Why do some Christians say life cannot exist elsewhere?

Post Reply New Topic

Nice try at recovering from a rhetorical blunder. But not good enough.
The blunder being picking a heretic to be a poster child for Christian thought (like making Arlen Spectre a poster child for Republicanism).
Your subsequent examples are all from after the Reformation when life and thought in both catholic and protestant Europe became more secularized than it was in the Middle Ages. Whether the cited thinkers came upon thier ideas because of, or despite, the influence of Christianity- is left an open question.

Personally I dont know if Christianity was hostile or friendly to the idea of life beyond earth in past centuries.

But ive noticed the same thing that the original poster observed: modern day Evangelicals can talk enthusiastically about the latest Star Wars movie, and then cop an attitude when the coffee break conversation drifts to the subject of whether real aliens exist.

I dont know why that is. I assume that thier theology is opposed to the idea for some reason.

The stick figure issue is to rebut the argument against the position I DON'T hold. I did that mostly because it was still not a good argument and I don't like those.

In any case, "gain knowledge" isn't a single process, or even a simple basic thing. I mean, the way in which a computer gains knowledge and the way I gain knowledge, and the way in which let's say that society gains knowledge, and even the way in which a CD gains knowledge are all different things with different meanings to them. Only one of these ways reflects our psychological processes, and that is obviously the one that is most directly how we gain knowledge. The other ways are still gains in knowledge, arguably, for the new possessor, but computers are not said to be made in God's image. Additionally, I have doubts that Genesis 1 was referring to science, the reason I say that is because science has never been the priority of Christianity over its spirituality, and additionally the early Jews are unlikely to have had a lot in terms of technology or anything like that.

It could refer to the soul, but then again, who could know what has a soul and what doesn't? Are we talking about the possibility of souled aliens, or soulless aliens? Under this kind of idea both are possible, but really.... well.... neither have much purpose in their creation given the scriptures known and even some good reasons to believe that such things wouldn't exist. Why would God create soulless aliens that we should enslave and eat to our will despite their cries for help? Why should God create soulless aliens that go to war with us? Why should God create souled aliens that we end up terribly misunderstanding and killing hordes of? Why should God create souled aliens that are technically saved, but whose salvation we can never be certain of given that X'rieagei is not the name we give to Jesus? The very idea causes so many problems that labeling the notion as blasphemy seems sensible.

Are you talking about Bruno Giordano in the 16th century? I don't see his comments as even evidence, much less addressing my problems. As well, some of the problems I've brought up are ones that dddhhg brought up at first as well, as multiple atoning sacrifices are needed if alien lifeforms existed.

The blunder is all yours, my friend; it being misrepresenting what I said. I'm not trying to convince anyone that the thoughts of Bruno, Huygens, etc. are in any way representative of Christianity. I just gave them as examples of thinkers adhering to the Christian faith who thought such thoughts, thereby demonstrating that the concept of alien lifeforms isn't unknown to Christianity. Tthe fact that the religious authorities after Bruno didn't explicitly condemn anyone for upholding the plurality of worlds (as far as I know) seems to indicate that at least gradually the idea became less abhorrent to them. (If it ever was really. Bruno was burned for other heresies as well.)

I think you may have misunderstood. Your post sounds like you think I'm a Christian, while I'm actually an agnostic. Some may say that contradicts, but from what I was told, an agnostic believes in some kind of higher power or God figure, but doesn't know what it is.

An agnostic holds no belief in a higher power but merely retains an attitude of ignorance.

Sand hit the nail on the head. Christian agnosticism really doesn't fit into the Christian belief system. If such a notion is accepted, then so would atheism be. (and there are Christian atheists out there)

Since there seems to be an accepted group of Jewish atheists perhaps it's time the Christian and Muslim atheists came out of the closet.

How does this work exactly? Being an atheist but still belonging to a religious group, I mean.

In another thread I acknowledged that religion was deeply involved with many merely cultural and traditional ceremonies and Jewish atheists still enjoy this activity with no belief in the supernatural. This is probably possible also with other religions.

Ah, I see. I hadn't thought about it from a cultural standpoint, it makes sense.

I give up then. It seems no matter what I say, I'm brought up on charges of ignorance and idiocy. I came here hoping to exchange ideas, but this part of Wrong planet seems to be more about arguing for the sake of arguing. I get insulted relentlessly, then accused of being aggressive when I return the favor. I don't understand why people are like that here, but I know when it's time to throw in the towel. And if any mods happen on this post, don't worry- you will never catch me "trolling" here again.

Greshym, I have read through this complete thread, no one has accused you of idiocy or insulted you. I am not quite sure where AG got the idea that you are claiming to be a christian agnostic but in explaining that this was not feasible he did not insult or demean you. Sand saying "An agnostic holds no belief in a higher power but merely retains an attitude of ignorance" I take to mean just that; agnostics don't know either way about god because they are ignorant of the facts, ie there is no proof positive either way. Using ignorant in this context is not insulting. I am quite happy to state that with regard to the true nature of the beginning of the universe I am completely ignorant.

You have started a debate/exchange of thoughts and ideas that has gone on now for 5 pages, that is no mean feat.

You rubbed a few people up the wrong way when you first came in here and some of us myself included were not particularly accommodating, but stick around, feel the place out, get to understand the dynamics here, and try not to take things quite so much to heart.

Well... ok? I have strong opinions. I didn't insult you or call you an idiot in that last remark. Christian atheists do exist, including some scholars, I just still think it is nonsense. Perhaps I am confused on you though.... You started this with an interest in Christian theology and then you also said this: "Your post sounds like you think I'm a Christian, while I'm actually an agnostic. Some may say that contradicts, but from what I was told, an agnostic believes in some kind of higher power or God figure, but doesn't know what it is.". Agnostic has no internal contradiction, so I tried to interpret this as "Christian agnostic" following your later definition of "believes in a higher power or God figure, but doesn't know what it is", to be some permutation of Christianity to say that you were a Christian who did not know much about the nature of God(which some Christians say God can only be described as NOT something, rather than given positive descriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology ) So, I thought this could go as a very very extreme version of that kind of theology. Did I misinterpret you?

This part of Wrongplanet has a lot of people with strong ideas. Strong ideas lead to arguing, as each idea distorts the perceived world, in a very strong and deep manner.(collection of data, interpretation of data, etc) Sometimes even finding the basis for distortion requires a lot of testing(which arguments attempt to do by forcing opponents to show consistency and validity of their model) and eventually through this, sometimes better understanding is found. Of course, the impulse to argue can dominate over this, but it is usually found out when another person has no good argument. One, each person can judge for themselves who is making a good argument. Secondly, each person can argue back to see how the response goes. Additionally, few people are willing to let their own ideas just get dismissed without trying to defend them, so arguments emerge just from that egoistic act alone.

But yeah, if the "ignorant" thing is just Sand's definition and.... well.... some things we're just ignorant of. Ignorance can be rational, such as we don't have enough time relative to other demands to do the research to be more informed. Ignorance can also be something that we are forced into, as the knowledge might not be findable. Most agnostics fall into the latter category. Some might fall into the former category and spend their time researching different religions.

No, no, no, ideas are not strong! They are just ideas.

(Insert adjective) people, not ideas, lead to arguing!

As an agnostic and for reasons outside of the bible I'd just say that if its there - more than likely it directly seeded us, for abiogenesis to happen in one instance is a rather insane fluke, with many universes its perhaps possible, however many times within the same universe - the odds of even one will make you dizzy, the later occurence is just playing long addition with exponents.

This is an area where I theologically disagree with Creation Ministries International, CMI, and may be incorrect. Their view is that,

Bates, G. (2007). Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?. Creation ministries international. Retrieved (2010, January 26) from http://creation.com/did-god-create-life ... er-planets

However, I think this view ignores two main types of beings, animals and angels. Animals, whether intelligent or otherwise similar in a few characteristics to humankind, are not made in God's image (however interpreted as to the exact nature of God's image in us is). Angels and fallen angels, these are supposed to be beings which far surpass us in intelligence and power, but they also are not made in God's image as we are. Regardless, as per this world being fallen and as per the judgment to come and this universe being nullified and remade, all creatures would be equally affected in this action, humans, animals, plants, and angelic beings to the extent of Revelation 20 et folios. So, since all these other creatures would be affected, then it would be moot to claim that alien life being affected would nullify their possible existence.

What is my view? That there could be life that God also created elsewhere in the universe. Christ can only die once though, so they may fall under the same conditions as the angels would, when the final judgment proceeds. (I know nobody likes judgment and this is probably where I'll get the most flak and mockery, but this question is inherently theological and directly related to Christian theology, so I am answering in theological terms.) I see two main categories of worlds, if they are to contain life, these being that they are either innocent or fallen. Since we are of a fallen world ourselves, and I would venture to say that God would protect the innocent worlds from contact with us, then, in this case, it would be most likely that if we're to make contact with other life capable of language to the same extent as us, that it would also be of a fallen world.

C.S. Lewis wrote a trilogy on this subject, though only Out Of The Silent Planet and Perelandra have their setting on other planets.