Thread: Jesus in Space! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025367
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Contrary to what my cheesy title may have led you to believe, this thread is not about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (and no offense is meant to it either!). Rather, it is about the implications of the possible existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe on the Christian faith. I am sure this has been discussed on the Ship before, but I hope it is ok to start a fresh thread on it.
Assume that intelligent life does exist in one or more other places in the universe. Also assume a generally Christian point of view as the starting point for these questions.
1. If this intelligent life is as sentient, self-aware, and possessing of free will as human beings are, do members of the species have immortal souls like humans do?
2. If 1. is true, do the extraterrestrials need salvation like humans do? What if they do not have bodies (perhaps they are like sentient computer programs) and what if dying is not a necessary part of their existence? If they are bodiless and immortal, how would they be different from angels? What does salvation mean for a bodiless immortal being?
3. If they have souls and need salvation, is it possible that the second Person of the Trinity incarnated on their worlds too or is more than one incarnation impossible?
4. If there was only one incarnation (Christ here on Earth) and the aliens have souls and need salvation, would they have to believe the same things that humans need to believe in order to be saved? How could the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall be seen as applying to them?
5. If there is more than one Incarnation, did all of them have to occur at the same time in history? Could more incarnations have yet to occur? Could any intelligent being choose to believe in any of the incarnations as its savior and still be saved, especially after the discovery of other worlds with their own Incarnations of the Second Person of the Trinity?
6. What would it mean if there was more than one Incarnation but the teachings, practices, and Scriptures of the disciples on different worlds differed without contradicting each other outright? Would conversion to another world's faith be morally permissible?
7. If water, bread, or wine/grape juice were toxic to aliens, would they still need to participate in baptism or the Eucharist/communion? What if they are beings of information or light? What would sacraments mean for them?
The list of questions could go on and on. What do you think the answers are to some of these questions, and what other questions would you ask?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
This came up in a short story I read years ago, Golden Age era. A little kid begins "witnessing" to a Venusian or something, who just kind of squirms and nods politely the way you do when someone witnesses to you. The mother gently explains that this person comes from another planet, and he's never heard of Jesus, and Jesus probably has enough problems dealing with one planet without having to take on Venus as well.
Weird as it may sound, I thought it was handled, erm, realistically. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Every time this discussion comes up, I can't resist posting this one.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
"Don't go to Earth. Bunch of dicks down there."
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
I like the way C S Lewis talks about alien worlds being unfallen (in his scifi stories), and Earth's unique in requiring a Saviour.
[ 24. April 2013, 23:08: Message edited by: loggats ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm boring, but I suspect we'd have to ask them (if God let us get anywhere near them in the first place!). Chances are good that God has an individual way with every species, just as he seems to have with every human soul, and what he does with them could have tons of meaning to them and be completely imcomprehensible to us. Though it would be fun to listen. (and introduce some of them to the Eccles board) ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Let me try to give a more serious answer as well:
1. If this intelligent life is as sentient, self-aware, and possessing of free will as human beings are, do members of the species have immortal souls like humans do?
I don't really believe in a division of body and soul, as postulated in Greek philosophy.
2. If 1. is true, do the extraterrestrials need salvation like humans do? What if they do not have bodies (perhaps they are like sentient computer programs) and what if dying is not a necessary part of their existence?
It depends on what you mean by 'salvation'. In the way I try to live my faith, salvation probably something like: being saved from my egoism and entering something bigger.
If they are bodiless and immortal, how would they be different from angels?
I'm not sure if I believe in angels. If anything, they're not a very important part of my faith.
What does salvation mean for a bodiless immortal being?
I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask them.
3. If they have souls and need salvation, is it possible that the second Person of the Trinity incarnated on their worlds too or is more than one incarnation impossible?
For the second (or indeed any) Person of the Trinity, anything is possible.
4. If there was only one incarnation (Christ here on Earth) and the aliens have souls and need salvation, would they have to believe the same things that humans need to believe in order to be saved?
Within the way I live my faith, I don't think you have to believe in something in order to be saved.
How could the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall be seen as applying to them?
I doubt if it would apply to them very much. It is a story about mankind (as expressed in the name Adam).
5. If there is more than one Incarnation, did all of them have to occur at the same time in history? Could more incarnations have yet to occur? Could any intelligent being choose to believe in any of the incarnations as its savior and still be saved, especially after the discovery of other worlds with their own Incarnations of the Second Person of the Trinity?
If salvation means anything to them then yes, I believe they can all be saved, independent of the time or number of Incarnations.
6. What would it mean if there was more than one Incarnation but the teachings, practices, and Scriptures of the disciples on different worlds differed without contradicting each other outright? Would conversion to another world's faith be morally permissible?
Yes, it would be morally permissible. As would conversion to another religion on Earth.
7. If water, bread, or wine/grape juice were toxic to aliens, would they still need to participate in baptism or the Eucharist/communion?
No, I wouldn't want to kill them.
What if they are beings of information or light? What would sacraments mean for them?
Again, I think you would have to ask them.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I think this topic although hypothetical and raised before is very important because it touches on the exceptionalism of the human species and the planet Earth that is central to many varieties of Christianity. If aliens belong in the same category as humans regarding souls and salvation, why not any other animals or other life forms on Earth? Or are humans supposed to subdue the entire cosmos including the aliens under our stewardship? If aliens exist, a traditional Christian reading of the Bible would make humans seem like the Hebrews in the Old Testament. Thoughts?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
how do we know the aliens aren't the Israelites?
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
Because they're not green with big bug like eyes.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. If this intelligent life is as sentient, self-aware, and possessing of free will as human beings are, do members of the species have immortal souls like humans do?
If they are sapient, yes, otherwise, no. I guess that is sort of implied here by calling them "intelligent" and assigning them "free will as humans possess". But chimpanzees, dolphins, etc. can be considered intelligent and self-directed to a degree, and are definitely sentient and self-aware to a considerable extent. That however does not mean that they have an immortal soul. Likewise there could be extraterrestrial animal life that is fairly high up the cognitive ladder, yet still perish entirely with death as terrestrial animals do.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. If 1. is true, do the extraterrestrials need salvation like humans do? What if they do not have bodies (perhaps they are like sentient computer programs) and what if dying is not a necessary part of their existence? If they are bodiless and immortal, how would they be different from angels? What does salvation mean for a bodiless immortal being?
This is a confused question. All incorporeal sapient creatures are angels (or demons, which is just to say evil angels). In the same sense that elephants, humans, rabbits etc. are all mammals. Furthermore, there is no particular reason why we would find angels in alien worlds rather than on our doorstep, other than by the choice of those angels. Incorporeal beings do not have a location in the same sense as corporeal beings. The only way we can talk of an angel being in a particular place is by saying that that angel is applying its powers to that place. Next he could apply those powers at the other end of the universe for all we know. No physical limit applies to a non-physical being. Salvation means being saved from harm, in our case, eternal damnation. Whether an angel can be saved from eternal damnation is actually a very deep question about their mode of cognition and the interplay of that with Divine action throughout time. Roughly put, it would require God to reveal something to the demon that goes beyond the demon's natural powers to know. Because angels do not rely on input from sense organs and the rational processing involving a brain. The best analogy we can have for their mode of thinking is instantaneous and comprehensive intuition within their natural limits. They have a complete "one shot mind", so if God wants them to snap out of a decision for evil, He would have to externally and supernaturally provide them with another shot. (Incidentally, I for once disagree with Aquinas here insofar as I see this as a possibility.)
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
3. If they have souls and need salvation, is it possible that the second Person of the Trinity incarnated on their worlds too or is more than one incarnation impossible?
I see no principle reason why additional alien incarnations would be impossible. Whether that would be fitting is rather the question. After all, we can also ask why God is not multiply incarnating into various human beings. That too is certainly possible in principle. Yet we do not believe that it is the case. Perhaps we can put it this way: It is fitting that all of mankind is united in the salvation brought by one God-man. If there are aliens "like us" out there, then would it be more fitting that each alien race is among themselves by the salvation brought by one incarnation each, or that all sapient corporeal beings of the universe are united by only one incarnation for all? I think the latter is the better extrapolation from what we know. There may be advantages to having a specific incarnation for say the British of the Victorian age, but God clearly considers it more fitting that they be saved through a 1stC Palestine Jew. Likewise we can assume that there would be advantages to saving each alien race according to its own devices, but that God sees more fitting to bring them all together in one salvation. If so, then we know that it would still be the 1stC Palestine human Jew to whom all sapient beings must turn for their salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
4. If there was only one incarnation (Christ here on Earth) and the aliens have souls and need salvation, would they have to believe the same things that humans need to believe in order to be saved? How could the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall be seen as applying to them?
I do not quite see the issue you are having there. Of course, an alien corporeal sapient creature may have some difficulty understanding the specific physical and physiological circumstances of this story. But in the end, I think any corporeal creature can gain an understanding of how another corporeal creature is born, lives, eats, breeds and dies. Furthermore, any sapient creature can understand how another sapient creature perceives, understands, decides and acts. That should be sufficient to translate both the narrative and its meaning to any alien mind, given sufficient effort. Furthermore, as far as I can see there's nothing in Christian dogma that is inseparable from the human instantiation of "rational animal", which is not simply historical. So an alien would have to acknowledge the human Christ as God and deal with human matters as far as that piece of human history goes. But for example the truth of the Trinity is not "human" in that sense (other than perhaps for our naming scheme).
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
5. If there is more than one Incarnation, did all of them have to occur at the same time in history? Could more incarnations have yet to occur? Could any intelligent being choose to believe in any of the incarnations as its savior and still be saved, especially after the discovery of other worlds with their own Incarnations of the Second Person of the Trinity?
Again, there is no principle reason why incarnations should not happen at multiple times, in the past, present and future. Whether that is fitting remains the question. That this would be a rather confusing situation is one reason why multiple incarnations probably are not fitting. If there are however multiple incarnations, then two things follow: we all must adore all of them as God, but we also all must worship the one given to our race first and foremost. Failing to do so would be a rejection of God in general in the former case, and in the particular in the latter case.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
6. What would it mean if there was more than one Incarnation but the teachings, practices, and Scriptures of the disciples on different worlds differed without contradicting each other outright? Would conversion to another world's faith be morally permissible?
Where doctrines, practices and scriptures operate at an essentially abstract level (as in statements about the Trinity), it strictly would be our religious duty to collate all the available information across the universe into a coherent whole. Where they operate at an essentially particular level it would be a bit whimsical or perhaps even foolish to adopt them across alien races. If for example the cross has absolutely no meaning as instrument of torture and death to the well-armoured intelligent crabs of Vega, then for them to put a cross into their living tunnels is more a sign of appreciation of human beings than of God. Perhaps it could be a symbol for their belief in the universality of faith. But if they therefore throw out the explosive device as symbol of what was used to kill their own incarnation, then this becomes foolish.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
7. If water, bread, or wine/grape juice were toxic to aliens, would they still need to participate in baptism or the Eucharist/communion? What if they are beings of information or light? What would sacraments mean for them?
It would be up to God to reveal to us, or the aliens, by what means we may replace those incompatible sacraments. Humans or aliens cannot "make" new sacraments, Divine intervention is required. Until there is Divine revelation on this point, the aliens would have to make do with baptism/communion by desire. I'm not sure what "beings of information" are supposed to be. Unless you mean the incorporeal angels again, for whom it would not be fitting by nature to use corporeal channels of grace. And beings made of light would face the obvious problem that their body would disperse at the speed of light without any possibility of casual communication between its parts - i.e., they would be totally dismembered and die instantaneously.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps we can put it this way: It is fitting that all of mankind is united in the salvation brought by one God-man. If there are aliens "like us" out there, then would it be more fitting that each alien race is among themselves by the salvation brought by one incarnation each, or that all sapient corporeal beings of the universe are united by only one incarnation for all? I think the latter is the better extrapolation from what we know.
I don't knwo about more fitting, but it certainly better suits humanity's overweening self-importance.
[ 25. April 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that much would depend on whether they sin, whether they share the experience of Paul in doing the evil that their better self doesn't want to do.
They may Yoda-like not try but either do or not-do, in which case human ideas of crime, punishment, repentance, salvation etc may mean nothing to them.
They may have advanced beyond us in moral philosophy, with not only some moral principles that correlate to ours but some additional ones that do not. In which case they may have nothing to learn from the words of Jesus, and much to add to Christian thought.
Unless there are valid arguments from the mere facts of sentience etc to what they might be like, anything we speculate is llikely to say more about our own individual prejudices than about how aliens would relate to God.
Which may make the discussion illuminating in an unintended way.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Assume that intelligent life does exist in one or more other places in the universe. Also assume a generally Christian point of view as the starting point for these questions.
Those would be my assumptions too.
My denomination, the New Church, has a book devoted to the questions you ask. It asserts that there are people like us throughout the universe, and that they all worship the same God that we do.
Although God appears on all planets He is not generally incarnated on them. The term "salvation" only applies if the planet's population has "fallen."
As is the case on our planet, when people on other planets die they wake up in the spiritual world, and live forever in heaven as angels. In any case that is what my church teaches.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Here are some more detailed responses, based on the book: "Earths in the Universe" or "Worlds in Space" by Emanuel Swedenborg, 1758.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. If this intelligent life is as sentient, self-aware, and possessing of free will as human beings are, do members of the species have immortal souls like humans do?
Yes. They are human.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. If 1. is true, do the extraterrestrials need salvation like humans do? What if they do not have bodies (perhaps they are like sentient computer programs) and what if dying is not a necessary part of their existence? If they are bodiless and immortal, how would they be different from angels? What does salvation mean for a bodiless immortal being?
They have bodies just as we do, and they die and pass into the spiritual world just as we do. The New Church teaches that when people die and go to heaven they become angels, and this is the case on all inhabited planets.
As to what salvation means, the same rules apply everywhere in the universe. The point is to involve everyone and everything in a vast system of reciprocal uses, the idea being that love and service to others generates happiness. "Salvation" is about restoring the system when it has broken down. So this will be different on all inhabited planets.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
3. If they have souls and need salvation, is it possible that the second Person of the Trinity incarnated on their worlds too or is more than one incarnation impossible?
The Second Person of the Trinity is simply God as we are able to see and comprehend Him. Although there has only been one physical incarnation on our planet, God has appeared many times, as is recorded in Scripture. God appears this way on all planets.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
4. If there was only one incarnation (Christ here on Earth) and the aliens have souls and need salvation, would they have to believe the same things that humans need to believe in order to be saved? How could the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall be seen as applying to them?
They would not have any story of Adam and Eve, unless their population "fell" in the same way that ours did. Still, the same beliefs about right and wrong apply universally - the Ten Commandments, loving God and the neighbor, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
5. If there is more than one Incarnation, did all of them have to occur at the same time in history? Could more incarnations have yet to occur? Could any intelligent being choose to believe in any of the incarnations as its savior and still be saved, especially after the discovery of other worlds with their own Incarnations of the Second Person of the Trinity?
There is only one God. They worship the same one we do.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
6. What would it mean if there was more than one Incarnation but the teachings, practices, and Scriptures of the disciples on different worlds differed without contradicting each other outright? Would conversion to another world's faith be morally permissible?
There are the same beliefs everywhere in the universe.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
7. If water, bread, or wine/grape juice were toxic to aliens, would they still need to participate in baptism or the Eucharist/communion? What if they are beings of information or light? What would sacraments mean for them?
The system that makes baptism and communion holy means that there is an equivalent on every planet. The reason is that the basic division between spiritual substance and physical substance applies everywhere in the physical universe, and nothing physical exists without the spiritual equivalent that is its basis.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Not a new theological concept (if a bit unseasonal)
quote:
Who can tell how many crosses,
Still to come or long ago,
Crucify the king of heaven ?
Holy is the name I know.
Every Star Shall Sing a Carol (traditiona?l)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
The Midge: Every Star Shall Sing a Carol (traditiona?l)
That's interesting, does anyone know the origin of this song? It can't be that old/traditional if it speaks of aliens.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I like the way C S Lewis talks about alien worlds being unfallen (in his scifi stories), and Earth's unique in requiring a Saviour.
Yes, well of course, Lewis wrote his adult sci-fi and the Narnia books to answer questions like the ones raised in the OP. So I'm not even going to try - not because I agree with all Lewis's ideas (I don't) - but because I think he mined just about all the fun you can get out of this vein of thought. Greedy so-and-so.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
The Midge: Every Star Shall Sing a Carol (traditiona?l)
That's interesting, does anyone know the origin of this song? It can't be that old/traditional if it speaks of aliens.
Not that old. It appears to have been written by Sydney Carter, who died in 2004.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
The Midge: Every Star Shall Sing a Carol (traditiona?l)
That's interesting, does anyone know the origin of this song? It can't be that old/traditional if it speaks of aliens.
Not that old. It appears to have been written by Sydney Carter, who died in 2004.
hence the ?
Web site did not credit Sydney (RIP). No host to BBQ them.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I really ought to contribute to this...
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. If this intelligent life is as sentient, self-aware, and possessing of free will as human beings are, do members of the species have immortal souls like humans do?
Yes, with caveats on the use of the world soul, which is less Hebrew, and more Greek.
quote:
2. If 1. is true, do the extraterrestrials need salvation like humans do? What if they do not have bodies (perhaps they are like sentient computer programs) and what if dying is not a necessary part of their existence? If they are bodiless and immortal, how would they be different from angels? What does salvation mean for a bodiless immortal being?
If they have fallen, then yes. All organic life will eventually die, so no matter how long lived they are, they will not be immortal. Those who exist as a matrix of thought would be effectively immortal, but still might die through unnatural processes. My fictional AI, Michael, is believed to be ensouled by the Catholic church, but isn't convinced itself.
quote:
3. If they have souls and need salvation, is it possible that the second Person of the Trinity incarnated on their worlds too or is more than one incarnation impossible?
It is possible. Given a creator God and the potential impossibility of interstellar travel, it would seem unnecessarily harsh to give the universe a saviour and then deny all but a tiny fraction of them the knowledge of salvation.
quote:
4. If there was only one incarnation (Christ here on Earth) and the aliens have souls and need salvation, would they have to believe the same things that humans need to believe in order to be saved? How could the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall be seen as applying to them?
Yes. If they need salvation, presumably, the Fall applied to them as much as it did us, and the resurrection will apply to them too.
quote:
5. If there is more than one Incarnation, did all of them have to occur at the same time in history? Could more incarnations have yet to occur? Could any intelligent being choose to believe in any of the incarnations as its savior and still be saved, especially after the discovery of other worlds with their own Incarnations of the Second Person of the Trinity?
No, yes, and yes. But perforce if I believe that other incarnations were genuine, over and above the one I know about and is applicable to me, then I would believe in the others as well as, not instead of.
quote:
6. What would it mean if there was more than one Incarnation but the teachings, practices, and Scriptures of the disciples on different worlds differed without contradicting each other outright? Would conversion to another world's faith be morally permissible?
Yes, but why would you do it if they were simply different expressions of the same faith? We have enough of those on Earth already, and you're assuming that an alien expression of the One True Faith™ would be both comprehensible and practicable to humans.
quote:
7. If water, bread, or wine/grape juice were toxic to aliens, would they still need to participate in baptism or the Eucharist/communion? What if they are beings of information or light? What would sacraments mean for them?
Incorporeal beings would have no way of interacting with physical sacraments, and they would therefore mean nothing. And I fail to see why a good God would want to poison His flock. If the sacraments were arsenic and hemlock, would we eat and drink?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Shhhhhh! Don't let on, those of you who are aliens.
But in truth, we already know when we're scheduled to meet aliens, It's going to happen on 04 April 2063 when the Vulcans show up. Hopefully those of you young enough, who also survive WWIII will be around for the event.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ray Bradbury played with some of this in "The Martian Chronicles".
Mary Doria Russell (?) wove quite a tale about human missionaries going to a far planet--"The Sparrow", and the sequel "Children of God". They have some harrowing sections, though. If you're inclined to read only one, try the sequel.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Shhhhhh! Don't let on, those of you who are aliens.
Mind who you're shushing, sonny.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ray Bradbury played with some of this in "The Martian Chronicles".
Mary Doria Russell (?) wove quite a tale about human missionaries going to a far planet--"The Sparrow", and the sequel "Children of God". They have some harrowing sections, though. If you're inclined to read only one, try the sequel.
I actually thought the second one was a major insult to the Catholic priest in that it rather betrayed his character making him do what he would never have done. I was very sorry I read it after reading such an excellent book as the first one was. Mind, reading The Sparrow* you may learn as much about humanity as you do religious (or not) aliens, but either way I strongly recommend it.
*And yes, a hard book emotionally in places. You are warned.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
The OP offers an interesting thought experiment, but it's purely speculative. It's worth remembering that on the basis of all the evidence we have to date that it's just us here!
As a rule we are mightily impressed by size. The universe is mind bogglingly big, ergo we cannot possibly be alone. In fact there is no need for that to be the case at all, and those who argue for it are disingenuous in their refusal/unwillingness to acknowledge that fact.
The universe 'appears' big to us, but a. size is irrelevant to the assessment of significance, and b. from another perspective the 'universe' as we perceive it may well be nothing more than a very minor event in a greater reality.
For all we know this 'universe' was indeed created entirely with the purpose of offering 'us' a protected anteroom where we can explore and choose and live, and not be confronted with the full glory of 'God', but be able to encounter 'God' in a 'safe' kind of space.
As for 'aliens'; well until I know better I'm another one who thinks that CS Lewis got to grips with it in a fairly helpful theological manner.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
size is irrelevant to the assessment of significance
Actually no.
Imagine for a moment, you're doing a field study of plant species, collecting and labelling all the different types within a square 1m on each side. How many times are you going to have to do this in order to get a reliable sample of that ecosystem? If you fail to get a tree within your first sample, do you conclude there are no trees at all, ever?
Perhaps you do. But with our sample size of 1 planet (out of 8, plus many moons) around 1 star, against 200,000,000,000 stars, I'm going to suggest that you need to deploy a better argument than 'size is irrelevant'... At least mention the Fermi paradox!
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Once you have done two samples we can estimate that. Actually it is technically infinity, but we can certainly make a guess at getting 90% of the species.
Jengie
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Once you have done two samples we can estimate that. Actually it is technically infinity, but we can certainly make a guess at getting 90% of the species. Well actually you need some overlap of species but once that is achieved then the mathematics works.
Biologist do it all the time here on Earth, how otherwise do you think they get their estimates for things such as the number of invertebrate species there are in the Amazon rainforest.
Jengie
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Biologist do it all the time here on Earth, how otherwise do you think they get their estimates for things such as the number of invertebrate species there are in the Amazon rainforest.
I know how they want me to think they arrive at their estimates. Which is a different matter entirely.
However, we know of one planet which has the conditions we believe are compatible with life (stable star, liquid water, big enough magnetic field to retain an atmosphere) and it has life. The probability that there are no other planets similar to Earth in the galaxy is pretty much zero. Whether that translates into other sentient beings is a matter for debate, but it seems to me that the universe is fruitful and wants to multiply. Life on other planets is almost a certainty.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
For all we know this 'universe' was indeed created entirely with the purpose of offering 'us' a protected anteroom where we can explore and choose and live, and not be confronted with the full glory of 'God', but be able to encounter 'God' in a 'safe' kind of space.
If this is God's idea of safe ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, she clearly needs a jug of hot cocoa, a bag of animal crackers, and a long nap.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Biologist do it all the time here on Earth, how otherwise do you think they get their estimates for things such as the number of invertebrate species there are in the Amazon rainforest.
I know how they want me to think they arrive at their estimates. Which is a different matter entirely.
However, we know of one planet which has the conditions we believe are compatible with life (stable star, liquid water, big enough magnetic field to retain an atmosphere) and it has life. The probability that there are no other planets similar to Earth in the galaxy is pretty much zero. Whether that translates into other sentient beings is a matter for debate, but it seems to me that the universe is fruitful and wants to multiply. Life on other planets is almost a certainty.
Possible? Yes. Probable? From what I can gather not even groups such as SETI would go that far.
The size of the universe etc. the kind of arguments used to claim "certainty" are essentially non sequiturs.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
For all we know this 'universe' was indeed created entirely with the purpose of offering 'us' a protected anteroom where we can explore and choose and live, and not be confronted with the full glory of 'God', but be able to encounter 'God' in a 'safe' kind of space.
If this is God's idea of safe , she clearly needs a jug of hot cocoa, a bag of animal crackers, and a long nap.
Safety is a relative concept. It is about assessing risk. Staying in bed all day to avoid risk is not a viable option as the statistics for bed related accidents testify. They are right up there for death by Autoerotic Asphyxiation. or by being hit by a falling icicle.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
@ Doc Tor, actually 'Yes' size is irrelevant, although I will grant you your point at a purely statistical level, but hopefully it was reasonably clear from the rest of my point that I was not talking on that level.
To put it another way: put a baby beside Mt. Everest. On the basis of empirical measurement Everest is clearly the biggest, but is it the most significant of the two? Hopefully it's clear that the baby is by far the more significant. Likewise the 'size' of the universe is not necessarily of any great significance, except to those who are awed by 'size'.
Until we have actual empirical evidence of the existence of 'aliens' we have to go with what we've got, which is effectively 'nothing'. And, it may be that given the scale of the universe that even if 'aliens' do exist that they effectively do not as far as we will ever be concerned because the distances involved are simply too huge to overcome in any meaningful way, i.e. we are effectively 'alone'.
Whatever the case, to my mind at least, it makes no difference at all to the reality of 'God' and the significance of our relationship with 'God' and each other. Love is love, and the significance of love remains regardless of whether someone else is living across the river, over the sea, on another planet, or in another galaxy.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Until we have actual empirical evidence of the existence of 'aliens' we have to go with what we've got, which is effectively 'nothing'.
No, what we have is a sample of 1, and a result of 1 out of 1. We could be a unique little snowflake, but Creation itself would have to conspire against itself to stop all but one of the 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy having life orbiting it.
To my mind, that'd be a worse place to live than a universe teeming with life.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Doc Tor, whether there are 2, 20, 200,000,000,000, or 2x10^24 tells us nothing at all unless we know not only the 'how' but also the 'why' of our present existence. As things stand we think we know something about the 'how' (which may yet prove to be very little, or even a misunderstanding), and are still pretty clueless on the 'why'.
As I said previously, even if the universe is 'teaming' with life the sheer scale of the universe may effectively mean we are as good as being alone in the universe, so the whole matter becomes academic anyway.
As it stands we stand on our ball of rock and water, and what we do here and now, and why we do it, is all that really matters. What others may do somewhere else beyond this solar system will almost certainly (until we have information to the contrary) have no bearing on your life, mine, or anybody else who has ever lived here (and, the way things are going, will ever live here).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Speak for yourself, sweetie. Without a vision, the people perish.
I'm off to immanentise the eschaton. Who's with me?
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Seems to me we're talking at cross purposes.
All I'm saying is that unless we know what's actually going on we can't make any credible judgement of the odds.
When it comes to knowing what's going on with what we call the 'universe' we can't say with any real credibility that we 'know what's going on', so any judgement we make of the odds of aliens, etc. is pure speculation, based on assumptions which may or may not turn out to be soundly based. And which ever it is, what we think we know now is definitely only a part of the whole story, and may turn out to be quite a small part, so we best keep our options open and be prepared for all sorts of unexpected possibilities.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
For all we know this 'universe' was indeed created entirely with the purpose of offering 'us' a protected anteroom where we can explore and choose and live, and not be confronted with the full glory of 'God', but be able to encounter 'God' in a 'safe' kind of space.
If this is God's idea of safe , she clearly needs a jug of hot cocoa, a bag of animal crackers, and a long nap.
Safety is a relative concept. It is about assessing risk. Staying in bed all day to avoid risk is not a viable option... (snip)
Actually, I was trying to say that if God thinks this world is a safe place, She's obviously tired, cranky, and not thinking clearly. My solution was comfort food and a long nap--after which She just might be a little more sane!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
.An interesting verse... that just might be relevant to this discussion!
At least - I have always tended to interpret it that way.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TonyK: .An interesting verse... that just might be relevant to this discussion!
At least - I have always tended to interpret it that way.
It's interesting, but I always thought that He was referring to non-Jews that would be following Him?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm pretty sure he meant the Gentiles. Almost a pity, as I'd love to have it be a prophecy of alien believers. But then, I'm a Gentile, so I'm rather glad of the usual interpretation...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The probability that there are no other planets similar to Earth in the galaxy is pretty much zero. Whether that translates into other sentient beings is a matter for debate, but it seems to me that the universe is fruitful and wants to multiply. Life on other planets is almost a certainty.
Possible? Yes. Probable? From what I can gather not even groups such as SETI would go that far.
Oh yes they would. I think most scientists who have thought much about the subject woudl go precisely that far.
Its the wonderfully named "assumption of mediocrity". Basically if you only have one sample of something, only one observation, its safest to assume that its in the middle of the range of variation of whatever it is.
If you had only ever seen one rhinoceros in your life, its safest to assume that its a normal rhinoceros, and that the other ones that you haven;t seen are on the whole rather like it. It might in fact have been the biggest rhinocerous in existence - but as ther are thousands of rhinoceroses the chance of that is small, so you'd bet against it. Maybe its the smellest rhinoceros? You can't know that either, but its a safe guess that it isn't. Somwhere between the two. Perhaps its the only rhino in the world with four horns? Who can tell? But statistically its more probable that thee one youve seen is in many ways typical of the ones you haven;t seen. Just more probably, not certain, and just in many ways, not in all ways (after all every mammal is unique in some ways), but its worth a bet. That's what statistics does for science, it can't tell us when we are right, but it does let us estimate how likely we are to be wrong,. which is almost as useful (and has the added benefit of being possible)
Same goes for planets. There are probably lots ond lots of vaguely earthlike planets in the universe. I mean lots and lots and lots. The only one we actually know abotu is full of all sorts of living things. So it is quite likely that the others are too. If they weren't we woudl have to assume there was something Very Weird Indeed about this planet to put all that life here. And until we have some other similar planets to compare it with, we have no reason to make that assumption. If you want to claim that it is unlikely that there is life on other earthlike planets you need to suggest a reason for that.
So the *safe* assumption, the intellectually conservative one, the one that doesn't involve any great leap of the imagination, or invoke any unguessed-at science or strange cosmological theories, is that where there are earthlike planets in a part fof the universe taht has been stable for some hundreds of milliosn of years or more there is likely to be life. (The working definition of "earthlike" in this case being "more like Earth than either Mars or Venus are but we don't know quite how muich more)
Now the True Believer in alien life will go a lot further that that. They will imagine all sorts of weird and wonderful life in environments very unlike Earth. That't the science -fictional end of things.
But the idea that there is probably life on Earthlike planets isn't that kind of leaap of faith or imagination. All it needs is the same kind of common-sense statistical thinking that bookies use to set the odds on race, or insures use to decide how big your premiums are.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Although I basically go along with that reasoning, the fact remains that at the moment we have no real idea whether the premise actually pertains to the issue of whether there is actually not just life but sentient life out there.
Based on our experience here, and extrapolating, as you have done, we may want to say 'Yes, of course there is!' But in fact we don't know on what basis life actually forms, let alone the probability of anything like ourselves developing within a million or so years of our own presence, within our galaxy let alone anywhere else, or what the chances are of surviving for any significant period of time beyond where we are now.
So many unknowns and imponderables
At the moment I'd say we still really don't know if we're 'alone' or not, but it's fun trying to find out.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Could someone please summarize what CS Lewis conjectured about aliens, souls, salvation and Christianity in his science fiction novels?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Could someone please summarize what CS Lewis conjectured about aliens, souls, salvation and Christianity in his science fiction novels?
0) that irrational animals exist, both on alien worlds and in the heavens between them ("airish beasts"); a) that many rational alien species exist, all of them in a creaturely relationship and responsibility to tge triune God, maker of all, just as we do; b) consequently they are our equals before God as rational moral creatures, though we differ in the natural powers and gifts God has assigned each species (including the angels) and we also may differ in whether we are fallen or not; c) that God has his own way with each world, and we ought not to assume that because he did things one way (eg the incarnation) with us, that he will repeat this exact pattern with others; d) that all worlds in need of redemption will be redeemed; e) that members of one species may play a critical role in either the fall or the salvation of another species, and this is to be expected when we are ultimately all one in Maleldil (trans. All united in the body of Christ); f) that the human incarnation has a huge impact on other species, both directly and as Christ acts through the human members of his body; g) that there's no reason to be arrogant about the incarnation happening in our species, since if anything that's a consequence of our weakness and shame, even though it is also become now our glory; h) that we may hope for practical help and rescue from our alien brothers on the day when evil and death are destroyed forever.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its the wonderfully named "assumption of mediocrity". Basically if you only have one sample of something, only one observation, its safest to assume that its in the middle of the range of variation of whatever it is.
Does it make a difference that the sample has to be positive in order for us to have a sample in the first place? If there were no life on earth we wouldn't be here to take it as a negative sample.
Also, it's not quite true that we have only one sample: the sample lasts a few billion years and intelligent life is only present for a tiny amount of that.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its the wonderfully named "assumption of mediocrity". Basically if you only have one sample of something, only one observation, its safest to assume that its in the middle of the range of variation of whatever it is.
Does it make a difference that the sample has to be positive in order for us to have a sample in the first place? If there were no life on earth we wouldn't be here to take it as a negative sample.
Also, it's not quite true that we have only one sample: the sample lasts a few billion years and intelligent life is only present for a tiny amount of that.
This is true (barring of course the saurian civilisation wiped out by by the Chicxulub impactor). But we've had life on Earth from very early on - a billion years after formation. If the conditions are right, life will out.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think most scientists who have thought much about the subject woudl go precisely that far.
A majority of scientists guesstimating one way, based on N=1 data, a priori assumptions, and questionable philosophical reasoning, is not particularly authoritative.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its the wonderfully named "assumption of mediocrity". Basically if you only have one sample of something, only one observation, its safest to assume that its in the middle of the range of variation of whatever it is.
Sure, that is a reasonable assumption (not more). But you are silent about a prior assumption: that there even is more than one sample. A biologist meeting a rhinoceros can reasonably make that assumption. Because in most other animals he has encountered, say a sparrow, experience suggests that there are many more. Furthermore, his knowledge of the workings of nature suggests that that rhinoceros didn't crystallize out of thin air, but was born of a male and female pair of rhinoceroses, who likely had the capacity to produce more offspring. Etc. (The biologist could be wrong, for example, if he had stumbled upon the last dodo.)
At this point in time we do not know however what is needed to create life from non-living matter (in a natural sense). We have determined a range of conditions that appear to be necessary for life like ours (carbon-based, requiring water) to flourish. And recent data suggests that likely there are other places in the universe that provide these conditions. But since we simply do not know whether our list of conditions is exhaustive, we have in fact no idea whether that is enough. There could be any number of conditions that are not being met among the (supposedly!) many "habitable" planets. For all we know, life started on earth because an incoming meteorite hit an underwater volcanic vent at the precise point when lightning struck there, and that just after Earth had captured an unusually large moon. For all we know, the chance of that happening ever again anywhere is essentially zilch. Unlike the biologist meeting the rhinoceros, we do not have good prior reason to assume that an N=1 encounter of a specific type suggests N>1 samples elsewhere. If we had already met many alien life form in our galaxy, then we could reason like the biologist and assume that the Andromeda galaxy, and indeed the entire universe, is teeming with life. As it is, we can say pretty much diddley-squat about that.
In fact, uncovering more and more conditions for the appearance of life can of course push the whole discussion the other way, statistically speaking. It is true that at the moment our estimates about the number of possible "habitable" planets are increasing. Perhaps one day we can make a firm estimate that there are 10^20 "candidate planets" for life in the universe. But perhaps the chances for a "necessary starter event" like I described above are 1 to 10^10. And perhaps that's only the first of a long series of more or less unlikely events, e.g., an activated batch of amino acids just happened to be trapped in a micro-hole in clay, leaving it protected long enough, at a 1 to 10^3 chance level. And we may very well find that based on our future understanding of the necessary chain of events to get from inanimate to animate matter, the total chance for this happening (a multiplication of all these odds) is estimated at about 1 to 10^21. And that would make the existence of at most one planet teeming with life most probable.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the *safe* assumption, the intellectually conservative one, the one that doesn't involve any great leap of the imagination, or invoke any unguessed-at science or strange cosmological theories, is that where there are earthlike planets in a part fof the universe taht has been stable for some hundreds of milliosn of years or more there is likely to be life. (The working definition of "earthlike" in this case being "more like Earth than either Mars or Venus are but we don't know quite how muich more)
This is not true. It assumes without any supporting data or reasoning from natural law that a largely sufficient condition for life arising from inanimate matter is the existence of "Earth-like planets". We simply do not know this. The only way one can get a reasonable guess about the existence of life elsewhere based on our N=1 observation of life on Earth is by developing a well supported theory about how life develops from inanimate matter. Then we can have a shot at estimating the total odds for this happening, of which the existence of "Earth-like planets" certainly is only one factor. Basically, we need to get at least somewhat into the same situation as the biologist prior to encountering the rhinoceros, who is called a "biologist" precisely because he has a massive amount of prior knowledge about the sort of thing that a rhinoceros is. We do not have much knowledge about the sort of thing that the appearance of life is. There are no bio-genesis-ists that can judge this N=1 data with good reliability.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the idea that there is probably life on Earthlike planets isn't that kind of leaap of faith or imagination. All it needs is the same kind of common-sense statistical thinking that bookies use to set the odds on race, or insures use to decide how big your premiums are.
Nope. No reasonable guess about the odds for alien life is available now, and neither will there be until we understand much better how life arises from inanimate matter. The (likely) existence of many habitable planets in the universe certainly raises the chances of alien life, but we have no idea whether from "perhaps" to "near certainty" or from "zilch" to "nada". All the excitement now is based on leaps of faith and imagination.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps one day we can make a firm estimate that there are 10^20 "candidate planets" for life in the universe. But perhaps the chances for a "necessary starter event" like I described above are 1 to 10^10. And perhaps that's only the first of a long series of more or less unlikely events, e.g., an activated batch of amino acids just happened to be trapped in a micro-hole in clay, leaving it protected long enough, at a 1 to 10^3 chance level. And we may very well find that based on our future understanding of the necessary chain of events to get from inanimate to animate matter, the total chance for this happening (a multiplication of all these odds) is estimated at about 1 to 10^21. And that would make the existence of at most one planet teeming with life most probable.
Exactly. You are in fact agreeing with me about the facts. All yiou need to do is starft shaving with Occam's Razor.
Its a huge leap of faith to assume that the odds for the actually observed general conditions of life on Earth are 1 in 10^21 against. Hubristnc almost. "Look at me! I'm so special!" So its an intellectually safer bet to assume that things are more normal, until we have some evidence otherwise.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
What would a non-fallen rational (or sapient) creature be like? Humans before the fall were immortal and sinless. Would this be true of non-fallen aliens? Non-fallen humans were also described as vegetarian and naked, having no need to work to obtain food, experiencing no pain in childbirth, having no shame for their nakedness, and having no "knowledge of good and evil", whatever that means. Would these things also be true of non-fallen aliens? What did CS Lewis say about his non fallen aliens with regard to this?
I have always thought that after the fall of humankind, all of creation was also fallen in some way, and that Christ's redemption extended also to all of creation so that at the End of Days all things will again be restored, made whole, etc. I assumed that the "fallen-ness" of creation extended to the entire universe and not just to Earth. The idea of non-fallen worlds makes me feel uncomfortable because it would imply that Christ is not the redeemer of all creation but only of Earth.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
IngoB: Sure, that is a reasonable assumption (not more). But you are silent about a prior assumption: that there even is more than one sample. A biologist meeting a rhinoceros can reasonably make that assumption. Because in most other animals he has encountered, say a sparrow, experience suggests that there are many more. Furthermore, his knowledge of the workings of nature suggests that that rhinoceros didn't crystallize out of thin air, but was born of a male and female pair of rhinoceroses, who likely had the capacity to produce more offspring. Etc.
I have to say that I am with ken on this one. Yes, there are still things we don't know about how life came to be, but it's also not true that we know nothing. We have a pretty good idea about the basic chemical elements of life, which kind of natural conditions would favour it, the occurrence of planets in our Galaxy... Of course, it is still statistics, but we can still say something about a sample of N=1.
If I would encounter my first rhino (I like how this example coincides with my sig), I could venture that more than 1 rhino's exist, and that they will be less than 1km high. I wouldn't be sure about that of course, but I could start trying to attach a probability to it.
The starting point would be that there is a 95% probability that this rhino is within 2 standard deviations (or whatever, it's been a while since I had my Statistics classes) of the norm. We could start by assuming the same thing about Earth. It's much more complex than that of course and we do have to take things into account (like the size of our moon), but it isn't that we can say nothing about it.
quote:
stonespring: having no shame for their nakedness
If this is true, then I'd like pictures! (If they look anything like the aliens in Star Trek: The Original Series.)
[ 03. May 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
quote:
Its a huge leap of faith to assume that the odds for the actually observed general conditions of life on Earth are 1 in 10^21 against. Hubristic almost. "Look at me! I'm so special!" So its an intellectually safer bet to assume that things are more normal, until we have some evidence otherwise.
Personally, I find the above assumption simply expresses exactly the same `hubris' but from the opposite point of view. This is the post-Enlightenment `atheistic' view that we `must not be special'. We must be utterly insignificant, because look how BIG the universe is. It's the `size indicates significance' trap.
As far as I can see, from our present limited knowledge about `what is going on' we don't have enough information to know either way which assumption is the safe bet: that life on planet earth is actually the `centre of the universe' in terms of spiritual significance; OR that we are one iteration of a `creation' that is gloriously repeated in many and various times and places.
It remains a mystery, and perhaps that is a very good thing, because it means we have to keep questioning our assumptions, from both ends, and no one can go around crowing and lording it over others that they know it all---well they can, but they may well end up looking very foolish when they finally stand before their maker and see how the land truly lies.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
This is the post-Enlightenment `atheistic' view that we `must not be special'. I.
No it isn't. Its got nothign to do with atheism or post-anything.
quote:
We must be utterly insignificant, because look how BIG the universe is.
It's the `size indicates significance' trap.
No it isn't that either. Its nothing to do with that at all. Absolutely nothing. I'm not sure what you are misunderstanding about the argument that you think it could be that.
It seems as if you are confusing moral significance with probablility which seems rather odd.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Ken, as far as I know we can only calculate the odds according to what we `know'. Assumptions are not knowledge, they may or may not be well founded, but until we actually `know' that the assumptions are little more than speculation when it comes to knowing whether we can trust the odds we have calculated.
At present we know very little about what this `universe/creation' is all about. What we think we know is changing all the time; and clearly we have very little idea how much we simply don't know at all.
So, if I were a betting man I would say "All bets are off", or at least only bet what you can afford to lose.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alisdair: Ken, as far as I know we can only calculate the odds according to what we `know'.
Quite to the contrary. If you know things, then you don't have to calculate the odds.
If you know that there is a blue ball in the box, the odds of that are 100%, and there is nothing to calculate. It's when you don't know if there is a blue or a red ball in the box, that you have to work out the odds.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Mmm, try telling that to someone at the races. I think you are right, in a way, but then the odds are calculated on the basis of previous form, i.e. on what is known, to try and extrapolate what will be.
When we look outwards, we do exactly the same: we look at past experience---what we know---and we extrapolate according to what we think we know.
The thing is we have no idea at present how much we know of all that is, or how much of what we think we know can be safely extrapolated, or whether it is even correct at all.
Your example works fine when knowledge is `absolute', but when it comes to understanding the likelihood of `alien' life we are not, I think, in that privileged position.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alisdair: When we look outwards, we do exactly the same: we look at past experience---what we know---and we extrapolate according to what we think we know.
But we have past experience. We have one planet where life exists. It's a sample of N=1. That's not much, but it's something. It's not that we know absolutely nothing.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Alisdair: When we look outwards, we do exactly the same: we look at past experience---what we know---and we extrapolate according to what we think we know.
But we have past experience. We have one planet where life exists. It's a sample of N=1. That's not much, but it's something. It's not that we know absolutely nothing.
Yes. The "We are the only living things in the universe aren't we so special!" is assuming that life is so ujnlikely that it effectively can;t happen. In other words they are denying the only thing we really really do know about the origin of life, which is that it happened. There is no basis whatever for thinking that (other than maybe an intellectual prejudice in favour of a cosmos of infinite death and nothignness, a sort of ezxistential nihilism) - but I's assume that peopel who think of themselves as Christians woudln;t have that, so they must just be absorbing the prejudice from somewhere else - and its l;iterally prejudice because tis making decisions about things without evidence).
Cogito ergo sum and all that. It doesn't logically lead to 6th-form solipsism.
The other view, that life is probably quite abundant, is the agnostic one, the intellectually conservative one, the one with fewest assumptions, that does not go beyond observation. There is only one relevant observation, which is that life at least sometimes happens, because we know its happened once, because we are here, so the chances are that it is not vanishingly unlikley to happen. And intelleigent life as well.
Which has the reassuring side-effect, for a Christgian, of fitting in with the idea of an endlessly creative infinite loving God who both transcends the universe and is immanent in it. A God who is more and does does more than we could ever imagine. But the idea that the universe is probably full of life doesn't rely on that view of God. A fair-minded atheist ought to come to the same general idea. Its simply based on not pretending to know thing we don't know.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
At present the two contrasting statements: `We are the only ones', and `We are one of many' are both assumptions based on incomplete knowledge (possibly VERY incomplete knowledge---we have no idea). In fact we have no basis for knowing whether either is correct, or that something completely different is the right answer.
It's an interesting academic exercise to postulate this and that based on what we currently class as our `knowledge' and `understanding' of how things are (and why). And who knows, one of our current ideas may turn out to be correct, but at the moment the honest answer is: when it comes to knowing whether we are alone, one of many, or something else, we don't know.
I'm afraid the statistical assumption is exactly that, an assumption---because we don't actually know what the universe is or why it is here, or what our true place in it is, we have no idea whether or not the assumption we use for statistical probability of alien life is useful. It remains simply one possibility, but it may not be the correct one.
History has shown time and again how the commonly accepted presumption of how things are is suddenly turned on it's head or swept away completely when new information is discovered and greater understanding is developed.
So, watch this space. [pun intended]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alisdair: I'm afraid the statistical assumption is exactly that, an assumption
But that doesn't make it worthless. Suppose we build a statistical model based on our actual knowledge of (Earth) biology and astronomy, and this model predicts that 90% of all planets have intelligent life that emits radio waves. Since we aren't receiving these waves, we'll have to revise our assumptions. This means that we'll have learned something.
quote:
Alisdair: History has shown time and again how the commonly accepted presumption of how things are is suddenly turned on it's head or swept away completely when new information is discovered and greater understanding is developed.
Then we'll revise the model.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I'm afraid the statistical assumption is exactly that, an assumption---because we don't actually know what the universe is or why it is here, or what our true place in it is, we have no idea whether or not the assumption we use for statistical probability of alien life is useful. It remains simply one possibility, but it may not be the correct one.
The flaw in this is equating 'we don't know the purpose of the universe' with 'we don't know anything about the universe'.
We know quite a lot of things about the universe, actually. We understand the chemical properties of carbon that make it peculiarly good at being the basis for large molecular structures. We're aware of the interesting properties of water, particularly as a liquid. We comprehend the differences between different types of stars. We're now developing an awareness of the frequency and likely forms of planetary systems.
Statistics fundamentally isn't about 'purpose' as a statement of intent, it's about making use of available observations as to what was actually implemented. You can infer quite a few things about the universe from how it works.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
The problem I see with this reasoning is that it is too reductionist. I'm not prepared to say `you're wrong'---I don't know, but as far as I am aware despite what we think we know, we have very little idea how much we know or what it all adds up to.
We're in the position of the microbial life looking back up the microscope. We can learn a lot from our immediate environment, and all of it relates to what is going on `out there', but there is a heck of a lot going on `out there' which isn't going on 'in here'.
Perhaps not a brilliant analogy, but I think we should know enough of history and hubris to be cautious about being very definite about what we think we know, let alone about what we don't know.
If `Go' is, and is any sort of God, then it would seem safe to say that there are likely to be many possibilities as to how and why the universe `is'. Some of those possibilities may involve a seething mass of life springing up with abandon---civilizations thriving and dying off left right and centre. Other possibilities may mean there's just one place, for a limited time only where life flourishes, and when that part of the story is done the associated universe has served its nurturing purpose.
Or maybe it's something completely different. we still don't know.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If you're trying to suggest that the electrons of carbon atoms elsewhere in the universe aren't going to behave the way that they do on Earth, I find that rather bizarre.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alisdair: Or maybe it's something completely different. we still don't know.
That's true, but we can use statistics to classify what we do know. You seem confused about what statistics is, and what it pretends to do.
Let's take the simplest statistical model about whether there is life outside Earth: "There could be, or there could not be. I assign 50% probability to each of these possibilities."
This is a valid statistical model. Yes, it's very crude and it won't give us a lot of information, but it is a start.
So, we put in more knowledge. We assume from what we know on Earth that life needs a certain temperature range to thrive in. So we put that in our model. We assume that life needs a certain age of their home star to exist. So we put that in our model. Every time, the model gets more and more refined.
Will there be information missing from this model? Of course there will. Will the model give us a definite answer wether other life exists in the Universe? No, it won't. But it does help us to guess where to look, and interpret our results (even negative ones).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're trying to suggest that the electrons of carbon atoms elsewhere in the universe aren't going to behave the way that they do on Earth, I find that rather bizarre.
This might amuse. I'd agree that it would be bizarre, but that's not quite as strong as impossible.
Note, of course, that a consequence of "the electrons of carbon atoms behaving differently elsewhere in the universe" is that we can't ever go there, and they can't ever come here. If the electrons in your body start behaving even slightly differently, you have a rather serious problem...
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Le Roc, thanks. I hope I do have a good enough handle on stats to know this. I'm trying to argue that that isn't good enough in this instance because our statistical assumptions are, in this kind of area, presumptions, i.e. we are presuming to know, what we in fact do not know.
If `life' is merely a mechanistic inevitability, with `sentient' life an inevitable probabilistic consequence of the first amino acids, then there's every reason to presume that sentient life will turn out to be a common feature of the universe.
But that is a `reductionist' view of what `life' is. In fact we don't really know what life is at all. We have an ability to describe it's material expression and an increasing understanding of it's physical building blocks, but that only takes us so far, and it may turn out to be not very far at all when it comes to understanding what `life' is really all about.
At least we can probably agree that, common or rare, `life' is the most amazing thing in the universe, and the most mysterious, because it raises existential and philosophical/theological questions that our `scientific' empirical methods of gaining knowledge and understanding are singularly ill-suited to teasing out, although I would never argue that `science' is irrelevant to understanding, perish the thought.
Why are we here, what is our purpose, where are we going? I would suggest that until we have convincing answers to these kinds of questions, our statistical presumptions will remain exactly that---presumptions that we know what life is. Or, until the aliens land or ring up to say "Hello", but that hasn't happened yet!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're trying to suggest that the electrons of carbon atoms elsewhere in the universe aren't going to behave the way that they do on Earth, I find that rather bizarre.
This might amuse. I'd agree that it would be bizarre, but that's not quite as strong as impossible.
I didn't say elsewhere in the multiverse. At that point all bets are off.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Leorning Cniht: This might amuse.
I read this article only quickly, but it seems to suggest that physical constants might change over time, not over space.
quote:
Alisdair: But that is a `reductionist' view of what `life' is.
It's true that there might be life forms that are much stranger than amino acids on a planet. Gaseous beings living between the stars, beings of pure energy... You only have to watch a couple of Star Trek episodes to encounter them. I'd say: let's first build some statistical models based on planet-based life, and expand them as soon as we know more about the interaction of molecules in space.
quote:
Alisdair: our statistical presumptions will remain exactly that
I think that this is where the difference between our views lies. You say: "We only have statistical presumptions, so we basically have nothing." I say: "We only have statistical presumptions, so at least we have something to start working with."
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
I'm absolutely NOT saying we have nothing.
What I am arguing against is the presumption that what we think we know gives us the answer; or leads us, through ongoing repetition, into transforming a simple hypothesis into established dogma---which is a common human failing.
In other words: on the question of the existence and/or probability of sentient alien life, or even alien life at all, I am all for keeping an open and humble mind.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alisdair: What I am arguing against is the presumption that what we think we know gives us the answer
With this I agree. Until we find alien life, neither statistics or anything else we know can give us a definitive answer.
But the things we do know already have great value. If we were having this conversation discussing alien life 80 years ago, we would probably be talking about what hair colour the Princess of Barsoom would have.
Now we already know that the Moon is lifeless, we are searching for the elements of ancient bacterial life on Mars, we know that there are underground oceans on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, we know about life on Earth that thrives in underseas sulphur volcanoes, we have discovered many exoplanets, some of which may have Earth-like characteristics...
That isn't nothing, and it increases our understanding about life in the Universe, even if at the moment we only have a N=1 sample.
quote:
Alisdair: In other words: on the question of the existence and/or probability of sentient alien life, or even alien life at all, I am all for keeping an open and humble mind.
I would say: be humble and be bold at the same time. Humble to admit that there is still much we don't know. Bold to try to find it out. Send more probes to the planet, launch better telescopes, explore the asteroids, send people to the Moon or Mars... All of this helps.
BTW she is a brunette.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0