Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen
My questions:
1. What are your thoughts on life on other worlds and how your religious beliefs influence your opinion as to its existence.
|
My religious beliefs don't influence my opinions in this issue ... science does.
From a scientific viewpoint however, I do challenge the Copernican view that the universe/s are essentially the same, and the distribution of stuff is the generally the same throughout, which would therefore infer that the chances of life evolving are the same, everywhere, in effect that it's almost a given that life
must exist elsewhere.
However, that assumption is challenged by recent scientific findings (according to New Scientist) that suggests that the distribution is not equal, at least, not equal enough for people to assert that the same general conditions that prevail here
must prevail elsewhere, and that we don't know enough about the universe/s to make such assumptions based on anything but faith.
Furthermore, articles and opinions argue that for a whole host of reasons earth is 'just right' for life, not too big, not too small, not too far, not too near ... tektonic plate movement as a necessary prerequisite ... and to suppose that life will evolve on other planets that match the precise 'just right' criteria is also itself something of a leap of faith.
In fact, people who argue science against religion often argue that across the millenia there have been so many astounding 'flukes' and 'chances' along the way in the development of this solar system, this planet, organic life, humanity, etc. etc, as to render the odds against the emergence of human life as almost incalculable ... yet the same people will argue that life 'must' occur elsewhere, which argues that such 'flukes' and 'chances' would have to be common, if not the norm ...
My jury is still out on that one ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen
2. Imagine (the unlikely scenario) that aliens landed on the Earth and completely overwhelmed us with their superior intellect, technology and spiritual development. If they believed in a God, would it be the same one you believe in? If they didn't have any notion of Jesus Christ, would they be saved?
|
Well, I think that presupposes a number of questions. Superior technology (space flight) does not presuppose superior intellect, so I would challenge the idea that a technologically advanced people will be any more intellectually and/or spiritually advanced than us. Does not the evidence we have to hand suggest otherwise?
So I would say this scenario is more unlikely than the scenario in which the first alien off the spaceship is wearing a crucifix ...
... then again, on that principle, I would suggest that aliens who do believe in God would hold to the idea of 'distinction' and 'union', and thus hold an idea of 'salvation' and 'loss'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen
In what ways do you ignore and dismiss empirical evidence in order that you not disturb or challenge the beliefs that you hold so dear? (Okay... I'll admit that I really don't expect anybody to have the "huevos" to answer that question honestly... but do try.)
|
I don't ignore nor dismiss any empirical evidence, as I work on the axiom that empirical evidence does not have any bearing on the questions I'm asking.
That you think it does means you're asking the wrong questions, or looking to find the answers to the right questions in the wrong place.
One simple 'fact' is that if man is to be truly 'free', then the last thing he wants is empirical evidence of the proof of God, because then only a fool would refuse to believe in the face of the evidence ...
And again, if you can provide me with the equation or whatever empirical data you have to determine precisely why person A will fall in love with person B, or why some fall in love instantaneously, and others over a period of time; how a person can love one child, then love two equally and yet no more nor no less than he or she loved just the one ... how to write poetry (not doggrel) or compose sublime musical scores ... questions like that should demonstrate that empiricism isn't the answer to everything.
If life were purely a matter of common sense, which is what empiricism is, then it would be awfully drab, don't you think?
Thomas