Finding Alien Life And Changing Religious Philosophies

[Deepwater6]

http://www.space.com/27410-religion-extraterrestrial-life.html

 

Always an interesting topic I think. I'm of the opinion though, that some religions will not accept proof of life outside our planet even if scientists can confirm it. Either via a planets atmosphere through telescopes or closer to home with microbial life by way of a unmanned probe or rover.

 

No, I think it will take a scenario akin to sci-fi movies like "Independence Day" or "District 9" to convince some hardliners. I have this humorous play in my head of what would happen in that event. I'm always reminded of the scene in the movie Contact when government leaders and politicians are weighing the pros and cons of a message received from space and it's invitation to build a machine.  Rob Lowe playing a politically powerful religious conservative leader very contemptuously says to Jody Foster says: "Excuse me miss, we don't even know if these beings believe in god." 

 

 

Of course all capable countries will be trying to get their intelligence agencies imbedded with visitors should they ever show up. But as I stated above I humorously see politicians and religious leaders scrambling to align themselves with the hopefully peaceful aliens. Any communication with the aliens will be molded to fit the cause. "As you can see from what our new friends have stated the republican parties views are in line with what the rest of the universe believes.' Or " These beings have confirmed our beliefs because they also have the morals our God set forth to guide us, so please send your money to help spread the good news throughout the universe."

 

Surprised by the poll in this article however, only 37% believe that aliens are out there?? Thought I've seen polls with numbers much higher numbers than that.
 

[zazz54]

I'm not exactly sure how to answer your would-be questions. I might fit into some of the categories you mentioned. However, I'm not a member of any religion that dogmatically espouses that life doesn't exist 'out there,' but I am wondering just what religions you're talking about that wouldn't believe that there was 'alien life' even if we proved it with 'science.' You seem to insinuate at least one of the so-called, "religions," which have been stereotyped, but I'm not sure. Would you care to elaborate?

 

I read your link; information from Weintraub, and in fact tried to place a quote of his here - to no avail. But I'm not so sure Weintraub has it right either. 

Edited October 20, 2014 by zazz54

[sanctus]

[...]but I am wondering just what religions you're talking about that wouldn't believe that there was 'alien life' even if we proved it with 'science.' [..]

 

Religion as religious world-institutions maybe they might. But for all the sub-classes there are an infinity who already now do not accept scientific arguments, eg.: creationists, flat-earth, etc.

[Buffy]

...But for all the sub-classes there are an infinity who already now do not accept scientific arguments, eg.: creationists, flat-earth, etc.

 

Well, to bring some strict mathematics to this discussion, fortunately--I hope--this is what we call a finite countable set...

 

 

Interestingly, according to modern astronomers, space is finite. This is a very comforting thought-- particularly for people who can never remember where they have left things, :phones:

Buffy

[CraigD]

Religions with tenets stating that some or all of their documents (such as Christianity’s Bible) are “inerrant” – that is, beyond doubt true – have histories of struggling to reconcile scientific discoveries with this inerrancy. Most (for example, the Catholic church) have eventually (though often after long periods of arguing against threatening scientific theories and discoveries) done so by concluding that past interpretations of these documents, not the documents themselves, were incorrect, or that the language of their human authors was inadequate to describe later scientific views. Some religions, however, follow a doctrine of literalism which holds that their documents must be accepted as literally true.

 

In the case of the first books of the Jewish Torah and Christian New testament, “Genesis”, the literalist position can lead to great difficulties, because a straightforward reading of it describes a universe consisting which looks something like this

, as described in this webpage, excerpted from N. F. Gier’s 1987 God, Reason, and the Evangelicals.

 

If one believes in this, then one cannot believe in spherical planets, let alone life on other planets.

 

I’ve discussed with people who believe in literal interpretations of the bible the contradictions between their belief and observations of other planets made with telescopes and spacecraft. They resolved the contradiction with the explanation that, when we use telescope or space probe, evil supernatural beings – the Devil or demons – fool us by sending false images, or invading our minds and making us hallucinate.

 

A minority of religionists are literalists. Most religious authorities, I think, take an “agnostic” position on the existence of aliens – they’re not sure if the exist or not, and conclude that their religion is not threatened in either case. Recently, the current current head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, stated that, were an alien (specifically, “a Martian”) to ask to be baptized into his church, he would do so. Similarly, in 2010, Jesuit monk and astronomer Guy Consolmagno stated he’d baptize an alien, because “Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul” (source)

[Racoon]

Can anyone with half a brain think that in a Universe so expansive that there is not some other life out there??

 

Problem is at 28,000 MPH we would/can only reach Pluto after several  years.. If we could even sustain such a Craft with a crew.

.

Just going beyond our own little solar system within the limits of our current technology would be a significant challenge..

 

.

Unless there was a StarGate

Edited October 22, 2014 by Racoon

[zazz54]

Okay, now that we've established that there are those in some religious circles that will not "believe" no matter what is presented, "scientifically," where do we go from here? My point is this: what exactly do you want to debate about; foolish misrepresentations and dogmatic interpretations, or whether "beings" from outside our sphere of awareness exist, and if they do, does it change our belief system, and how does this affect us?

 

In my opinion, there is no problem believing in 'other beings.' The Bible mentions them many times and in various situations. Did they come in craft that are ftl? Have they inter-bred with humans? Are they attempting to again? Is our DNA mixed with ET DNA? Does this knowledge affect what many have come to believe about the Bible and other sacred works?

 

For me, these are the topics that are of more importance - why? Because these are the 'stories' circulating that have people both concerned and confused.  

[zazz54]

In my study, if you can call it a study; the gamut of ideas presented about ET transportation, range anywhere from technology that captures electromagnetic energy to inter-dimension. Any problem of inter-stellar travel may have been solved by these 'beings,' and we are only beginning to touch this knowledge, if what has been reported is accurate.

 

BTW, I'd disagree with the Jesuit Monk, Guy Consolmagno.

Edited October 23, 2014 by zazz54

[sanctus]

zazz54 really? I never really read the bible, but I also never heard about about it refferring to aliens on earth (I've though heard of this in the bhagavad gita). Any examples?

[zazz54]

I was referring to the many instances that "angels" interacted with men. As for the DNA stuff, see Genesis 6; verses that many scholars debate over, which mention an interaction that may have resulted in a hybrid of giants; nephilim, that were renown.

 

For those that don't know the argument, the verses that refer to the nephilim, or the Hebrew meaning, "fallen ones," in Genesis 6, which states in English, "...the sons of GOD saw the daughters of men... and had children by them..." are debated over as to whether the fallen ones are fallen angels or Cain's offspring that married Seth's offspring. I am of the opinion that the 'fallen ones' are angels that left their once heavenly status and interbred with humans. I do not believe however, that this DNA was passed on, because I believe that all the offspring were destroyed in the "Great Flood."

 

That said, it is possible they did it again at a later date, for there is still reference to giants in the 10/9th centuries B.C. and later...   

 

As for references, the Bible is the source mostly about angels. The verses I mentioned above are about a possible interaction between 'angels' (fallen) and humans. Babylonian Cuneiform tablets also mention this interaction. The book of Enoch does as well. All of these references may be debated; some insisting that they are imagination gone wild, etc; and others that there is a theme that seems to equate into something that may have actually happened. There are many legends that begin with these stories, as far back as the Sumer civilization - and now fairly recent archaeological discoveries that go even farther back in man's history.

 

None of these stories can be declared absolutely fact, but I am of the opinion that at least the Bible got it right and is the truth, above all others.    

Edited October 24, 2014 by zazz54

[sanctus]

So basically, you believe that in the bible angels and aliens are synonyms? I like this interpretation much more than the standard one, but still believe the whole thing is fiction decorated with narrative of real events. The real events I refer to is for instance the great flood, there are at least 2 competing theories which need no god to make it happen ( see eg. page 2 here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood.htm)

[Deepwater6]

Well Z, I think Sanctus did a nice job of putting my thoughts into words to your first post. I was not referring to one of the three largest religions falling into the "denying Science" category, more likely one of the endless supply of subset branches of those trees.

 

I do agree with you that the Bible explains several stories of ET encounters although many in mainstream religions IMHO considers these encounters separate from modern interpretations. It seems in our society today there is "God" and then there are "Aliens".

[zazz54]

Sanctus; yes, I believe the human interaction with "angels" is synonymous with what we call, "aliens," or "ETs." I don't believe this is against what the Bible teaches. The Bible is explicit about the state of some of these angels as having fallen from their former place in heaven - wherever that may be. We accept that it is above the earth; space (the final frontier - couldn't help it) - that Jesus himself said he saw satan fall like lightening. In Revelations a story is presented about a war in heaven between angels, and place was not found anymore in heaven for these defeated and fallen angels.

 

So there is no real problem believing that 'aliens' are angels. And for me there is no problem believing that there are good angels and evil angels. Just as I believe that the evil angels have already been defeated. Now, do they fly here in craft? My only answer to that, and using the Bible as my reference, is nearly in every instance where "angels" interacted with men, there is no mention of a craft having transported these angels to their meeting with men. The popular notion by ufologists that Ezekiel saw a craft could be a flight of fancy - forgive the pun.

 

And as for Maria Trimarchi's article about the "Great flood," as she wrote, the flood stories are universal and very similar. I have problems with the receding ice age theory, though I think it is entirely possible that ice may have carved out land masses, such as the Grand Canyon. However I believe it more likely that a flood did that.

 

Deepwater 6; as I wrote already, there is no real debate that some religionists will not recognize or accept anything but literal interpretations of the Bible. For me, they are missing out on the limitlessness of GOD.    

[Moontanman]

Sanctus; yes, I believe the human interaction with "angels" is synonymous with what we call, "aliens," or "ETs." I don't believe this is against what the Bible teaches. The Bible is explicit about the state of some of these angels as having fallen from their former place in heaven - wherever that may be. We accept that it is above the earth; space (the final frontier - couldn't help it) - that Jesus himself said he saw satan fall like lightening. In Revelations a story is presented about a war in heaven between angels, and place was not found anymore in heaven for these defeated and fallen angels.

 

So there is no real problem believing that 'aliens' are angels. And for me there is no problem believing that there are good angels and evil angels. Just as I believe that the evil angels have already been defeated. Now, do they fly here in craft? My only answer to that, and using the Bible as my reference, is nearly in every instance where "angels" interacted with men, there is no mention of a craft having transported these angels to their meeting with men. The popular notion by ufologists that Ezekiel saw a craft could be a flight of fancy - forgive the pun.

 

And as for Maria Trimarchi's article about the "Great flood," as she wrote, the flood stories are universal and very similar. I have problems with the receding ice age theory, though I think it is entirely possible that ice may have carved out land masses, such as the Grand Canyon. However I believe it more likely that a flood did that.

 

Deepwater 6; as I wrote already, there is no real debate that some religionists will not recognize or accept anything but literal interpretations of the Bible. For me, they are missing out on the limitlessness of GOD.    

 

 

We would be more likely to reproduce with a pine tree than aliens who share no genetic history with us. In fact I am willing to assert that the idea of aliens looking enough like us to make either party sexually attractive to each other is certainly not true.  

[Buffy]

We would be more likely to reproduce with a pine tree than aliens who share no genetic history with us. In fact I am willing to assert that the idea of aliens looking enough like us to make either party sexually attractive to each other is certainly not true.  

 

Right, which is why shows like "V" have gone down the route of elaborate disguises or like "Falling Skies" twiddling with embryos, and of course there's also rape where attractiveness doesn't enter the equation. 

 

You're right on the more important issue of procreation when there's no commonality at all of the lineage of the biological processes. Apples and oranges so to speak.

 

 

Of children as of procreation - the pleasure momentary, the posture ridiculous, the expense damnable, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I was referring to the many instances that "angels" interacted with men. As for the DNA stuff, see Genesis 6; verses that many scholars debate over, which mention an interaction that may have resulted in a hybrid of giants; nephilim, that were renown.

 

For those that don't know the argument, the verses that refer to the nephilim, or the Hebrew meaning, "fallen ones," in Genesis 6, which states in English, "...the sons of GOD saw the daughters of men... and had children by them..." are debated over as to whether the fallen ones are fallen angels or Cain's offspring that married Seth's offspring. I am of the opinion that the 'fallen ones' are angels that left their once heavenly status and interbred with humans. I do not believe however, that this DNA was passed on, because I believe that all the offspring were destroyed in the "Great Flood."

 

That said, it is possible they did it again at a later date, for there is still reference to giants in the 10/9th centuries B.C. and later...   

 

As for references, the Bible is the source mostly about angels. The verses I mentioned above are about a possible interaction between 'angels' (fallen) and humans. Babylonian Cuneiform tablets also mention this interaction. The book of Enoch does as well. All of these references may be debated; some insisting that they are imagination gone wild, etc; and others that there is a theme that seems to equate into something that may have actually happened. There are many legends that begin with these stories, as far back as the Sumer civilization - and now fairly recent archaeological discoveries that go even farther back in man's history.

 

None of these stories can be declared absolutely fact, but I am of the opinion that at least the Bible got it right and is the truth, above all others.    

 

 

The Bible is so far from the truth it staggers the imagination for anyone to assert such a thing. The Bible makes about as much sense from a truth stand point as a novel about alien invasion of Earth where you use the names of real places and events but spin a completely fictional story around it... 

[Moontanman]

Right, which is why shows like "V" have gone down the route of elaborate disguises or like "Falling Skies" twiddling with embryos, and of course there's also rape where attractiveness doesn't enter the equation. 

 

You're right on the more important issue of procreation when there's no commonality at all of the lineage of the biological processes. Apples and oranges so to speak.

 

 

Of children as of procreation - the pleasure momentary, the posture ridiculous, the expense damnable, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

Even if they looked exactly like us their DNA would have nothing in common with ours if they use DNA at all. Think of an Ichthyosaur  and a dolphin, would you expect their DNA to match up at all? They actually share a common ancestor, I have to agree with buffy no alien human hybrids will exist, maybe on star trek but not in reality..