Slashdot Mirror
Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?
Science_afficionado writes: At the current rate of discovery, astronomers will have identified more than a million exoplanets by the year 2045. That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it. Realization that the nature of the debate about life on other worlds is about to fundamentally change, lead Vanderbilt astronomer David Weintraub to begin thinking seriously about how people will react to such a discovery. He realized that people's reactions will be heavily influenced by their religious beliefs, so he decided to find out what theologians and leaders from the world's major religions have to say about the matter. The result is a book titled Religions and Extraterrestrial Life, published by Springer this month. He discovered that from Baptists to Buddhists, from Catholics to Mormons, from Islam to the Anglican Communion, religious views on alien life differ widely.
Well, the good news is that we found out Jesus is worshiped on other planets.
...just as an example, the early Christian theologians worked out these questions over 1700 years ago.
Not a big deal for the Christian worldview.
some teenager will use the phrase "sky fairies"
... is just to ban science and space exploration, heading this entire situation off entirely.
By the time ET's make contact with us, we'll have been raptured long ago. I think we're on for next week.
Robert J. Sawyer did a send up of mocking religious people's views on ET in his novel Calculating God . An alien lands on Earth and finds it odd that all the scientists of our planet are trending towards atheism, when his civilization finds the arguments of natural theology convincing. Of course, the god believed in by the alien (and mused on by Sawyer, who I believe remains an atheist) is an unknowable, silent, watchmaker god who sprung up spontaneously from the quantum vacuum, instead of the personal God that Earth's big three monotheistic religions believe in.
squeals of alien joy
Ready for the world's religions?
Or laughter.
Rank of this problem in things we need to worry about: 4,534,211.
Why did you post the words you just said? I don't know, your post seems completely useless.
Small steps, lets get them to accept evaluation on our planet first.
In that nobody has ever seen or can prove either exists, and a LOT of idiots are willing to go to any length to confirm or deny their beliefs.
At the current rate of discovery, astronomers will have identified more than a million exoplanets by the year 2045. That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it.
Being able to detect planets and being able to detect life on those planets are 2 different things.
Note that the article and book discuss what educated theologians think, not what the followers think.
Philosophy and "what if" questioning are a big part of religious educations. The general public, not really.
So while the Pope and Dalai Llama might be willing to welcome ET with open arms, wingnuts like Westoboro Baptist are going to have apoplectic fits about "devils" and "demons."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
When they land, they'll be a demonstrated fact. Religious faith deals with the invisible and unprovable; it's not involved in observable ET's. The alien's beliefs? We'll ask them. Only problem is, if they ry to convert us.
World religions have different views on subject, news at 9.
And what do you think the current religions are? They've been watching their own private, live RTS game for thousand of years.
And so far, Sbplorgbs Zamkfabrqpaxz is winning.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
C.S. Lewis, Anglican and actually closer to Catholicism in theology, wrote, from 1938-1945, a science fiction trilogy known as the Space Trilogy that explores alien races in the context of Christianity.
I first read the trilogy when I was an atheist, and it helped remove that particular hurdle in my later study of the world religions that lead to my conversion to Catholicism.
I thought that might grab your attention - practising religious or not (I am not. Disclosure: I am a nihilistic fatalist agnostic and proud), it is a very controversial statement to make. What I'm about to follow that with is probably nowhere near, but still, controversial.
According to the one religion I'm somewhat familiar with, and possibly others as well, humans are the most intelligent (on a sliding scale) form of life in the Universe (not counting the monotheistic God who is apparently omniscient and omnipotent which would give him an unfair advantage). Were that the case, and considering God gave Man ultimate domain over all he surveyed, then any alien landing on this rock would automatically become the property of the first human who set across it. I believe that any alien intelligent enough and technologically advanced enough to actually make the journey is immediately and demonstrably superior to us in every way, putting Mankind in defiance of God and itself in danger of being instantly rendered vapours by a jealous deity - who would then set to making any who saw it either forget or drop dead/spontaneously combust/lose the faculty to speak or otherwise articulate thought. Either way, said alien would not take kindly to being abducted and probed (I'm sure he would have his own equipment for that), and would be equipped with the ability (and will?) to defend himself and his honour with all manner of weaponry or even turn that spanky engine of his into some exotic bomb capable of reducing the entire solar system to ash.
(It's what I'd do).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
And the answer is "How many logical fallacies can you fit into a paragraph." *ding ding ding*
Perhaps "I'd like Trolling Slashdot for 1000", and the answer is "Mention Religion in a summary, more than one preferably"
No, discussing alien life is not "new" and no, this is not some interesting twist on the discussion. Claiming that "we are going to find alien life by XXXX date" is akin to claiming "the world is going to end by XXXX date". I don't believe in your tarot cards, your phrenology, or what ever else you claim gives you the power to see the future. We all know that the potential is there, but.. well you can read the definition of the word on your own.
You hopefully stopped reading when the guy correlates finding planets with finding life, knowing it was a troll.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Before getting all confident that we can detect ET civilization, how about sending a satellite or three to 10-20 Lunar orbits (what's the Lunar equivalent of the AU?) to determine if we can detect ourselves -- especially when Earth is between it and the Sun.
If not, then no sense bloviating on religion and ET.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The average intelligence of theists is a lot lower than atheists, I don't think they would even believe science if it was true. Intelligence is the only thing separating theists and atheists, other than that, we are all basically the same.
Not flaimbait. Just facts!
[citation needed].
So what happens when a believer converts to atheism? Did their IQ suddenly go up? The opposite argument can be made. If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Religion has more to do with cultural influences than inherent intelligence.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Didn't Clarke write in Fountains of Paradise that the sudden appearance of an alien probe ship would basically invalidate most religions on the grounds that they're all Earth-centric?
Because we have a seriouls lack of terrestrial software engineering talent. If we can't get H1B's for off planet talent, we will have to move our jobs out of this system.
It isn't like we are getting live video from these exoplanets. I find it a bit unlikely that any major (or minor) religions will be shaken by spectrograph squiggles, even if we are pretty sure they are evidence of biology.
See that "Preview" button?
" He realized that people's reactions will be heavily influenced by their religious beliefs," Really?
The religious will do this because they can't distinguish between their god and an alien?
Even as an atheist, I'm insulted for the believers among us....
And yes, is this a slow news day, I guess.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Religion is something that an ET might bring. It could be in the form of creation myths, some strange gap they discovered in physics and a religion built up around it. Or they may have always had a religion that drove them to pursue physics with a fanatic's zeal resulting in space travel while not straying from their core faith.
Or even worse, they could be way ahead of us in pretty much every science yet have a fanatical religion where the two options are pretty much to pray to some god or spread out and convert other species.
Another nasty variation is that they come with some religion that has a series of logical arguments that can pretty much convince anyone who doesn't have a PhD in rhetoric. So they come along drop off their book of faith and leave.
But if they do come with any religion at all we can all be certain that it will end up with adherents on Earth. Seeing that we have Neo Nazis there is no creed too stupid for some people.
... what do you think would happen if ET did exist, had a spaceship, was feeling a bit nefarious, and manifested itself as a booming voice from the sky? How hard do you think it would be for ET to convince the world's populations that it is in fact god (especially given the technological advantage), then instruct them to do whatever the hell it wants?
What makes you think this hasn't already happened?"
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
No!
I mean, I don't exactly believe in the Star Trek universe which is even more fairy tale than most religions. Where are we in their world order - are we equals, enemies, slaves, pets, food, pests or just a honking big X-factor that threaten their very existence? Since their military power would be mostly unknown it'd be real easy to get paranoid. Just dealing with wacko humans is bad enough, what do you really know about an alien or how they think? Nothing. I think we'd jump right into a military arms race which might end very badly for at least one of us. Perhaps both, if MAD still applies on an interplanetary scale.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Hopefully religion will die off and/or they will all stay earthbound. Father figures that are figments of your imagination demand you say on earth thats it.
No sir I dont like it.
I mean, not to be the debbie downer here, but that presupposition has be presupposed before, and by smarter minds, imo anyway.
Then we have to consider the Great Filter (which could be radioactive elements & nuclear in general which makes sense) as well, and things just aren't looking good for the idea of us discovering extraterrestrial life any time soon. It might be out there, but us seeing it out there seems unlikely so far to me. And the odds of us finding a civilization that is younger than us in terms of maturity is pretty small considering the cosmic time scale.
I'm just saying. I doubt this will happen any time soon. But I've been wrong before.
Regardless, I, For One, Welcome Our New Alien Overlords.
So what happens when a believer converts to atheism? Did their IQ suddenly go up? The opposite argument can be made. If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Nothing has to happen.
You can have a world with stupidity highly correlated with religion even with people converting to/from religion/atheism and without anyone changing their IQ.
If, as a believer, they were smart enough to drop their religious beliefs, seems that IQ and religious belief are not tightly correlated.
Only if religion caused stupidity. If it is just correlated, then there is no problem.
Awesome. Every once in a while I get exposed to something totally new, at my age that's quite a feat. I'll have to check out these two books.
Mostly random stuff.
“That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it.”
No, it means that if, thousands or even millions of years agao, some other life form happened to be broadcasting monster radio waves, in the direction of Earth, astronomers might detect it.
I was thinking of Ba`al.
I'll listen very carefully. A civilization that has managed to get across the interstellar gulf alive, and chooses to tell us about some religion, well, I'll listen to them with full attention, and as open a mind as I can manage.
And I'll also listen very politely.
--PeterM
Since we are all born atheists, then choose our religions, it does seem a bit odd, but it is true about I.Q.
Also how many years of positive karma on this site, 2 posts and it goes to bad?
This site is fucking done anyway, I am going to have a fun time trolling here. It is easy now, seems all the smart people have left.
You must be new here.
I don't know how they would respond to ET, but there are plenty of adherents here on slashdot (with numbers growing at a staggering rate). This is a faith with a number of people who spend a great deal of time attempting to recruit new members. I'm not talking about Pastafarians, nor am I talking about Jedi Knights. I'm talking about the most profound cult in the US in some time, and I'm not talking about Apple fanboys either.
I'm talking about the church of Ron Paul. I expect their dear leader would tell them that ET can be dealt with somehow through the miracle of the open market but what that would actually mean is anyone's guess.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I wonder less whether religions are ready for ET and more whether science is ready for the discovery of inorganic life. Nearly everything I read on the subject carries a stated or more often unstated assumption that evolved alien life will have the same carbon-and-water basis that we do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
'nuff said.
The original poster made the claim:
Intelligence is the only thing separating theists and atheists
I find that offensive - and I'm an atheist. In the past we've had people claim that whites are smarter than blacks, men are smarter than women, democrats are smarter than republicans and vice versa.
I suspect that the people making such claims are the stupid ones. Not in the sense of IQ, but in the sense of being dumb-asses looking to affirm their "I'm better than someone else" beliefs, same as some religious people have internalized a "holier-than-thou" attitude and look down on other religions and the "unwashed heathen".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
With neither real facts nor justification of any assumptions of the frequency of life, multicellular life, intelligent life, technological life, stupid-enough-to-give-itself-away life, this article starts off on the wrong foot and gets worse. It doesn't matter how many exoplanets you can find, one, ten, hundreds, millions, billions, trillions - finding life on those planets is a completely different step. Finding life on a planet that has is not trying to be found is not likely to be possible, and this opens a problem that is beyond simple epistemology.
As others and famously, Stephen Hawking, has pointed out, an intelligent life form on an exoplanet should be aware of the risk contacting ET should entail. It's a simple matter of weighing risk and reward - and so far, Homo Sapiens has failed to figure that out. We're still stupid enough to be sending physical artifacts far away from our planet with a map that effectively says "We're curious and stupid - please invite us to dinner" without distinguishing the difference in role of dinner guest and entree.
Fortunately, sending physical artifacts is one the least effectual ways to contact ET. Sending electromagnetic signals is far more effective, and humans have tried that too, but only for a short time and only in a few directions. Beyond our early transmissions of "I Love Lucy," the increasing complexity of our signals make it less likely that modern communication, if were somehow intercepted with adequate S/N ratio, would be decoded into anything useful to ET. In fact, those DirecTV signals mean almost nothing without a access card, by design. Unless we actually intend to send a signal, nothing from Earth is likely to give our presence away, short of a few hundred short bursts of nuclear radiation from our atomic and fusion weapons, which we can only hope have ceased to be transmitted.
The simple fact is: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Plausably, Homo Sapiens has got to figure out how to deal with the "terrible ghastly silence" of space with much greater probability than having to deal with ET. Even so, contact with ET is much more likely to be via long-distance (and therefore long-latency) communication than by physical contact. And if a religious person doesn't like what ET is saying, they'll just change the channel, or stop responding.
Historically, religion has adapted to scientific advances without just giving up and saying - OK, we were wrong. Religions have been very facile in their interpretation of sacred documents in order for their memes to continue to flourish despite scientific and logical contradiction. Indeed, with Socrates as the example, the risk is borne by the truth-tellers, not the religious followers....unless one can surmise how religious orthodoxy would drink the hemlock this time.
Thinking about all the alien looking drawings in Mayan culture, stories of Atlantis, all the star-aligned cultures (Egyptian, Mayan, Easter Island, Stone Henge, etc.), stories from the Bible that seen extraterrestrial, etc. could it be that humans were put here by aliens and that humans in fact are aliens? If we evolved here, why do we sunburn so easily, why are we so different from all other animals on Earth, why are are biological clocks tuned for a 25 hour day? I've thought a lot of creatures on this planet looked alien but it's an interesting thought to me. Heck, dragons, zombies, and all the other "monster stories" could have been originated/existed on our alien forefathers home planet. I know this sounds kooky, but it's something I'm curious about and would like to hear what others think.
Nonsense. Highly unlikely events? Multitude of convincing arguments? ...and if we are alone, the fact that failing to colonize other galaxies before the sun exhausts all its nuclear fuel would finish us does not make us the ones to seed life in other galaxies and colonize distant solar systems. That's simply a non-sequitur.
The first book was set mainly on Mars. The creatures there were essentially innocent with regard to sin. It is an interesting take on the idea of the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice. There may be only one world, ours that needed such remedial treatment in Lewis' view.
The finest single work of fiction concerning the relationship of religion to life on other worlds was Mark Twain's "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven".
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebook...
Twain's Captain Stormfield dies and makes his way to Heaven, to find that Heaven is inhabited with uncounted numbers of souls from billions of different planets; every planet has its own Redeemer, but all represent the same God.
The idea that God is human is laughable; any religion that restricts God to a single planet, or even a single galaxy, is thinking much too narrowly! If there is a God, a Supreme Being (a topic on which I reserve judgment, having no knowledge and only limited faith), He/She/It must be truly supreme in the universe(s).
Points!
Someone commented above about C. S. Lewis, but Madeleine L'Engle has also used ET to examine religious themes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"He discovered that from Baptists to Buddhists, from Catholics to Mormons, from Islam to the Anglican Communion, religious views on alien life differ widely." He skipped Atheists?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
[citation needed]
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I'd normally tell people that it's worth spending a good deal of time contemplating and debating Aristotle's work on causality prior to jumping into something related to Aquinas. I have never read Feser, does he attempt to bridge the gap for a novice? Does not sound that way by your description.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I fully expect to be modded down
I expect so too, but that's because whiny, condescending statements like this are almost guaranteed to get your post moderated down.
There is a lot of wisdom built into many of the world's theistic religions. A low IQ person without this wisdom is less likely to survive, to start a family, to support that family, etc. For a high IQ person the wisdom can still make a difference but they are more likely to be able to accomplish goals despite the lack of received wisdom.
So perhaps it isn't a matter of high-IQ people becoming atheists, it is a matter of low-IQ theists being less likely to take themselves and their offspring out of the gene pool.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
What happens when they finally realize life is on earth.
CrazyOldMan
Not to split hairs, but wouldn't God technically be an ET?
-Styopa
... for one, the question should also include whether religions are even suited for modern life and scientific advances. Religions mostly still operate on century and millennia old superstition and mysticism, and most (albeit shrinking number of) people will still gladly accept everything thanks to childhood teaching when everything is unquestionably accepted from parents and authority figures.
Anyway, religious leaders (which may or may not "coincide" with political leadership as well) will find a way to lie around contradictions between scientific facts and religious texts. Anything to continue their hold on people's minds, souls and money ... even if 100% exact proof against religious beliefs were presented, people will still cling to their faith and will try to argue why the proof is wrong. Look e.g. at evolution of species ... e.g. the Bible doesn't say species evolve, still people believe in creation by God. It's a choose and pick situation, where some passages of scriptures will be taken literally, while others are chosen not to be ...
Let's suppose that in a few years someone discovers definitive proof that there is life a few thousand light years away.
It will be big news for a week or two. People who are into the idea of ETs will be happy; people who aren't comfortable with them will question (or flat out disbelieve) the evidence. Everyone will discuss the possible implications until they get bored with the topic.
After a month or so, it will fade into the cultural background and life will continue as before. With no way to get there and no means to communicate, the fact of the existence of extra-terrestrial life simply won't have much impact on anyone's day-to-day life.
Net effect on humanity: minimal.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Many people who call themselves Hindus believe that. However, Hinduism is essentially a ritual complex that can include both people who believe that and people who do not believe that.
Wikipedia is not a useful source for this particular issue. Perhaps you live in the backwoods somewhere and have not become aware of over a century of problems arising because Hinduism is presented in ordinary reference sources through a Western religious lens? Meanwhile, scholars of comparative religion and anthropologists have always been keen to emphasize the ritual-centered and inclusive features of Hinduism. It is involvement in this ritual complex, combined with a tolerance of other people's beliefs (i.e. it's fine to be atheist, but it's best to keep your belief that your fellow Hindu's object of devotion doesn't exist to yourself) that makes one a Hindu, even if one personally rejects the supernatural.
How is that belief superstitious and incompatible with atheism? It's any atheist's observation of the anthropic principle.
I believe what you are trying to do is move science into the same uncertainty as faith is, as you can't do it the other way around.
Anyway, sciences work completely differently ...
Faith takes an assumption, and even without proof and even under objective contradiction, sticks with the assumption, arguing away contradiction (which doesn't go away by that)
Science takes an assumption and researches whether the assumption is correct. If there are valid contradiction, the assumption is either dropped or corrected, then repeats from the beginning, until proof is found that the assumption is correct. But even then, new findings may raise new contradictions, at which real scientist will not hesitate to start the whole cycle again.
I reckon the latter is a whole lot more sensible ...
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
The bible literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example.
...just as an example, the early Christian theologians worked out these questions over 1700 years ago. Not a big deal for the Christian worldview.
I wouldn't limit things to Christianity. The old testament literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example. So other religions that accept the old testament have a precedent of accepting non-human intelligent beings.
Or a long belch followed by, "You Earthlings keep any toothpicks handy?"
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And now, in an effort to steer this thread towards something resembling topicality, I offer up the James Blish classic sci-fi series After Such Knowledge, in particular, the first volume, A Case of Conscience .
In which the aliens feel sorry for us because they know our religions are bunk, but feel ethically constrained from telling us so. Turns out they have perfect ethics and no religion, which represents something of a problem, if you're a Jesuit...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Intelligence is the only thing separating theists and atheists
I find that offensive - and I'm an atheist. In the past we've had people claim that whites are smarter than blacks, men are smarter than women, democrats are smarter than republicans and vice versa.
I don't find it offensive. I think it's just wrong, which has nothing to do with whether something is offensive.
I suspect that the people making such claims are the stupid ones. Not in the sense of IQ, but in the sense of being dumb-asses looking to affirm their "I'm better than someone else" beliefs, same as some religious people have internalized a "holier-than-thou" attitude and look down on other religions and the "unwashed heathen".
I think there is probably a high correlation between being wrong and being stupid. I wouldn't say that I expect religious people to be that much dumber than non-religious people. I just think they are simply wrong about 1 more thing on average.
A good portion of the world's (well the US's) religions aren't ready for Evolution. Of course they are not ready for ET.
Seriously?
You consider extremists to be a good example of a religion?
You consider Ku Kux Klan to be a good representation of Christianity as well?
They WHERE christian...
What makes it not true?
A god is basically a percieved magical being, capable of doing unexplained things.
And unwiiling or uncapable of making you comprehend what it does.
The uniform lack of any good advice indicating a technology in any way advanced from those the insights were supposedly given to. Nothing so advanced as "wash your hands before touching any wound", or a reasonable tip about cooking to eliminate parasites (instead of, for instance, forbidding shellfish and so on... just dumb, straight up primitive stuff.)
All religions fail this simple test: Their all-knowing patron (of whatever type) manifests as utterly clueless. So whatever else might have been going on -- and that certainly leaves a very wide field -- visiting aliens can be very cleanly ruled out.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Hacking? Honey, I'm not hacking, I'm practicing. No, no, don't take them off. I like the way the line of the stocking goes up the back of your leg.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I read that series decades ago and seem to remember that there is a twist in the tail.
The way I remember it, the aliens had been created by the devil in order to undermine christian faith. Once that became obvious (some symbols were involved) they ceased to exist. What a strange world-view, I have no idea what Blish's beliefs were.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
My worldview wouldn't change a whit.
We're already aware of life on a planet. That's what we are. Us, and cats, and dogs, and everything else living here. As humans, we're already aware of the great diversity of life even sourced from just the one planet. Likewise, the range of intelligence. Life, intelligence, on some planet? Spacecraft? Interest in exploring? Nothing groundbreaking there. Not a thing. Already known facts. It happens; we've watched it happen.
So, another case? Ok. Interesting? Sure. Absolutely. But already a 100% fit with what we know. The whole shebang is going to be about things to learn in the areas of culture and technology. Just specifics. The rest, we already knew.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, the Jesuit concluded that the aliens and their world must be the product of Satan because they had what appeared to be a perfectly moral society but without any knowledge of God. This directly contradicts the view that all knowledge of right and wrong comes only from knowing God.
(He was later disabused of this notion by none other than the Pope, who pointed out that this reeked of the Manichaean Heresy.)
The Lithians did not merely cease to exist: their planet exploded. Most likely due to human mining efforts, but the priest was conducting an exorcism at the time, so it's perhaps a bit ambiguous.
I don't remember the second book very well--I should really order copies of the whole tetralogy--but the last 2 books, Black Easter and The Day After Judgement, are also very thought-provoking.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The /. hatred for religion is well known.
Hatred and disdain are two different things.
They are just as good examples of religious followers as anyone else, who are you to say who has the correct interpretation?
... whatever
They're products of the same book. On what grounds can you shun them? I mean they're just another (albeit extremist) version of the same old story.
Eifelheim is absolutely awesome. The story is original, it's intelligent, well written, caters to history buffs as well...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
We should thank secular values for keeping religion in check and forcing its reformation. BTW islam needs a deep reformation too ASAP if you didn't notice.
This seems to be based on a common misunderstanding, based on confusing education with wisdom and/or intelligence. Just because we all have color TVs in the industrialized world now doesn't mean that we have gained one grain of wisdom.
For all it's worth, a space-faring civilization could be a a couple of dozens or hundreds of years ahead of us in terms of engineering and science, and still they might be a complete bunch of morons. They could be more intelligent than us, but they could also be much less intelligent than us. They could be more religious than us or less religious than us. It might have taken them 100 times longer than us to have come up with Newtonian mechanics, they might all be mindless religious zealots, could have the strangest religious views about the universe, might love to kill or torture aliens (=us) for fun or in order to bring us their 'wisdom', and so forth. We simply don't know, and almost nothing can be inferred from the level of technical development about these matters.
What I find most annoying is that Spinger publishes this in a "Popular Astronomy" series. At least they could have classified it under religious studies, speculative philosophy, or put it in a "Popular Astrology" series.
What ?! Islam can't tolerate Maths ? It's not like Arabs invented a big part of it back then...
look man, you're just defining people living with (what you call) Hindu culture as followers of he Hindu religion - or that because there is a sect that argues that god can't be observed they're atheists.
it doesn't hold water. first you should define Hindus as something, that they believe in something - let's say that they believe in karma, and now after saying that they're incompatible with atheism. just saying that hindus just follow rituals and believe whatever they want doesn't work either because they follow different sets of rituals from each other. heck, everyone on the planet could be said to be a hindu on those basis.
doesn't really help that most hindus have polytheistic view and believe in spirits and all other kinds of superstitious things - that is magic and spirits. Richard Dawkins celebrates christmas and for sure saying that he is a christian would be wrong.
on the whole for most hindus to be a hindu is to believe in some magic or another, some deity or multiple deities or multiple appearances of the same deity in different forms. sure that goes with bona fide atheism just like a fish goes with a bicycle.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Atheists don't believe any gods exist. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, an afterlife, souls, and a host of other things.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I don't have a citation to support that most Christians take this view, but I can confirm having heard these sentiments in every instance when this topic has been brought up among Christians, whether in casual conversation or a more serious theological discussion like you'd get in Sunday school.
As something of a citation - I just finished reading the book "Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch", by Philip K. Dick, a sci-fi author who sometimes incorporated elements of theology. It was written in 1964 when the societal shift away from religion started accelerating, and aliens were establishing a prominent place in popular culture. In the novel, alien contact has been made, but is not commonplace. Of the people who are still "Neo-Christians" the view is split between: (a) The aliens are God, (b) The aliens are nonhuman creations of God, something akin to spirits, angels, or long-lost brothers of humanity.
There really aren't any alternatives for reconciling Christianity with extraterrestrial life. Although I have heard some theologians toying with idea A, idea B seems a lot more palatable to the average Christian since it's the more conservative position. It also lets the Christian give an answer to "But why don't the aliens worship God?" as "They are misguided heathens." This is the same position that was taken when Europeans discovered the New World full of strange-looking nonchristians.
We would see the same scenario play out if we make contact with aliens. Or molemen who live in the Earth's core. The average Christian doesn't think much about this topic now since that means challenging their assumptions, so it's a question largely ignored, except by the more theologically inclined. Those invariably arrive at conclusions A or B.
He discovered that from Baptists to Buddhists, from Catholics to Mormons, from Islam to the Anglican Communion, religious views on alien life differ widely.
Well, what'd you expect? However, I think the problem is of a deeper nature than 'what does so and so religion think about extra-terrestial life' - it is about the compatibility between religion and science. Science is fundamentally about facts and what follows from the facts: you make observations, then produce theory etc. In many religions, if not all, you try to start from the other end: you settle on some Ultimate Truth, then try to make your facts fit; that way it becomes a bit hit-or-miss whether your belief allows for a new discovery of any kind.
Another, potentially interesting question would be - is it possible to produce a religion that is strictly scientific in nature without it simply being science? Or IOW, can any form of religion add anything to science?
Atheist = someone who doesn't believe in a god.
That's it. The rest of your post is just mindless drivel dressed up in big (and poorly-spelt) words, desperately crafted to make you feel like you're not a complete fool. (Hint: it didn't work).
So. back then Sunni and shitte muslims could live with each other without killing each other too.
That doesn't happen today either. Every muslims country is 90% one and 10% of the other. and the other always is pushed down.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Back in the 1940s, the Catholic church said that it was impossible that there were any other advanced species on other planets, because "we are god's children and the bible says nothing about him creating any others".
Now, the pope says the opposite, that "if there are any other advanced life forms, then they must also be god's children".
A complete and 100% reversal of "infallible" doctrine.
The religions will make up excuses. They are good at it.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Are non-theists ready for the possibility that life is actually exceedingy rare (ignoring the possibility that advanced civilizations simply don't want to be found)? If life generated spontaneously on this planet and yet this is the only planet with life then that's a little...odd.
"Be fruitful and multiply" enthusiasts like the grandparent AC are encouraged to experience the logical consequence of their beliefs firsthand by trying to navigate the streets of Dhaka.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
At the current rate of discovery, astronomers will have identified more than a million exoplanets by the year 2045. That means, if life is at all common in the Milky Way, astronomers could soon detect it.
It means nothing of the sort. The methods that we're using to identify exoplanets cannot detect life on those plants.
The world's religions weren't ready for the invention of the wheel.
The theory behind Christianity is that everyone is a sinner and needs Jesus to redeem them lest they suffer some kind of punishment. Many Christians are flexible enough to believe that Jesus has appeared in many forms with many names, and as such, many other religions are also perfectly valid. If we generalize this, "original sin" is an abstraction, representing the idea that all sapient creatures have the ability to choose to do evil and need redemption. Extended to advanced alien civilizations, the assumption is that at some point in their evolution, they too will have developed the ability to choose to do wrong (harm others in some way, etc.) and therefore need a redeemer. If God has appeared on Earth in some form many times, logically, He will have appeared on every civilized planet many times, offering every advanced intelligent creature an opportunity to repent and ask for forgiveness.
On the other hand, this is probably an exceptional viewpoint, and many religious people who believe that believers in other religions (or none at all) are infidels will decide that this is an opportunity to either convert or kill off those evil godless aliens.
Incidentally, Thomas E. Hanna (http://tehanna.com) is one of the most intellectual Christians I've ever known. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of his beliefs, debating philosophy and religion with him is downright enjoyable, because he doesn't try to shove a set of rigid beliefs down your throat. He just reasons. I can't be offended by that. I'm not really into going to church, but if I lived in Lakeland, I'd go to his. His blog tackles a lot of concepts that may be esoteric to non-Christians, but for those who are, he pushes the envelope and as a result gets under the skin of many conservatives. I enjoy anything that challenges established idiologies even in small ways.
Not true. The dharma-karma reincarnation point of view is not mandatory in Hinduism, its but one point of view. One of the earliest schools of Hinduism was the Samkhya school. Which is an atheistic school with adherents even to this day in India. The later schools range between various shades of atheism to theism. Jainism and Buddhism are off-shoots of Hinduism and both are largely atheistic.
The Lithians did not merely cease to exist: their planet exploded. Most likely due to human mining efforts, but the priest was conducting an exorcism at the time, so it's perhaps a bit ambiguous.
It's intentionally ambiguous. The Name of the Game is that there's never any concrete proof of God or the Devil which leaves you stuck between deciding whether they don't exist or they're simply keeping out of sight. Faith versus knowledge.
Religion will not cause any significant changes. There is not a religion that exists that is not used to constantly shifting their narratives to fit current events. Sure some of them will predict that they exists, and others will state, no their is no possibility any other life exists, and others will have no opinion. And when and if they are found their will be huge intense philosophical debate on if they have souls, but none of it will dictate on how we interact. Human Nature on the other hand will dictate that will fear and hate them, and either enslave, hunt/harvest, or eradicate them; Or at least try to do one of these three things.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The followers of a religion often care little about what their leaders and theologians say, especially on esoteric topics. There are fanatical cultists who hang on some personality's every word, but those are the exception.
How many Catholics do you know who use birth control? How many Southern Baptists drink? How many Jews work on Saturday?
If anything, finding a non-intelligent life form would be pretty much meaningless. It may even reinforce the Christian idea of human exceptionality. It'd just be more plants, animals, bacteria, etc. for them to steward on behalf of their deity.
Finding another intelligent life form would be a thorny theological problem for some, but a simple mission to convert for others. It might just cause a whole bunch of new splitter congregations based on differing opinions. It may cause wars among factions. Whole new religions might sprout and grow based around the discovery. If we ever find an intelligent and communicative species with their own religion, some portion of humans will convert to that no matter how different it is from anything we already have.
TL;DR: What theologians and church leaders for religions that exist now have to say has little to do with the new belief systems such a major event would usher in.
Then you are not atheist, you are agnostic (or Pagan, or something else). A soul, and judgement system for a soul, does not meet atheist criteria of a deity-less universe.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We should thank secular values for keeping religion in check and forcing its reformation. BTW islam needs a deep reformation too ASAP if you didn't notice.
lol
In the West, secular values are Judea-Christian values. You can't separate one from the other, no matter how hard you try. But suppose you could. Why would one group's secular values be any better or worse than another's? Why would your secular values be better than Islam's religious values?
So. back then Sunni and shitte muslims could live with each other without killing each other too.
That doesn't happen today either. Every muslims country is 90% one and 10% of the other. and the other always is pushed down.
I don't think that is unique to Muslims. Pretty much any group that espouses a particular ideology, once it obtains a majority, will use their power to keep and expand it. The ideology doesn't have to be based on religion. It could be political, economic, social, or whatever. When groups value their ideology more than they value people, bad things will always happen.
They are experts at using circular reasoning and 'because the (insert holy book here) says so' arguments for thousands of years. Why would the discovery of aliens change that?
People who are delusional always find reasons to continue to believe in things that aren't there, the arguments don't have to be logical or correct. They just continue to believe in them.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
How is that incompatible to atheism?
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible.
What about all the flavors of Hinduism which ARE atheistic?
Man, it's like you only took a quick peek at India and moved on. Listen, India has a FUCKTON of people. And they are as diverse and complex as any other grouping of a billion people (like all of Europe and N. America combined). Their religions (plural) are all grouped together under the umbrella term of "hinduism" along with a lot of schools of thought that you really can't define as religions unless you want the term to start including AynRand's cult and PaveTheEarth movement in the term.
You know how there are a lot of christian sects? Like Baptist and Methodists? While they might see each other as heathens, that sort of diversity doesn't even come close to Hindu. Even if you include all the... what are they called? Abrahamic? Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Yeah, EVEN THEY have a more unified belief system then the Hindus.
You don't have to study the religion very far to know that much.
And you obviously haven't studied it very far.
Another very interesting postulation is in this book: Skywriting. An interesting twist on the intersection between religion and cosmology ... and you learn a bit about cosmology in the process.
"Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
True.
However religion gives the flimsiest of reasons why. Because I said so(in the name of GOD). If you don't agree with me then you don't get (God) gifts of (xxxx). You do want (xxxx) don't you?
Other leaders can and do go to violence on flimsy evidence. However it I easier to spot. It is why the reasons for Iraq changed. They couldn't inf the WMDs. So it became about over throwing a dictator.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
We don't choose our religion. We are indoctrinated into it, first, by our parents, secondly, by the culture. Certainly it takes some intelligence to question this kind of received wisdom, and atheism does correlate with intelligence, but high intelligence does not automatically equal atheism. Humans are hardwired for magical thinking.
It will be interesting to see how religion responds to the notion that life exists all over the galaxy, (if indeed it does). But this would merely be the next step in discovering our place in the universe, which over the years has gotten further and further from the center. As we've seen, most religions eventually adapt to reality. After all, in the world of make-believe, anything goes, so religions can adapt when they're ready to. But, I don't think we'll be seeing incontrovertible evidence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life in our lifetimes. I think the best we can hope for is the detection of certain molecules in an atmosphere which may indicate the presence of biological activity.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
And have you noticed that many religious types aren't very trustworthy themselves? I'm speaking mainly of Christians, of course. I suspect this is because they expect easy forgiveness of their sins later on, (especially the evangelical types).
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?
Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Oh really?! You must be either ignorant, republican, a troll, in bad faith or all of them. Bye troll.
Actually, none of the above. However, one has to take a pretty twisted view of history to ignore the shaping of Western society, for better or worse, because of religious influence. Doesn't make that influence right or wrong, but if you can't even admit its influence, then that speaks more to your own bias than to religion's.
"Weintraub also identified two religions – Mormonism and Seventh-day Adventism – whose theology embraces extraterrestrials."
Swedenborgianism is a another brand of Christianity that embraces extraterrestrials. Swedenborg wrote about conversations he had with the spirits of extraterrestrials where they told him about their worlds and cultures.
Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?
Fair point, you could be playing devils advocate. However, it was your statements I responded to so a fair response.
Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being? Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Confident? I'm just stating the obvious. There can be life on planets. It can be intelligent. It can go to space.
I don't need confidence to make those observations; even a vague awareness of the world around me suffices.
And I fail to see what my intelligence has to do with any of it. These very simple facts wouldn't change any regardless if I was Einstein or a drooling idiot.
Your comment is downright strange.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life.
Angels fail at least one of the criteria necessary for "life", and possibly all of them.
Its already a known fact that what the rank and file believers consider life and what most scientists consider life do not agree.
Don't try moving the goal posts. We are discussing what the rank and file believe, and how well they can incorporate alien life into their belief system.
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Some people believe that they judge themselves during a life review.
Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
Okay...
Required reading for internet skeptics
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
The Wiki article and definition is wrong? The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too? Or perhaps you are attempting to nitpick a fragment of the atheist position so that you can suit a belief that is surely not atheist? Quite possibly attempting to cloth a deity in a disguise so that your version of a deity does not match a more common theological view (without realizing that your deity is still a deity).
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again? This is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to unicorns.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We should thank secular values for keeping religion in check and forcing its reformation. BTW islam needs a deep reformation too ASAP if you didn't notice.
lol In the West, secular values are Judea-Christian values. You can't separate one from the other, no matter how hard you try.
Sorry, but the arrow of progress usually comes from ideas outside of religion or at least outside of the fundamental, literal interpretation of religious texts. Democracy is not a Judea-Christian value, we got that from the greeks. And not from their religious beliefs, but rather from their philosophers. While there were Christians who fought slavery, the idea that slavery is immoral is not based on the Jewish nor Christian sacred texts which explain in detail who can be a slave, and how to treat slaves. 10 commandments, none of them even hint that slavery is bad. Gay rights? Nope. Women's equality? Nope. Religious freedom? Nope? Freedom of speech? Nope. Secular western society is a direct result of The Enlightenment which was not based on Christian theology, even though many of the participants were Christian. The Enlightenment was based on the belief that humans were capable of understanding how the world works and that we could and should use that knowledge to improve life before death. The Enlightenment encouraged questioning long held beliefs and assumptions.
Modern society is built upon The Enlightenment. So called Judeo-Christian values have evolved in response to The Enlightenment. Not the other way around.
But suppose you could. Why would one group's secular values be any better or worse than another's? Why would your secular values be better than Islam's religious values?
If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
We should thank secular values for keeping religion in check and forcing its reformation. BTW islam needs a deep reformation too ASAP if you didn't notice.
lol
In the West, secular values are Judea-Christian values. You can't separate one from the other, no matter how hard you try.
Sorry, but the arrow of progress usually comes from ideas outside of religion or at least outside of the fundamental, literal interpretation of religious texts. Democracy is not a Judea-Christian value, we got that from the greeks. And not from their religious beliefs, but rather from their philosophers. While there were Christians who fought slavery, the idea that slavery is immoral is not based on the Jewish nor Christian sacred texts which explain in detail who can be a slave, and how to treat slaves. 10 commandments, none of them even hint that slavery is bad. Gay rights? Nope. Women's equality? Nope. Religious freedom? Nope? Freedom of speech? Nope. Secular western society is a direct result of The Enlightenment which was not based on Christian theology, even though many of the participants were Christian. The Enlightenment was based on the belief that humans were capable of understanding how the world works and that we could and should use that knowledge to improve life before death. The Enlightenment encouraged questioning long held beliefs and assumptions.
Modern society is built upon The Enlightenment. So called Judeo-Christian values have evolved in response to The Enlightenment. Not the other way around.
But suppose you could. Why would one group's secular values be any better or worse than another's? Why would your secular values be better than Islam's religious values?
If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering.
Western society didn't rely on the Greeks until the Holy Roman Empire became Western society, so while Greek philosophy is part of our modern culture, it's because the Catholic Church embraced it that made it so.
And while modern society was built on the Enlightenment, it was based on the prior periods that were again under church influence? Why do we not marry first-cousins? Not because we discovered genetics because of the Enlightenment, but because long before religion said not to do so. Why do we have hospitals, orphanages, universities and legal systems? Again, not because of the enlightenment, but because the Catholic and later Anglican churches said to do so. Why do we care about the poor and homeless? Again, not the enlightenment or secular values, but deeply ingrained religious values handed down from generation to generation.
Not to be an apologist for the catholics, but you can't ignore the impact they had on Western civilization. One could even argue that if it weren't for them the Enlightenment would never had happened. Remember, unlike other denominations, they are the ones that upheld faith AND reason, not just faith alone.
Regardless, since culture and values are handed down from one generation to the next. The fact that in the past that culture and value system was heavily influenced by religion means that even today, our modern society is tainted by it. You simply cannot escape it. Don't get me wrong, all sorts of terrible things have been done in the name of religion but that doesn't mean that today's mores are not still influenced by that religion. Even the United States Constitution includes a freedom to express one's faith without government interference. If the US is the epitome of western society and values, it's first principle even deals with religion.
We are all products of our culture and our culture includes Judea-Christian values, whether we ourselves share those religious beliefs or not.
He realized that people's reactions will be heavily influenced by their religious beliefs
To realize is to become aware of a fact. The above clause is not a fact, it's a hypothesis. It's not a realization, it's an assertion. Catholicism forbids birth control, but a majority of Catholics are in favor of it. So even if religion has affected their views to birth control, which is speculative, then that influence has been unconvincing in most cases.
I'm a secularist agnostic, and this article just seems like an excuse to attack religion. To the best of my knowledge, all major religious texts are silent on extraterrestrial life, so there's no inherent conflict between religion and aliens.
To the extent that I am at all concerned about people's reaction to the discovery of aliens -- which is to say, hardly at all -- I am more concerned with how we would handle it on a global scale rather than how any subgroup would react. There will always be naysayers, and (it's worth noting) they may well be right! Should it happen, alien contact may well turn out to be a tragic event in the story of our species. Or it might be a monumental achievement. But aside from some ground rules, like not shooting first and asking questions later, I think it makes sense to wait until we know what we're dealing with before making any policy decisions, let alone worrying about the effects of any dissidents, or the motivation for their dissent.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The Wiki article and definition is wrong?
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too?
You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again?
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
Required reading for internet skeptics
The dark ages were followed by the middle ages and the Renaissance, were they not? Some might even argue that the various monasteries preserved the knowledge and history from then and ancient times and without them, there would have been no age of enlightenment (or beer).
Please define "doing right" in a universe that does not have a god.
It means maximizing human happiness, whether God(s) exist or not.
obligatory Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Right away you are ignoring the definition of deity completely. Notice also that you neglected the definition of a soul, and did not explain how a soul can be judged without a deity.
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain. Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied. I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work. None of the people who publicly debate the atheist position address this point, because belief in a "soul" is irrational without a deity. Perhaps you can do what Marx, Godwin, and Miller can't do.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
As I stated previously, putting different clothing on a deity does not make it anything but a deity. Arguing that Hinduism does not believe in a Abrahamic God does not make their belief that a deity controls the Universe any different. The Hindu religion just gives different clothing to the deity and calls it a different name (different supernatural powers, but not really a different supernatural purpose).
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose, you are attempting to cherry pick a fragment to suit your argument. That said, you have not benefited your argument at all. You are trying to compare an action that you can make with a physical object with a measurable result, to an imaginary action on an imaginary object and an imaginary result. I don't consider that puzzling, I consider that irrational.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's a basic tenet of anthropology that religions are defined by observing the beliefs and practices of the people claiming affiliation. Religions are not defined by an outsider imposing his expectation of a rigid dogma. Within Hinduism, there is an immense variety of beliefs and practices, some of them mutually contradictory to Western eyes, and that's fine by Hindus themselves. Even if most Hindus believe in the supernatural, others do not, and all of that coexists within, because inclusiveness is an value that most Hindus hold to.
Someone outside this religion (or outside any culture being studied in general) has no right to point at one person claiming an affiliation with Hinduism and say that "he is a real Hindu" and point at another and say "he is not".
"While there were Christians who fought slavery, the idea that slavery is immoral is not based on the Jewish nor Christian sacred texts which explain in detail who can be a slave, and how to treat slaves. 10 commandments, none of them even hint that slavery is bad."
Maybe you haven't read it in detail but in these texts were the first ever commandments that slaves be given rights, and eventually freed as well as punishmnets for mistreatment of slaves.
if that's what you mean by "how to treat slaves" then i apologize but it seems a gross oversimplification of the fact that before the old testament and foundation of judiasm, slaves had no rights and would never be free.
" Gay rights? Nope."
In texts that propose that sexual perversion is evil and evil is bad, no i don't think it would champion "gay rights".
"Women's equality? Nope."
the old testament gave women rights above what had existed previously, the new testament elevated women to equality with men in the eyes of god...
Religious freedom?
"Religious freedom", wow ok, maybe the old testament but definitely not the new... the new testament forbids anything other than loving your neighbor so i don't see how anyone could associate anything else with christianity without blatantly overlooking the stated intent of it's founder.
Freedom of speech?
wtf? i'm not even sure what you're talking about.. grasping at straws i guess...
"If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering."
the one value the universe holds which is pretty self evident, is one of balance, which is pretty much the core value of the old/new testament too.. so.. if i had to guess you hate anything religious and this attests to the slant and bias your post is full of...
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain.
As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.
Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied.
There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.
I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work.
I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose,
Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.
Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces.
How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.
You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.
I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position.
You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.
Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.
Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.
Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.
Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.
I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Religion is used to give arguments that have no firm basis support that protects them from being assailed. Proof of that is how fast the Mayan Temple System was abandoned in Central America when climate fluctuation destroyed the economy based on corn in the 13th century. Conversely, Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam, Judism, are scoundrel refuges for people who don't want their idea of moral authority and cultural centrism to be questioned. A scientific discovery which refutes special creation isn't going to deter this sort of thinking in people, whether it comes from Islamic extremists or Southern Baptists who embrace the Inerrant Word from Scripture. A better response is to base political and economic institutions on secular norms that reduce the influence of these reactionary forces. The challenge is that secular systems do not teach moral principal enough so that moral authoritarianism does not find appeal in those wronged by economic and political expediency. This is why we have movements like ISIS at the current time; not because they are theologically based. It is because academic and institutional sources for secular leadership do not base their training on sound ethics, even ethics that is based on universal human rights, let alone the sanctity of life wherever it exists.
This is more immediate than the questions which science will answer: How complexity beginning in inanimate physical systems can result in life without resorting to an intelligent designer. Such talking points have a hidden agenda to give moral authority to cultural beliefs. The question of how life arose is less important than how origins justifies the norms embraced by religion. How the physical universe stores information, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by local stores of complex information, may be the answer to false dichotomies about life, and research may tell us that other places have solved this issue millions of times over, producing living systems that are unique from the one on Earth, or convergant with ours but where it is impossible for the similar systems to be genetically related; there being no panspermy possible. I think that some unique chemistry not like our own will be found to support life that would be fundementally alian to ours, That would surely put an end to Special creation. This finding could be a simple as finding trace fossils on Mars or other Solar System body revealing a biology basically different from what appeared on the Earth.
Of course the true Bigots will wiggle and change the terms of the argument and say that God changes the rules how ever he wants, small "h" deliberate.
If true secularists want to defeat religious bigotry and theocracy, they should start by embracing ethics and based more firmly on standards stronger than business expediancy, for example, or short-term profit, or survival of some organization. Every time some secular leader fails to do things either to live up to principal or based on some strong ethical system, this gives fuel to those who will act with authority based on ethnic pride, such as Putin and the Russians, or out of moral bigotry, such as ISIS and some of the religious people in America.
It's intentionally ambiguous.
I certainly did not intend to imply that Blish wrote it as he did by accident. :)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
...
Maybe you haven't read it in detail but in these texts were the first ever commandments that slaves be given rights, and eventually freed as well as punishmnets for mistreatment of slaves. ...
" Gay rights? Nope." In texts that propose that sexual perversion is evil and evil is bad, no i don't think it would champion "gay rights".
"Women's equality? Nope." the old testament gave women rights above what had existed previously, the new testament elevated women to equality with men in the eyes of god...
Religious freedom? "Religious freedom", wow ok, maybe the old testament but definitely not the new... the new testament forbids anything other than loving your neighbor so i don't see how anyone could associate anything else with christianity without blatantly overlooking the stated intent of it's founder.
Freedom of speech? wtf? i'm not even sure what you're talking about.. grasping at straws i guess...
"If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering."
the one value the universe holds which is pretty self evident, is one of balance, which is pretty much the core value of the old/new testament too.. so.. if i had to guess you hate anything religious and this attests to the slant and bias your post is full of...
You're right, I'm not found of religion in general, especially not when the literal interpretation of religious texts can be used to oppress people and suppress progress. And my post is in response to one claiming that all our modern values are specifically Judeo-Christian, so course it's "slanted." It's a counter-point. Now, to your points:
The Old Testament gives some rights to some slaves. I guess that's improvement. It does not require all slaves to be released eventually, as you imply. It's still OK to have slaves for their entire lives in both testaments. It's also OK to beat them though in certain circumstances the "owner" may be punished and/or the slave released. Nowhere in the bible is it clearly immoral to own another human being. That is a modern value that did not come from the texts.
We agree that the texts don't support gay rights. Clearly that that is a secular value, not a Judeo-Christian one.
At times, the New Testament does elevate women in the eyes of God. Unfortunately it also makes it clear that women are second class citizens on Earth, which is the life I care about. So women can pray, proselytize, and get to go to heaven (yay!), but must submit to their husbands, be silent in church, should not teach or "usurp" a man. Not a strong case for equal rights, female CEOs or even women's suffrage (boo!). Once again, equal rights for women on Earth is a secular one, not a Judeo-Christian one.
Freedom of speech is a core value in modern democratic societies, which is why I mentioned it. Not that the BIble has much to say one way or another (yes, blasphemy will be forgiven, for the most part so I guess that's nice.) The same for religious freedom, it's a value of modern secular society not the Bible. I'm not saying the Bible should support it, just that it's a modern secular value not a Judeo-Christian value.
The whole point of my original post was that modern values are not the obvious result of Judeo-Christian sacred texts, they are the result of external pressures (Greek philosophy, The Enlightenment, etc.) or at best a cherry-picking of those texts by people who's moral values have thankfully evolved.
P.S. On the whole Old Testament vs. New Testament argument where supposedly the New Testament makes everything better. As far as I can tell, actual Bible scholars are still arguing whether the New Testament replaces all of the Old Testament's laws, or just some of them and if some of them exactly which ones. This is unfortunate when debating
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
And right after hitting submit, the typos just pop out of the page at me. Why can't we edit our posts? Keep a history that people can review, I'm fine with that. But seriously, let he that has not ever typo'd cast the first Godwin.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
There is a significant difference between knowing something and having faith in something.
"Knowing" something that is actually not known, is a big problem for religions. And other people.
It is also a big problem when troubleshooting computer software, and other technical systems...
Bad example - religious affiliations in Europe didn't change significantly across the "Dark Ages".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I thought it was Goodwin?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Strange - when I tried having serious theological discussion in Sunday School (like, "do you have any evidence to support that claim?"), I got thrown out. I was about 5 at the time.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Speaking as an atheist, and also a non-believer in souls, re-incarnation and an afterlife, I don't think you're right.
Without recourse to science fiction, I can envisage, within a century or so, the transfer of minds into computing systems. If that works then you've moved a non-corporeal entity (your consciousness, your memories, your personality) from one body to another. If that's not, functionally, a soul, an afterlife and re-incarnation, then I don't know what is. But that wouldn't stop me remaining an atheist.
There's still no need for a god of any sort.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Why do you keep bringing a soul into a discussion of atheism? The two are separate things.
Consider a universe ; it has no life forms, just dead chemistry Nuclear fusion, silicates, ices. That's it. Nothing else. No life. Nothing conscious or even self aware. An atheist position on such a universe is that there is no supernatural deity in that universe. Whether there are any souls in that universe is completely immaterial to that question.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I thought it was Goodwin?
Nope it's Godwin's Law. Admittedly my use of it was rather oblique as I was thinking of "grammar Nazis," the behavior of and label for are both ridiculous. Apologies if I'm missing a pun or something.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I know it's Godwin. I was trying to make a joke. I believe the relevant meme on Slashdot is "woosh"?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"