'd be better employed dealing with our accountability to Him.

Bernards_Insight wrote

"I don't really understand what problems this raises for Christianity....anybody?"

and John wrote

"I'm not sure that finding life elsewhere in the universe would challenge the theology of anybody but died-in-the-wool fundamentalists."

Among those who cry about the idea of being distantly related to monkeys you're likely to find many who would be highly uncomfortable with life elsewhere, because it takes away the sense of man being the unique, crowning gem in creation. Many of those who yell "How dare you say I'm a cousin to an ape?! God created us unique from all other life!" would also not be happy about the discovery of six-eyed, methane-breathing tripods living on the far side of the Andromeda cluster. Especially, as was mentioned before, if those six-eyed tripods are far more advanced than us.

Those who cry about evolution number 40+ in the US. Those 'anyone but died-in-the-wool fundies' might be a bit more numerous than John thinks.

While I typing my post, pastorphilip put up his. Thanks pastor for providing the timely example of how evolution skepticism ties into it.

I don't get it though.

even this..

""How dare you say I'm a cousin to an ape?! God created us unique from all other life!" would also not be happy about the discovery of six-eyed, methane-breathing tripods living on the far side of the Andromeda cluster"

Surely the existence of six-eyed, methane-breathing tripods living on the far side of the Andromeda cluster has absolutely no implications for whether or not we are unique.

And as for far advanced, I think someone before mentioned what it actually says in the Bible...I mean, there are plenty of references to beings far superior to humans.

But in any account, this is true;
"In Scripture and in Christ, God has revealed Himself to the inhabitants of this planet. Seems to me we'd be better employed dealing with our accountability to Him"

Spot on. whether or not there are "other" beings, or even "superior" beings makes no difference to that.

Well it is pretty easy to trash Christianity when one gets one's premises wrong!

"...the universe was created by god for the purpose of creating man."

Sorry, this is not what Christians believe. If I might reply in non theological language, God created the universe because he wanted to.

Hello BI,

You didn't quote the bit from my post about mankind being the crowning gem of creation. To those who see mankind as the pinnacle of creation, more advanced life elsewhere would be a problem. It would take away mankinds unique status as being 'highest' if we were just another lower order of animal compared to life elsewhere.

That is not a problem to your christian beliefs apparently. That doesn't surprise me, I hadn't figured you to be among the fundie crowd.

But I think that man is a crowning gem of creation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "highest"...and I'm not sure that, even if I did know what you mean, it would diminish man's status. We know our status, and it's good. If there are other beings with a different "status" that's up to them.

Hi Bernard,

Small word nag: "a crowning gem" ie. one of several, or "the crowning gem".

Bit of a silly word thing for us both to bother with, but to literalist fundies (of whom very few have written the bible in its original languages, I suspect) plenty to get worked up over.

Well yes, but the entire point is that neither you nor I know whether that should be "a" or "the". In the context of the Bible, and in fact Christianity in general, I'm suggesting that it's not at all important.

The "crowning gem" bit is good enough for me.

In my earlier post I commented on the amazing size of the Universe and asked why.
The rational can explain how it all came to be, right back to an event commonly known as the big bang, by reference to natural laws, which we can understand.
However if you have a God explaination, where even the laws of nature can be determined by the God, then we have a most strange creation.
The Universe, and what happens in our own little world, is just not what you would expect of a planned creation, unless God really, really, likes stars.

Hi rochcarlie,

"The Universe, and what happens in our own little world, is just not what you would expect of a planned creation, unless God really, really, likes stars."

Stars, as well as black holes. Don't forget black holes. There's enormous amounts of mass inside black holes. One more thing that theism might have difficulty explaining, why create so many stars and then suck them away again.
Unless it's like the way banks handle money, pumping it all over the place, out of one account into another overseas one. Maybe god is running an intergalactic stellar ponzi scheme.

"The rational can explain how it all came to be, right back to an event commonly known as the big bang"....which is precisely when it all came to be. So really that doesn't explain how everything came to be at all, does it?

"we have a most strange creation"

We do, though, don't we? It really is strange. It constantly amazes and astounds me.

"The Universe, and what happens in our own little world, is just not what you would expect of a planned creation"


So what, exactly, would you expect? And furthermore, why should "what you expect" have anything to do with the way things are?


"unless God really, really, likes stars."

I'd say He does, yes. Oh, and black holes too. They're really amazing things, aren't they. I think they are, anyway.

Hi Bernards_Insight,

"In the context of the Bible, and in fact Christianity in general, I'm suggesting that it's not at all important."

Much like the differing orders of creation in Genesis? The four corners of the earth? Unicorns? The top of the mountain from where you could see all the kingdoms of the earth? Etc etc etc.
So where ever the story of christianity doesn't add up, it's not that important. But we only learn of bits that are incorrect from other sources, like archeology, physical sciences, etc. The bible doesn't do self-correction. So we have a story that's shown to be riddled with errors, and the test of which parts are correct has to come from elsewhere. It would seem to be much better to throw out the bible and search for answers from more reliable sources to begin with.

And where exactly are the sources of meaning in human life, or of love and redemption?

Where do we find these reliable sources? Please tell me, I'd love to know.

Bernie, that is pretty weak. You don't find them in the bible or in religion in general. You find them in the ordinary interactions between ordinary people. They emerge from the system, rather than being passed down by cosmic diktat.

*We* create meaning; *we* create love; *we* confer redemption; *we* create pain, although a lot of pain is *not* of our making; *we* have to deal with it, and take responsibility for our lives and our world.

It's all rather beautiful, even if some people would rather have a heavenly Jozef Fritzl, imprisoning them within their narrow religious mindset, telling them that bad things are *their* fault, and how they must - MUST - love him, or face the consequences; how they are unworthy, and the very fact that they are alive at all is thanks to him; punishing them even when they do nothing wrong.

Nope. Step out of the cellar!

See it's the "We create meaning" bit that I have a problem with. I can easily accept that we create love etc...although i would argue that we do so in reflection of an exemplar of love.

But i really don't understand how we create meaning. Perhaps you could create the meaning of what you mean(!), and communicate it to me.
:)

Do I need redemption? If you had thrown out christianity you would not have felt that problem to start with. It's a problem artifically created by christianity. And wow, christianity then come galloping in to solve the problem it created to start with. Yet it is supposed to gain credibility from that? Wake up.

As for the meaning of human life, for me it's mostly what I choose to make of it. And I'm content with that. I don't know if there is much meaning in terms of 'higher purpose' to life. As with redemption, you seem to be in a circular mode of thinking again. The existence of meaning to life (other than things like gene replication and what you make of it yourself without christianity guiding you) is held up by christianity and then christianity provides it. Wake up.

And I wouldn't take advice on love from someone whose word is partly stated in the blood bath that is the old testament.

I see my reply was once again preceded and made mostly redundent by those who type faster. :)

I don't think it's circular to be open to the possibility that there is a meaning to life and then to find it in christianity.

I think it is circular to arbitrarily and anti-rationally decide that there is no meaning to life, and that therefore christianity can't be true because it can't have meaning, because, well, there is no meaning.

That perception of circularity works both ways.

"I think it is circular to arbitrarily and anti-rationally decide that there is no meaning to life, and that therefore christianity can't be true because it can't have meaning, because, well, there is no meaning."

I'm not saying there is none. I'm saying that I'm not aware of it beyond mostly what I make of life. If someone gave me good reason to think there is, I would be happy to go along with it. Christianity doesn't offer a good reason, in that it doesn't say why there would be one. It merely states there is one, and that therefore christianity should be adhered to.

I think there is good reason for believing that there is meaning in the world, and I think that Christianity provides that meaning.

I didn't become a Christian just by reading and accepting the Bible. My faith is also borne out by metaphsical inquiry. Christianity seems to answer man of the metaphysical questions such as "why is there something other than nothing", or, more important in this context, "is there something rather than nothing". it further occurs that humanity alone cannot fully grasp the "being" of things. In a very real sense, there is no way in which we can prove that "anything" exists. but Christianity loudly proclaims that it does, and, further, that it does for a reason and through a source.

That's a bit rambly and incomplete, but it's my last contribution of the day. It's Friday afternoon after all!

:)

Anway, I thought this was about aliens and the like? you know, Star trek, and that kind of thing..

My, my, for a non conformist I have had such a dreadfully interesting Easter Tide.

First Helio was on telling me how an extra donkey shook the foundations of Christianity to its core, now we're discussing how aliens, you know, Borgs, Vulcans, Alderaanians, Jedi Knights, Cybermen, Daleks, Marvin the Martians, and Seven of Nines are doing the same.

Gonney Monney. May the farce be with you.

And now a question:

Rochcarlie, so the world isn't the way it would have been if it had created by a great Vader in the Sky. And your idea of such a universe is? Of course what I'm really interested in reading is an idea which will not have it's roots in the world or universe we already know; something brand new, that's what I need.

There's Klingons on the starboard bow...

Helio,

I hear ya. It would certainly be considered blasphemy, even though it should probably pose no theological threat. (Go figure!)

Helio, no, sorry, we don't need/have meaning (or morals), not on your terms, not on the terms of a purely material impersonal universe. You might feel moral, you might want to be moral, you might want to create morality, you might even feel responsible, but you don't know why, you cannot say 'this is right', or 'this is wrong', you have no basis for it, yet your post 31 is riddled (yes, riddled, that's a good word) with the concepts, and language of morality, of the worth of humanity, of the absolute even, you have the words alright, but no explanation, and you think Bernard's position is weak.

:-)

Theology is the theoretical study of God !

Most of theology is based on the Bible, which is tainted by man's limited knowledge of God. Theologians would therefore be shaken by the discovery of life on other planets.

A believer would not be surprised.

God is far greater than we can ever conceive. His omniscience would be literally mind-blowing for a mere mortal.

"Right" and "Wrong" are only relevant if we are making decisions. We can't change the past, but we can act in the present to change the future. That is why we have morals. That is why evolution in a species such as ours leads to the development of a highly-attuned system of detecting when contracts exist, when they are broken, and when they are upheld.

There ya go. That's morality in a nutshell.

Problem solved. now, back to the aliens...

"Right" and "Wrong" are only relevant if we are making decisions.

Was that a moral statement? The basis of a moral statement? Another assertion?

Words, words, words...

And of course it assumes that another person is moral enough to allow you to make a decision.

Maybe though you don't make decisions often, I make them all the time.

:-)

"How dare you say I'm a cousin to an ape?"

What a coincidence. In my office today, I got a phone call from an ape who's been following this thread and he resented being compared to humans. He claimed he is much smarter than many of them who post here. Go figure. But then what does he know, he's just a dumb old ape.

Peter Morrow and Bernards_Insight, if you don't think Christianity postulates that man was the pinacle of and reason for god's creation, don't argue with me, take it up with pastorphillip.

pastorphillip; ahem, er, eh....I mean, um...your collarship, I certainly wasn't talking about you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't want to lose all hope of redemption. I realized what if one day it suddenly dawns on me that there actually might be a god? Whom else would I turn to?

BTW, where in the bible does it say anyone had a telescope? Do you have a telescope? If you do, thank goodness you aren't a pastortom, otherwise you might be pointing it in the wrong direction.

Hello Bernards_Insight,

"Christianity seems to answer man of the metaphysical questions such as "why is there something other than nothing", or, more important in this context, "is there something rather than nothing"."

Considering christianity an answer to those questions seems way too easy and wholly unsatisfying to me.

"Considering christianity an answer to those questions seems way too easy and wholly unsatisfying to me."

Peter, I'm sorry to you it seems easy...to be completely honest, I find it difficult...like, the opposite of easy...but if it wasn't difficult we wouldn't have to struggle to find an answer...
have you ever made the effort to struggle?

and I think struggle's good....

don't you?

Peter, I'm glad you're replying to me, because I think you generally make reasonable, unbiased, and fundamentally rational points, albeit from a drastically restricted point of view...

But what's your point here again? I didn't get the problem at the start, and I still don't get it now.

And Marcus, thank you very much for proving that our own assertions aren't sufficient, we have to take account of others too.

You're entirely right.

Now...what's the problem....?

Is it that it's more rational to think of life as the product of an infinity of irrational events producing an apparently infinite irrational product?

Yes, sorry...I forgot that that made more sense...

Actually NO. I've remembered that, so long as we're talking about sense, that makes NO SENSE AT ALL...

and that isn't, in any way whatsoever, what life is actually like...

Surely we live a life constituted from meaning?

Maybe you disagree...

B_I

"Surely we live a life constituted from meaning?

Maybe you disagree..."

I see no evidence that life has meaning. I see no evidence that anything has meaning except as an emotional reaction to those who experience it or learn of it. To Christians, life has meaning because their ministers tell them that's what the bible says. They've been conditioned all their lives to believe this book and those kinds of people. I haven't. I don't believe anyone. I certainly didn't believe Bernie Madoff. He never made off with one cent of mine. I'm just an old cynic I guess. Unredeemed and unredeemable. If there's a hell, I'll find out and if they let me, I'll send you a postcard. I wish that ape had left his phone number. I wonder if he has a telescope. I wonder who he's peeping in on with it. Maybe girl apes.

What makes you think the universe is irrational? It seems to me when I'm awake, that it not only does exactly what it supposed to do, it does the only thing it can. I'm what those philosphers would call a materialist. See I learned something here, the distinction between a materialist and a determinist. When I'm asleep, nobody could convince me of anything either.

Marcus, our transatlantic cousin, I'm glad you're awake.

However:
"B_I


I see no evidence that life has meaning. ..


It seems to me when I'm awake, that it not only does exactly what it supposed to do, it does the only thing it can. I'm what those philosphers would call a materialist. ."

Well, yes, but does that have meaning?

what is it supposed to do?

To be fair, it seems to me that it does something meaningful, for, if not, you're talking nonsense.

If there really is no meaning, then everything you say is absolute nonsense...

"See I learned something here, the distinction between a materialist and a determinist. When I'm asleep, nobody could convince me of anything either."

I'm not sure that really is a difference....it seems that, even when you're awake, people can convince you about reality....I'd imagine, for example, that you think your statements are TRUE. Or maybe you are not convinced that anything is real?

If so, I agree. So shut up! That's the only rational answer!:)

Perhaps not.
Maybe nothing is real! In which case, that includes your nonsense statements, surely?
:)

Or maybe, conversely, things are real...

Unbelievable though, what? amazing!

Not only that, Marcus, I'm convinced you're contradicting yourself in the space of a single post:

"I see no evidence that life has meaning. ..


It seems to me when I'm awake, that it not only does exactly what it supposed to do, it does the only thing it can. I'm what those philosphers would call a materialist. "

Do you mean it though?

:)

I mean " it does what it's SUPPOSED to do?

Yes, there's no such thing as sense...

Oh no, wait, SENSE, can't say that...


What absolute STUBBORN nonsense...

If there's no meaning, or SENSE, then stop talking NONSENSE!

Hello Bernards_Insight,

"have you ever made the effort to struggle?
and I think struggle's good....
don't you?"

Part of my knowledge and views are the result of a good bit of thinking. Some of that thinking might be called struggle. Is that good? Since it leads to better insights I'd say it is. I'm not sure if struggling without a goal is useful. Compare it to running (which I used to do quite a bit of for a hobby). You put yourself through considerable physical discomfort pushing yourself. But it's healthy and you run better races as a result. In the same way, I don't see much point in breaking your brain for no good. But if it leads to better insights then by all means.

"But what's your point here again? I didn't get the problem at the start, and I still don't get it now."

If there was one point to my posts in this thread it would have been 'What is a good way to gain insights, to learn things?'. You see the bible as a good source. I think it's pretty worthless, and more importantly, can even be counter-productive. See post 29, about how the bible has errors. That those errors are learned not from the reading bible (in the way that e.g. physics is self-correcting and discards disproven theories) but from other sources. So to find out if what is written is true, we need corroboration from elsewhere. And no, I don't buy your 'Those small errors are not important, we will safely assume everything not disproven yet to be true'. At best, the bible can be claimed to be in agreement with something after that something has been discovered. See e.g. the opening post of this thread.

So while the story of christianity doesn't offer much positive learning, it does have (to a good number of christians at least) the ambition to be a source of enormous insight. And hence the animosity in some christians towards knowledge, science, thinking that nibble away at these christian ideas. See for instance that long running thread where the UeberPERP in the end comes up with what is such a clear statement of 'science comes at the expense of my faith, therefore I will do anything to talk down the prospects of science explaining things'.

ps, your said "but it's my last contribution of the day." and then more posts, stretching to 3.28 AM (technically you're in the clear, as by then it was officially Saturday). We do share the same time zone, don't we, Greenwich +0?

dont see the big problem.

Christ made the universe, Adam sinned...we need a saviour....Christ is that saviour.

What if there is life on another planet?

cant see how it changes this.

Christ would still be their Creator and Lord regardless of whether they had sinned.

Perhaps the bigger question is - why do we continually invent silly and irrelevant questions in the hope that it will somehow proof us again having to face the love and claims of Christ?

OT

Thanks for the explaination. An interesting tale from an ancient people.
Why not consider some other creation myths? What of the Maori story? The Universe resulting from the union of two Deities.
There is quite a choice out there. Can't see how yours has any more to commend it than the Maori or any of the others that are around.

Personally speaking, I hope alien life looks like the green Orion slave girls out of Star Trek. If they do, then they're welcome here on earth anytime !!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl45bhzneJM

<RICHPOST>Please interstellar policeman<BR />Oh, won't you give us a sign<BR />Give us a sign that we've reached you<BR />~ Calling Occupants Of Interplanetary Craft<BR /><BR /><br><BR />I think 42 still is the most logical answer :))<BR /><BR /><a href="#">Registry Fix Review</a></RICHPOST>

I played that one on my radio show on Chaine FM last Christmas and the station Manager gave off.

He's far too young to remember it being in the charts !

Look, the facts that are learned from the Bible are that God is One, that He is "I am", and that He is loving.

Given that those are the things that the bible teaches us, I think it is reasonable and safe to say that it doesn't matter how many donkeys there were.

Those "errors" do not mater to those three truths that I've outlined above.

I have found that those three truths are also a reasonable conclusion from metaphysical inquiry...That there is a transcendent Other, that that Other must be One and unique, and that, given creation, that Other must take an attitude to its creation.

It is not that "'Those small errors are not important, we will safely assume everything not disproven yet to be true".

I've no need to assumethat every detail WILL turn out to be true. It wouldn't bother me if there turned out to have been six donkeys. That does'nt affect the validity of those fundamental truths I have outlined.

Rochcarlie, as for your question, why not other religious myths....The three fundamental truths that I have outlined above are specific to Judeao-Christianity. No other "religious myth" makes those statements about God being ONE, totally transcendent and "I am". those are the truths with metaphyscal significance.

And Peter, unfortunately those other posts were written after one too many, but I do believe I had passed the midnight threshold and thus we were in the next day.

:)

Bernard

Your three facts/truths are no more facts/truths than the Maori Gods Rangi & Papa, and that is just the fact of it.
Just because it is in the Bible does not make it a fact. The Bible is a man made piece of literature with no more veracity than the Maori stuff.

rochcarlie

I'm still waiting on your man made alternative universe literature.

Remember, brand new, something brand new.

:-)

RochCarlie; you obviously didn't grasp the point I was making.


My point, quite explicitly, is that the bible is not an inventory of chronological facts, like someone's diary.

Those facts that I mention are metaphysical and epistemological conclsions that happen to be borne out in the bible.

They are not "true just because the bible says so". They are the rational conclusions borne of metaphysical inquiry....

which happen to fit with the very simple explanation of the Bible. The simple explanation is sometimes best, and in this case that's correct.

The point is that you're dismissing metaphysical insights as erroneous historical insights...which they're not...they're metaphysical.

If there is a world of rational being then there's a source of that being.

The bible outlines the historical account of Being's encounter with the world. It seems a reasonable enough accont to me.

Reading back on your post, Rochcarlie, I can see the point you're trying to make...but it misses the point I'm trying to make...

My point is NOT that the bible tells us everything, and that's the end of it...

My point is that general, philosophical, rational, metaphysical inquiry leads to a conclusion that bears remarkable similarities to the simple story of the bible.

Not only that, but your equivocation falls short, in that no other religious account comes anywhere close to dealing with those metaphysical issues.

I defy you to find a pagan deity that identifies itself with "Am".....or, as I see it, "being"....pagan religion simply does not have that insight...That God is "One" and "totally OTHER". That isn't a feature of the pagan account.

So, in lumping "religion" together with general myth you completely ignore the obvious metaphysical significance of MONOTHEISM, and the idea that God must be OTHER than the universe...

You haven't even considered those questions...you would rather "believe" that Christianity implies a magician in the sky...like Paul Danniels, in the modern classic of kid's tv, WizBit...

But you're arguing against a straw man there, you really are.

Those truths that I claimed the bible to proclaim seem to be beyond your scope of inquiry! Come on though...expand your scope.

Thanks for the replies Bernard.I am not sure I completely understand the point you are making.
It looks like a claim of exceptionalism for the Christian faith and the Bible.
I just can't see that. I do not know much about all the other world faiths, but would not be surprised if they made similar claims for their beliefs.
Now, I am off out to the garden to worship the sun.

Rochcarlie, thanks for the honesty...it seems we're arguing at cross purposes.

you say;

"I just can't see that. I do not know much about all the other world faiths, but would not be surprised if they made similar claims for their beliefs."

Unfortunately...they don't. Simple as that.

Total transcendental monotheism is unique to Judaeo-Christianity. So I'm afaid an argument that goes "I just can't see that", isn't sufficient. I'm afraid it's true, whether you see it or not.

(Of course, before you all say it, there have of course been other partial attempts at a non-absolute monotheism...that Egyptian pharaoh who attempted to establish the sun as the one true God, for example....there have proably been others....but those were all partial attempts at monotheism within a wider polytheism, which actually amounted to a dominance of one worldly god among other gods, and not really an absolute denial of all other deities and an insistence on the complete transcendence and uniqueness of the One - "I am".....

On the other side of the historical coin, Islam is of course mootheistic...but it's monotheism relies on that of Christianity...or more so on Judaism. I don't, however, accept it'f further historical developments....although that's another story)

The point is there is only one type of monotheism....the abrahamic type...of which Christianity represents the pivotal and rational historical unfolding

This is the unique value of Christianity

Judeo-Christianity is the originator of absolute transcendent monotheism. In that sense, it is exceptional. That's not just my claim, but a fact. the maori's don't have it, neither do the hindus, the australasian aborigines or the carthaginian Molloc worshipers. Christianity is totally unlike those type of myths.

Bernard.I am not going to discuss Carthaginian Molloc worshipers or some of the other stuff, I will leave that to the experts.But your distinction between monotheistic Judeo-Christianity and Pagan Polytheisim. 
The ancient Greek world was pagan and polytheistic, that plurality allowed an intellectual curiosity, and was an era of wisdom and human progress.
Thereafter Europe and the Middle East fell under the totalitarian Abrahamic faiths with their dogmatic certainty and then the Dark Ages.
I would choose life in pagan Greece than the christian dark age.

Hello Bernard,

Sorry, normally I like your posts. While I have a very different world view from you and think the starting point from which you argue is very wrong, I do think for a good portion of your posts that they sound sensible. Unfortunately post 60 doesn't fall within the pattern of general appreciation for your posts. I find it much unconvincing and I don't think anyone who didn't share your beliefs already would be the least impressed by it.

Would I be correct in thinking that you wouldn't have expected anyone to buy it if they didn't already do so before you said it?

greets,
Peter

Bernard, the sort of transcendental monotheism that you are talking about is NOT found in the early books of the bible, but only developed properly when Greek thought began to suffuse the eastern mediterranean. Old Testament monotheism is really not any different from Atenism, which was allegedly the first monotheism, but even that was grounded in Egyptian concepts of god, a prominent stream of which (which subsequently became embedded in Pagan Yahwism) was the concept of a transcendent "Netjer" or "Divine essence".

What you are doing is looking back at the primitive myths in the earlier part of the bible, and like fitting Cinderella's glass slipper to the fat foot of an ugly sister, trying to pretend that it meshes perfectly. It does not. The petty god who danders in the garden; the nasty genocidal god who orders the destruction of the Amalekites; the idiot god who kills a man for reflexly steadying his tottering casket; the miserable vindictive god who destroys Achan's entire *family* for Achan's sin - all this is pure normal paganry - nothing to separate this petty pathetic god from the gods of the surrounding populations.

But looking backwards, you start with (slightly) more enlightened thought, and explain away the distasteful attributes of this nasty god as being simply part of its process of revelation etc.

Whereas a proper appraisal of the situation shows an evolution in thought, as the god becomes less and less present, more and more powerful (classic conspiracy theory stuff here), and more and more universal.

Your god is no different from Ahura-Mazda, Ba'al, Satan, Amun-Re, Mongo umBaba, Asherah (well, he *was* her husband after all!), Molech and any of the others. You simply have the benefit of a theological process that has been hammering away for many centuries, engaging in a patch job, where any ugly feature of your god *has* to be a marker of beauty - we just don't understand it properly. Any contradiction in texts is a "mystery" or an intentional contrast to enhance our sense of wonder etc.

It is the sheer wanton dishonesty of this process called "Christian theology" that eventually made me wake up to the fact that theism is a con. That and the fact that Muslim theologians say exactly the same sorts of thing about *their* flavour of pixie. It is all a con, and like the lottery scam victims, you guys keep on calling up and sending the cash in the hope and belief that eventually you will claim your winnings - conveniently, after you're dead.

I can understand that humans can buy this nonsense, but I really can't see an advanced alien civilisation swallowing such a pile of rubbish.

Hello Citizen of the Sun

I normally appreciate you wit and comments, particularly as you were once a christian insider, however with your "Jozef Fritzl", and now you "Satan", "Ba'al", "Molech" and "Asherah" comments I see you displaying a certain venom, and I'm wondering why this is the case.

So here's what might be helpful, you tell me who you think Aten was and I'll tell you why he isn't YHWH. We could of course begin with, 'not defied nature'. But really, I don't know if I can be bothered.

Hello folks;
As always I really genuinely appreciate your replies. Many things worry me...

not least my tendency to wonder, in the early hours of the morning, what contribution people have made to my post on a BBC blog...

Ahhhhhh, I'm honestly not sure whether, at this minute, I'm capable of answering things...it's a bad hour...

however, some things I think deserve even a half-assed reply.

Rochcarlie;

"The ancient Greek world was pagan and polytheistic, that plurality allowed an intellectual curiosity, and was an era of wisdom and human progress."

If your point is, literally, that ancient greek civilisation allowed for human progress, and that "christian civilisation" doesn't, I really don't know how to answer

...except to point towards...well, every intellectual development over the previous two millenia...

I mean, maybe we should have stayed with the pagan greek view.....Perhaps history would have been...well, better, ....(although we're not quite sure what better means, sure we're not?...)


maybe we should though... who's to say?
:)


I'm actually a fan of ancient greek, pagan thought...but if you're trying to argue that it is more conducive to rational thought than medieval christianity...then you're on the wrong track...as readily evidenced by the very obvious dependence of modern (and even postmodern) science on christian rationality. Surely that's a well known fact?

Or perhaps modern civilisation would have been better (more rational) without christianity....well, it's nice to postulate fantasy scenarios, isn't it....

Like that Tom Crusise film "Legend"....

You know...if that's our criteria, maybe that is true.... who knows?....Eh.....?

Maybe, right 'nuff, pagan heathenism is a better world view, and is more productive and, like...what's the lingo...ah, outcome-heavy???....

historically, though, that doesn't quite add up, does it?

:)
....

maybe it is, but I've yet to meet the champion of ancient greek philisophical thought's aptitiude to modern physics...there isn't one, is there?

"Thereafter Europe and the Middle East fell under the totalitarian Abrahamic faiths with their dogmatic certainty and then the Dark Ages."

I mean, you may well refuse to accept western rationality's view of physical reality....but if so, you're going against the grain of pretty much every rational consideration of the last two millenia...

:)

Perhaps you have a better, less resticted view of reality...

Peter Klaver...

I also normally like your posts too

:)

..often you illustrate rational and genuinely insightful problems resulting from a rational view of the universe.

Your last post, however...maybe it's just the time of day, but does it actually contain any arguments, or is it, as it seems, ad hominem nonsense?

I know this is late, but I'm so convinced that it doesn't adress ANY of the points I raised, that I'm willing to reproduce it in full:


:47pm on 19 Apr 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:
Hello Bernard,

Sorry, normally I like your posts. While I have a very different world view from you and think the starting point from which you argue is very wrong, I do think for a good portion of your posts that they sound sensible. Unfortunately post 60 doesn't fall within the pattern of general appreciation for your posts. I find it much unconvincing and I don't think anyone who didn't share your beliefs already would be the least impressed by it.

Would I be correct in thinking that you wouldn't have expected anyone to buy it if they didn't already do so before you said it?

greets,
Peter

Complain about this comment "


...Now, rationally and metaphysically speaking...

what?

What's your point?


Now, Helio...

Genuinely insightful questions...

" Bernard, the sort of transcendental monotheism that you are talking about is NOT found in the early books of the bible, but only developed properly when Greek thought began to suffuse the eastern mediterranean"

I think you actually have a point....


I think that Christianity DOES make more sense when...as you say...it is "suffused" with greek metaphysical thought....

I think that particular mode of thinking rightly (adequately - probably better) expresses that fundamental insight.


Does the fact that ancient greek philosophy almost expresses the point made concretely explicit in Christianity mean that that concrete expression CAN'T be true?


Well, maybe not...they were savages, after all..... isn't that the general argument....?

:)

What absolute NONSENSE

Well, as I've said before, I know some people who are devoutly Christian (though I would argue over their designation as such due to their lack of mercy for the poor...) and some have even questioned (or at least been willing to doubt) heliocentricity. They do doubt evolution and global warming, and both the traditional and creationist views of fossil fuel formation. (The evolutionist believes it took millenia (except a few fringe Russians), creationists believe it took a worldwide flood, they believe God just put it there...) Naturally, they deny that any life could exist outside Earth.

As for the response to a discovery of alien life, I think I mentioned that Fox Mulder beat people to it. In some X-Files episode he mentioned the (Protestant 4th, Catholic 3rd) commandment and remarked on how God "Made heaven and earth, but didn't tell anyone about his side projects..."

Hello Bernard,

"Peter Klaver... I also normally like your posts too :)
..often you illustrate rational and genuinely insightful problems resulting from a rational view of the universe.
Your last post, however...maybe it's just the time of day, but does it actually contain any arguments, or is it, as it seems, ad hominem nonsense?"

It was certainly not intended as anything nasty. And you're right, it didn't make any new arguments. It was in response to the first part of your post 60. That mostly stated things that were already addressed. Like the need for redemption, meaning to life, love. As I said in post 53 and earlier posts in this thread, that doesn't do much for me to either give positive meaning to the bible or make the errors anything less of a basis for doubting it. In the first part of post 60 I read phrases like "He is one", "that Other must be One and unique". These seem merely words that add little new argument value by themselves, yet are given such gravitas (why do so many christians think that spelling words with capitols makes a valid substitute for reasoned arguments?). I also attach about zero value to 'metaphysical inquiry'.
So you're right that little in our last reply-reply iteration constitutes anything new. I think we may have to agree that this one isn't going anywhere. Again, no nastiness intended.

greets,
Peter

Helio

I've just spotted the reference (post 3) to the Mon Calamari.

The fact that we both know who the Mon Calamari are officially makes us the saddest bloggers on W&T.

The name isn't even referenced in the films.

My son is *eight* and he doesn't know!

So--was Admiral Ackbar a theist?

GV

Hello Peter;

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were being nasty, just that you had no arguments.

If I could just make a final point, words like "One" and unique, even when capitalised, aren't supposed to convey some esoteric inner meaning.

You know what those words mean....I am not obfuscating but attempting to be clear.

We already know that God created creatures with intelligence greater than man - they are called angels. The discovery of intelligent life on other planets would not be much different.

But man has a criticial difference that he is made somehow in God's image which angels aren't, that he is redeemed by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Having said that, I doubt there are intelligent creatures on other planets. No evidence of it at all.

www.mccamley.org

Peter, Jozef Fritzl accurately describes the relationship some Christians claim god has a right to expect us to enter into. That I make the comparison is just holding up the mirror. You don't like it - deal with it.

As for Satan, Ba'al, Molech & Asherah, why is that venomous? They are perfectly valid deities, and at least as well evidenced as your Yahweh (and of course in the case of Asherah, Yahweh's ex-wife). You can't demonise a load of perfectly valid deities, then complain when someone raised their equivalence with yours.

Bernard

Yes there has been much progress over the past two millenia. But, the most progress was after the totalitarian grip of religion was fractured and loosened.
I cannot but believe that Christianity during that time has had other than a retarding influence.
Without the Abrahamic religions ? Who knows.
Possibly folks could have been blogging six centuries ago.

Well, now we've all aired our differing views about western civilisation and the meaning of the words "unique" and "transcendent", what about these aliens then?

Have ye accepted that their hypothetical existence poses no real problems for Christianity yet...or are we still struggling with that one?

Helio

Asherah, Yahweh's wife?! Don't do a Dan Brown on me Helio.

As for Baal etc., they don't function as Deities in the manner of Theism.We're back to the Flying Spaghetti Monster Objection under a different guise. But the FSM objection remains ill informed tosh even if we replace a FSM with "Baal".
Baal is not a maximally perfect being, but a personification of some aspects of nature. Nature or chaos is the fundamental fact in polytheism, not the gods. (Or there may be a "parent" God who functions as an ultimate but is too distant to be worshipped).

Once again the Theistic proofs do not identify - but they do say enough to rule out contingent gods like Baal. The explanatory
burden is to develop a picture of reality on which nothing exists as brutely contingent fact. So we argue that there are many
contingently existent things that find their explanation in the causal activity of a necessary being - a transcendent, personal creator being
preferable to the alternatives.
God is conceived as being perfectly powerful, perfectly free, perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly good. This is what make God worthy of worship. And Baal and co. don't fit the job description.

These attributes of perfection have a deep connections.

(a)Perfect power entails perfect knowledge and perfect freedom. An impersonal causal agent is disposed to generate a single effect, or perhaps any of an indeterministic range of effects along some scale of magnitude.
The range of possibilities for a circumstance is thus narrow. A personal agent with freedom of
choice, by contrast, is capable of a broader array of actions in a given circumstance. Other things
being equal, then, a causal agent endowed with free choice has greater power than one lacking it.
So a perfectly powerful agent would also be free, indeed perfectly free.

(b)Perfect freedom of
choice requires knowledge of the possibilities and how they are to be achieved. Perfect power and freedom would require an essentially unlimited knowledge, corresponding to the unlimited range of possibilities.

(c)Perfect goodness requires perfect freedom to choose what is right, and perfect knowledge of what is good.

(d)A necessary cannot be causally dependent for its existence on anything else. This fits with perfect power and perfect freedom- there are no external constraints on God.

So we have a coherent hypothesis. The attributes are not merely consistent with each other, but to some degree explain each other. Now does the hypothesis fit the data? Obviously I think so. It accounts for the universe and human experience. Many instances of suffering serve as counter-evidence, so this is not an ad-hoc hypothesis.

Not everyone wil be convinced, but that's life. We all disagree about all sorts of things. Theism remains a valid, coherent hypothesis. Athestic philosophers from Richard Gale to Graham Oppy and Thomas Nagel concede as much - whilst remaining atheists.
For example Gale and William Rowe are two philosophers who have defended cosmological arguments as valid and rational; yet they both remain atheists (due to the problem of evil). They are both very calm and rational in their assessments. [Which makes me wonder why some atheists (present company excluded) are so shrill that they refuse to examine evidence and arguments contrary to their position.]

Anyway, the point is you know this Baal/FSM nonsense won't wash. So let's get to the substance of the debate.

GV

And don't think I haven't noticed that you're denying knowledge of the Mon Calamari.

You're out Helio. Look on the bright side - at least you're not a trekkie.

Hello Bernard,

"Have ye accepted that their hypothetical existence poses no real problems for Christianity yet...or are we still struggling with that one?"

Depending on what you want to use the bible for, it certainly can a problem. The problem from silence, from not being of use, of not saying anything one way or another. The question of whether there is other life out there is one that many find interesting. The best the bible can do is to agree and claim the idea for itself once other sources have worked it out. You can say 'No fault in christianity then' and technically that's correct. But that would also be true of a blank piece of paper. No faults there. But also no useful info of any kind.

If you want to maintain the bible as guiding much of your life, then it must offer something for itself, not just be free of faults (not that the bible is free of them, but we're limiting it to E.T. being there or not for this thread). But the insights don't come from the bible, they must come from elsewhere. So if you want to aquire informed ideas and make well-founded decisions, the bible doens't offer them. You should stop wasting your time with the bible and turn elsewhere for learning. So for something that has the ambition to guide people in their lives and inform them, the ignorance in christianity of so many important things is a very big problem.

Fortunately, far better alternatives are available.

Graham, calamari is one of my favourite seafoods, and that's about it. Your defence of theism is lovely jubbly, but I would point out that you're biased by the fact that the other gods are now extinct. (And Asherah being Yahweh's consort is certainly not Dan Brown - you should study a bit more ancient history, young man. They were worshipped together in the Temple in Jerusalem, as well as in Israelite colonies as far away as Elephantine - long before Yahweh became the "One and Only").

If Yahweh had gone the same way, and all we were left with was Genesis (or even the Old Testament), we would regard it as just another bog standard near-eastern moon deity (well, some of us *do*!).

All the theobabble you refer to is a later development - long after Jesus, long after Paul, and most of it is geared around reconciling the absurdity of such a god with the unconquerable desire of people to believe in it. It is only a consistent position in that it kicks contradictions into the long grass of "mystery". It's not that it is fundamentally incoherent *internally* - it is just that it is very silly.

And I would also point out that a Personal agent requires a BRAIN. God is NOT a "necessary" agent; causality of the universe does NOT require a personal agent; ontological arguments (such as Plantinga's latest effort) are NOT coherent, and I will simply restate the null hypothesis: YHWH, like Baal, like Asherah, Like Amun-Re (indeed, VERY like Amun-Re in many respects) does not exist.

If you want to prove otherwise, you don't need fancy verbal footwork (or, you'll need fancier verbal footwork than *that*! ;-), you need a hypothesis, and you need evidence. This is a job for science, not the chin-rubbing brand of philosophy so beloved of the Plantingas and Swinburnes of this world. If you say science can't do it, you may be right, but in that case, you are in no position to insist, and a perfect personal poweful god would know that too, and not require the absurdity of belief.

Bernard/PM

Excellent job. PK and Helio made good posts, but I only cheer for the good guys.

Suppose that a technologically advanced alien civilization made contact. Suppose we discovered that they were theists. Should Helio and PK renounce their atheism?

Not for a minute. Presumably these aliens would have similar evolutionary histories, and look at the same universe as we do. So it would not be unexpected, on atheism, to find that aliens have similar religious beliefs. In fact, given materialist explanations of religions survival value perhaps atheists should positively expect religious aliens.

Helio and PK should retain their atheism until they learn the aliens reasons for Theism. Then they can evaluate those.
In many atheistic fantasies aliens function as "voices from the sky" that bring Enlightenment. This is a pseudo-religious view with aliens as substitutes for angels. It goes back to 17th century freethinking which viewed "reason" as a logos, a rational principle which permeated the cosmos and brought it into order. Humans participated in this universal reason. This not only made knowledge possible - it made knowledge the key to human fufillment. When someone in the 21st Century believes that science is the source of human salvation they are genuflecting to an Enlightenment myth. It's a deeply metaphysical view of reality.

One more point. In this worldview - the Freethinkers belief in a non-personal universal reason (UR) that guides the cosmos- mankind is the pinnacle of "creation" as mankind can participate in UR and use UR to grow and shape reality.
The "image of God" refers to mankinds responsibilities to God and to the world in which he lives. At least, this is the meaning in Genesis 1-3. Mankind was made for the good of the world every bit as much as the world being made for the good of man.
The "image of God" does not make us god-like. In fact, this was what the first humans were tempted with - to be like gods. It was not enough to have a relationship with God, or to be given a purpose by Him.
Whatever your views of Hebrew cosmogony, it does *not* entail that we are the pinnacle of creation. The image of God entails that we are stewards of one small part - the garden.
And in Christianity the incarnation and atonement are an expression of God's love - not an indication of our importance. We were made a "little lower than the angels". So I don't see any scriptural warrant to justify some of the pre-conceptions about what orthodox Christians must believe.

GV

Helio

That was a lot of name calling (of Plantinga/Swinburne) and question begging. Physicalism is a *metaphysical and epistemological hypothesis*. Every bit as much as theism. It doesn't win because you refuse to engage the arguments.
Whatever you think of Plantinga and Swinburne their arguments use logic, and if they are valid with reasonable premises you should pay attention. Science depends on logic. You can't dodge the arguments by saying "oh, that's not science!"
Keep in mind you want me to take Tegmark seriously - and I do - even if his ideas seem counter intuitive. You can't duck an argument just by saying "word-play".

I've yet to hear of one piece of archaeological evidence about *anything* that went on in the pre-exilic Temple. The Asherah-consort nonsense? give me a break! This is "history of religions" and it's a dead theory.

You haven't responded to the essential differences between Theism and Baal, Asherah etc. They belong to two entirely different world-views. So falsifying one does not impact on the other at all.
Theism is coherent and a valid metaphysical hypothesis. And science has limits (it presupposes certain facts about the universe and human knowledge of the universe, like it or not). Now present a case against Theism. Not a caricature, not polytheism.[And to be honest, I'm not sure you understand these ancient religions either]

GV

Paul, BTW, was aware of and used Stoic natural theology.

Hardly a late development.

And the origins of an idea and it's justification can be very different. The atomic conception of matter, for example. I doubt Epicurus foresaw 19th and 20th century science.

Peter;

"If you want to maintain the bible as guiding much of your life, then it must offer something for itself"

I believe it does, of course.

However, I also believe that an account of green creatures in the Bible would be of no use to me whatsoever, and would really have little to say to me about how I should live my life.

So it really isn't a problem that the Bible doesn't mention it, as there isn't really any sense in which such an account would offer any kind of instruction on how best to live.

Hello Bernard,

"However, I also believe that an account of green creatures in the Bible would be of no use to me whatsoever, and would really have little to say to me about how I should live my life.
So it really isn't a problem that the Bible doesn't mention it, as there isn't really any sense in which such an account would offer any kind of instruction on how best to live."

That bit about it not being a problem sounds a lot like your 'Not really important' reply to errors in the bible. Let's consider the importance a bit more, shall we?

In the old and new testament combined we have more than 60 books, thousands of pages. The question 'Are we alone' is asked quite a lot, from philosophers to sci-fi fans. With thousands of pages in his supposed word already, your Magic Daddy couldn't have spared even a single line to mention that bit which is asked about so much? Don't tell me each and every individual line greatly influences how you live your life. Or do you have each and every last line ready by heart when you need to come to some decision? Assuming you don't, if there's things in there that don't influence how you live you life, then surely we can spare one line to mention that which so many wonder about? I mean, thousands of pages, just one more line needed, I'm not asking for the moon here.

So I think the 'not too important' response is much unconvincing. And you are in some danger of revealing a bit of pattern in how you deal with shortcomings in the bible. What would happen if the next thread is about a part of the bible which is morally repugnant (e.g. endorsing rape). Shall we see if we can predict what your response would be from the past few days?

errors in the bible -> "Oh, that's not too important."

omissions of answers to very often asked questions -> "Oh, that's not too important."

bible morally repugnant -> ........................

Would anyone care to take a guess as to what to fill in on the dotted line?

Peter, your point seems to be that, if a question is asked often, the Bible really should mention it, or risk ridicule.

I'm not sure I agree. Isn't it reasonable to suggest that, as the existence or otherwise of little green monsters has absolutely nothing to do with the narrative of the Bible, no matter how many times people ask about it, that there really is no reason why the bible should mention it?

You have yet to offer any suggestions about how ET phoning home is in any way relevant to the story of the bible.

How is it relevant? Simple question. What relevance does the Alien from the films with Sigourney Weaver have to Christ's death and ressurection to establish a new convenant between God and humans?

Is the only relevance that, if there are aliens, they may have their own convenant?

If the aliens had their own bible which didn't mention us humans here on earth, would that also be a problem for them?

"Many people are interested" doesn't really answer that question.

"your point seems to be that, if a question is asked often, the Bible really should mention it, or risk ridicule."

I didn't mention ridicule, but if it is seen as a source of answers, as it is by some (even to answers to rather practical questions, like what is the value of the number pi), then people should certainly realize how it is inferior to better sources available to answer such questions. So not ridicule, but diminished status.
Those who insist on using to bible to try to get to answers that bible doesn't provide, they are fair game for ridicule. That may or, more likely, may not apply to you personally.

Peter;

"but if it is seen as a source of answers, as it is by some"

It is seens as a source of answers...just not to that particular question. Neither is it seen as a source of answers to the question "how many miles per gallon can a Ford Fiesta achieve", and many, many more questions.

I don't consider it to be a reasonable source of answers to the question "are there little green men on other planets".....but that doesn't exactly diminish it's status, anymore than the omission of such answers in Plato's Republic diminishes that work.

"Those who insist on using to bible to try to get to answers that bible doesn't provide, they are fair game for ridicule"

Fair enough. If someone is suggesting that the Bible provides a definitive answer to that question....which it clearly doesn't...then they're probably a bit confused.

Has anyone here claimed that...that the bible provides an absolute definitive answer to life on other planets?

In fact, has anyone, ever?

Considering that, as you keep pointing out, the bible doesn't even mention the possibility of even beginning to address any such issue, I don't see how anyone could claim to find a definitive answer in it.

Does that diminish it's status?...clearly not.

Anyway, personally I don't think that we ever will discover life on other planets.

I didn't read that in the bible, the Bible is surprisingly quite on the issue...one would have thought hypothetical green monsters would have been top of the agenda when Dan Brown was writing the Bible, but apparently not.

I just don't reckon there are though.

But still, keep watching the skis. Especially that new lad, Eddie the Eagle.

:)

Hi Bernard,

"Has anyone here claimed that...that the bible provides an absolute definitive answer to life on other planets? In fact, has anyone, ever?"

You added the 'absolute definitive', I didn't say that. But people seeking answers about the existence of ETs from the bible? Sure. See e.g.

https://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c012.html

It starts promisingly enough by stating

"The Scriptures do not directly address the question of alien beings. The Bible does not explicitly confirm or deny the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

But of course they do very much want to get an answer from the bible, they work away at it, and at the end of the page they come to the point where they conclude

"Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not."

Or take a look at Christian Fuckbrains Info Central, a.k.a. Conservapedia, 'the trustworthy encyclopedia' (none of that 'liberal, anti-christian bias' as in wikipedia):

"If extraterrestrial civilizations are shown to exist or have existed, whether or not they are visiting or have ever visited the earth, then the Bible is shown to be false and the creation story unreliable."

You get many such hits if you Google a bit. While doing that I also found a page that contradicts your transcendent god story. Apparently, god does live inside the universe and he gets around by driving a UFO:

https://www.bibleufo.com/enigma.htm



And yes, for those who would look to the bible for answers on e.g. ETs, the proof of the opposite of their fairy tale story would definitely diminish it. Let me repeat the quote from Conservapedia, as it doesn't get much clearer than that:

"If extraterrestrial civilizations are shown to exist or have existed, whether or not they are visiting or have ever visited the earth, then the Bible is shown to be false and the creation story unreliable."

And so anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-thinking marches on. A good example of how some christians want as much as possible to come from the bible and why they will vehemently oppose competing sources of information from developing.

Helio

Why is it venomous, because I grant you the intelligent to at least understand the theoretical difference between YHWH and Satan and all the rest, Asherah up the pole included. Either that or you don't really know what you actually lost faith in, the thought had occurred to me.

And if "Jozef Fritzl accurately describes the relationship some Christians claim god has a right to expect us to enter into" then I'd have left your church too, must have been a crap preacher.


BTW Rochcarlie, universe? expectations?

Peter;

Your threshold of what constitutes "contradiction" has drastically lowered, I see...now that it suits you.

"While doing that I also found a page that contradicts your transcendent god story. Apparently, god does live inside the universe and he gets around by driving a UFO:"

Yes, because made up stories effectively contradict explanatory metaphysical conclusions.

Oh wait, those people aren't really Christians, are they.

I also know of an atheist who, in denying God, also denies his own existence...so there's your idea that science can achieve knowledge "contradicted" then.

Peter, I too could come up with any number of ridiculous beliefs...many of them even held by scientists and physicists....does that "contradict" the value of science as truth discovery...of course not. It just shows that some people believe really strange things...not just Christians.

The point is that, while a rejection of personal existence may not be actually scientific, neither is an account of God driving a UFO actually Christian

Sorry Peter M I had not noticed you had asked me a question.I think I had expressed surprise at the nature of the Universe, particularly the cosmic amount of apparently superfluous matter, and you now think I should explain my idea of an imagined new Universe.There is so much that is strange about this Universe, if seen as a designed work, where to begin?In our Universe, could not God have fitted Man with the superior eye he gave to the eagle, and I could have followed this thread more closely.So, no1 in my new imagined world, eagle eyes for all.