»Life on other planets and how it would affect Christianity«
|
|||
 One of the goals of the Mars mission is to see if microorganisms can be found on Mars. If life were found on other planets, how would that affect Christianity? It would open up the possibility of other sentient life forms. How would other sentient life forms be encompassed by the Bible's message of salvation? Those life forms, having never heard of Jesus... wouldn't they all be doomed to hell? Or would they all be exempt? Would God's influence and moral experiment be confined solely to planet Earth? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical Topicslife on other planets and how it would affect Christianity |
|
|||
 Tiefling: One of the goals of the Mars mission is to see if microorganisms can be found on Mars Well, since we are SOOO far away from getting outside of our solar system anytime in the next 1-3 centuries, I think it would be most important to focus of lofty goals on moon/mercury/mars/jovian moon colonization/exploration even though any of that is 50-100 yrs away. Get people of this planet, ensure that the species has a chance of surviving if something happens to Earth(meteor, nuclear winter, etc). Tiefling: It would open up the possibility of other sentient life forms. First off, until we see these sentient life forms, they are still just conjecture. I want there to be other life in the universe. I mean, what a fucking waste of space and discovery if we are the only sentient beings w/ a concept of personhood to appreciate/ponder it. Tiefling: If life were found on other planets, how would that affect Christianity? How would other sentient life forms be encompassed by the Bible's message of salvation? Well this would depend on the particular denominations. Some would see it as a great chance to spread xianity's message to a whole new group. Others would speculate endlessly that the aliens are demons from hell(I have actually seen Jack Vam Imp on tv say this). Others would find a way to interpret that aliens are in the Bible, that is once they see that everyone else believes in them. Part of the problem is that many of earth's religions and general acceptance of things is that humanity is at the top of the food chain, and we are basically still the center of the universe. To find other sentient lifeforms out there would really rock the boat for many I believe. I think the movie Contact did a great job of showing how this scenario could unfold. Tiefling: Those life forms, having never heard of Jesus... wouldn't they all be doomed to hell? Or would they all be exempt? Would God's influence and moral experiment be confined solely to planet Earth? Well, I think it would almost be a "in your face xianity" moment to a large degree. However, if xianity doesn't collapse from this discovery of sentient life and the public doesn't stop following their doctrine because of it, they will adapt(at least some of the denominations will, others would die out and even others would be newly created). Who knows though, aliens could tell us they have a Bible and xian God just like us but it talks only about them as well. This could reflect some weird isolation plan of God until that species was ready to meet others or it could show that this xian belief that God chose "us" to be something that we made up ourselves. Once again though, why create such a vast universe, if you only want to work with one planet? And to answer one reply to that, if the universe outside this planet is all a big hoax to fool us, then it is doing one helluva job! posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Once upon a time the Church considered it to be important to religious belief that the Earth be the centre of the universe. Now we have discovered that the Sun is the centre of the solar system and this is one of many solar systems which make up a galaxy amongst many galaxies. Do we see this decentralisation as a problem for Christianity? No. Yet this same arrogance compels religious leaders to suggest that this planet is so important that no other planet can insist of intelligent life. Also that humans are made in the image of God so no other life at our level of intelligence can exist. Is this not the same logic that made us certain we were at the centre of the universe? Maybe we need a Copernican revolution on this issue? Maybe we need to realise that the universe does not revolve around us. That if God created all life in the universe then we are just one of those many forms of life. Saying that aliens contradict Christianity is like saying that flying pigs contradicts evolution. Certainly evolution hasn't predicted flying pigs - but who ever said it needed to? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Do we see this decentralisation as a problem for Christianity? No. I see it. The whole shift from Christianity to science is slowly the coffin nail. Unless you talk about American Christianity. Since America is the exception. The state Christianity is now EVERYTHING weakens it. Youngsters buy mobiles and Playstations? Yup, less Jesus. Elders die? Yup, weakens. TV shows spectacular pictures? Yup, Christianity get weakened. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
in Australia? As far as I know, no one in Europe sees science as a disproof of religion. In fact, I thought that Americans were more likely to see science as a confrontation of religion. Hence Bush removes stem cell research and religious fundamentalists want to see evolution removed from the school syllabus there. I heard an American describe evolution as an "excuse for atheism". As if atheists needed to use science to make excuses for them. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 In religious studies, we got a teacher who is always trying to convince us that 'nothing is as it seems' and that science is a 'reduction of reality'. And that we gotta learn how to interpret the bible in a 'symbolic way' in order to get the message. And how important it is for us to 'broaden our horizons' and so on... He's not allowed to contradict scientific evidence, so he's at least trying to create confusion. The christians in Europe have lost their power. Not many people are interested in christianity anymore. So they generally gotta accept everything and embed it into their worldview, also if it contradicts their own beliefs. This in turn weakens their religion. posted by anonymyus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: in Australia? Yeah, Christians are considered crackpots, looneys, crazies, nutjobs here! I know exceptions obviously, but alot of them don't help the stereotype! anonymyus: This in turn weakens their religion. Basicly, Science weakens religion! Economy weakens religion! Anything that benefits mankind weakens religion! 
posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
anonymyus: In religious studies, we got a teacher who is always trying to convince us that 'nothing is as it seems' and that science is a
'reduction of reality'. And that we gotta learn how to interpret the bible in a 'symbolic way' in order to get the message. And how important it is for us to 'broaden our horizons' and so on... He's not allowed to contradict scientific evidence, so he's at least trying to create confusion. Or he's done some philosophy of science and recognises its limitations. Science isn't a source of truth. It consists in theories which fit in with evidence. There is a certain method that is expected to be used avoiding 'ad hoc' modifications (hence why 'creation science' is an oxymoron - a great deal of it consists in ad hoc modification). It's even been found by Godel's incompleteness theorem that if we had an incorrect mathematical system we could not know that was the case. If we can't even be sure of our mathematical system then we certainly can't be sure of our scientific theories. That doesn't make religion any more reliable, but seeing religion more symbolically is definitely important if it is to be accepted alongside scientific discoveries. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Or he's done some philosophy of science and recognises its limitations. Science isn't a source of truth. It consists in theories which fit in with evidence. There is a certain method that is expected to be used avoiding 'ad hoc' modifications (hence why 'creation science' is an oxymoron - a great deal of it consists in ad hoc modification). Does this mean that it's impossible explain the spontaneous creation of something when there was nothing before can't be explained with a scientific approach? Quote: It's even been found by Godel's incompleteness theorem that if we had an incorrect mathematical system we could not know that was the case. If we can't even be sure of our mathematical system then we certainly can't be sure of our scientific theories. That doesn't make religion any more reliable, but seeing religion more symbolically is definitely important if it is to be accepted alongside scientific discoveries. Of course science has its blind spots and limitations and not everything can ever be proven. But science seems to be backed by more evidence than religion and therefore it's currently the best thing you can trust in. posted by anonymyus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Does this mean that it's impossible explain the spontaneous creation of something when there was nothing before can't be explained with a scientific approach? Um... despite the bad grammar of that sentence I will try to answer in a way that sounds right. I don't think that spontaneous creation could be explained by science. But then again I'm not sure it would be explained by much else either. As for whether science is limited. I presumed that's what your religious studies teacher was trying to point out. He obviously isn't an extreme fundamentalist if he wants you to look at religious texts as symbolic. Religion isn't really concerned with science, it's concerned with how people live their lives and deal with the various milestones of life (birth, coming of age, vocation, marriage, aging, death). If religion fails to deal with the real issues it is meant to deal with, then it can be criticised. But claiming it is not a sufficiently scientific account is not really a valid criticism. Peas are meant to be eaten and seats are meant to be sat on. If a pea falls apart when sat on, this does not make it a bad pea. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Quote: Does this mean that it's impossible to explain the spontaneous creation of something when there was nothing before with a scientific approach? <----- ( better grammar, same semantics) (...) Religion isn't really concerned with science, it's concerned with how people live their lives and deal with the various milestones of life (birth, coming of age, vocation, marriage, aging, death). If religion fails to deal with the real issues it is meant to deal with, then it can be criticised. But claiming it is not a sufficiently scientific account is not really a valid criticism. (...) You think if the religious practice allows people to lead their lifes, then everything is ok? Agreed. Here's no problem. But doesn't religion also usually deliver a world view? And don't you think that an imperfect scientific explanation of the world is probably still closer to the truth than a religious world view? posted by anonymyus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Science and religion are two very different ways of looking at the world. However this doesn't mean that you can't look at both at once. However, if we look back at the main point of this discussion, do you think that we can both believe in religion and speculate about live on other planets. Personally I don't see why not, but perhaps some creation scientists may see differently. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: Anything that benefits mankind weakens religion! Drugs weaken Christianity, too. Since they can simulate "heaven". Jerry Springer weakens Christianity, since you can see and have fun and have issues and have talks rather than believe/listen/read. Radio weakens books. TV weakens Radio. Internet weakens TV. If you have absolutely nothing to do then the local priest can be hero. Otherwise he's just "a strange guy with some extreme viewpoints" What I want to say: Everything NEW can weaken the OLD. In other words: Christianity had its peak. After 200 decades it grew old. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
anonymyus: Of course science has its blind spots and limitations and not everything can ever be proven.
But science seems to be backed by more evidence than religion and therefore it's currently the best thing you can trust in. Yeah, kind of "more easy to digest". Just like eating some chocolate bars rather than eating fruits. Less sticky, faster to digest. Let's have a coke instead of the blood of Christ. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I don't think that spontaneous creation could be explained by science. So? But it ties at least. The question why god needs a space ship IMO → Why does god need a spaceship? is still open. Christianity has not even answers "within" itself. And the practical uses for Christianity go towards Zero. Look, if Christianity had applicable METHODS then it could be seen as a "partner" of science, but now it's pretty useless. So to give an example that fits to this thread: Could the pope tell whether there is life on Mars? Could the pope tell how/when life starts? Christianity merely sits there and hopes that god better returns fast so that all questions will be answered. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 21:23 php B.B. |