Aliens and religion

[Seismosaurus]

Okay, I'm a sci-fi fan and while I feel that there probably is intelligent life out there somewhere, they have most likely never visited this system, and are almost certainly not buzzing around in ships abducting people to stick things up their bottoms.

But I have a friend who does believe this, and says that the government is covering it up because of the "religious implications". Unfortunately my friend doesn't seem entirely clear on what those implications are.

So, suppose we saw a spaceship heading for us tomorrow, and they land on the White House lawn or the UN building or whatever, and out steps a Bugomite, giant slimy green BEM. Further suppose that the Bugomites have no concept of God or religion, and find the idea more than a bit peculiar. Bugomites are generally peaceful, loving and caring on both an individual and societal level - more so than we, in fact, though they are not perfect.

What would be the implications of this for Human religions, do you suppose?

For instance :

God made man in his own image, says the Bible. Does this imply that the Bugomites were not created by god? If so would they be considered evil? Despite being obviously not evil?

Can anybody think of any other implications of such a visit to Earth religions?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus

Can anybody think of any other implications of such a visit to Earth religions?
Well, from a biblical literalist point of view there is a certain question of taxonomy. I mean, if there is no mention of said Bugomites in the creation, they'd be kinda lumpted in with the "animals" wouldn't they? Of course, if that were the case, then they would be our responsibility. Mankind being the caretakers and all that.

Of course, that's just from a fundy Christian's view point. Personally, I can't say it'd have many religious implications for me, not really having a religion.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Well, from a biblical literalist point of view there is a certain question of taxonomy. I mean, if there is no mention of said Bugomites in the creation, they'd be kinda lumpted in with the "animals" wouldn't they? Of course, if that were the case, then they would be our responsibility. Mankind being the caretakers and all that.

Good point. It would be interesting to see somebody try and claim that we had dominion over a species that would have to be millennia ahead of us in technology.


Of course, that's just from a fundy Christian's view point. Personally, I can't say it'd have many religious implications for me, not really having a religion.

Oh, me neither. I'm just wondering how world religions would view such a thing. Strangely, skeptical/atheist types often seem to have a better understanding of religion than religious people do. Maybe because we see it from the outside?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
I have a friend who does believe this, and says that the government is covering it up because of the "religious implications".Naaah, the government would cover it up for the political implicatons. The first question any government leader would be asked if it were discovered that ETs could actually reach Earth is "How will you defend your citizenry from them?" - and there is no answer to that that question that would be both satisfactory and true.

Anyway, back to the religious implications.

If a sentient, godless species came to Earth, I think the Christians would have a field day trying to convert them all. It would not come as too much of a shock to Christianity that the Bugomites didn't know about God, or Jesus; after all, it's Earth that God loved so much that He gave His only begotten son.

I don't know enough about the other religions to be able to predict how they would react.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Okay, I'm a sci-fi fan and while I feel that there probably is intelligent life out there somewhere, they have most likely never visited this system, and are almost certainly not buzzing around in ships abducting people to stick things up their bottoms.

But I have a friend who does believe this, and says that the government is covering it up because of the "religious implications". Unfortunately my friend doesn't seem entirely clear on what those implications are.

So, suppose we saw a spaceship heading for us tomorrow, and they land on the White House lawn or the UN building or whatever, and out steps a Bugomite, giant slimy green BEM. Further suppose that the Bugomites have no concept of God or religion, and find the idea more than a bit peculiar. Bugomites are generally peaceful, loving and caring on both an individual and societal level - more so than we, in fact, though they are not perfect.

What would be the implications of this for Human religions, do you suppose?

For instance :

God made man in his own image, says the Bible. Does this imply that the Bugomites were not created by god? If so would they be considered evil? Despite being obviously not evil?

Can anybody think of any other implications of such a visit to Earth religions?

Intelligent aliens who had no notion of a "God" or understanding of a "God" would constitute good "evidence" against a "God". I feel though that this would be somewhat unlikely.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus




Oh, me neither. I'm just wondering how world religions would view such a thing. Strangely, skeptical/atheist types often seem to have a better understanding of religion than religious people do. Maybe because we see it from the outside? [/B]

Not a better understanding of "God" let me assure you. Almost to a man they have the most crass conceptualisation of "God" imaginable. No wonder they're atheists!

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not a better understanding of "God" let me assure you. Almost to a man they have the most crass conceptualisation of "God" imaginable. No wonder they're atheists!

I said "religion". I did not say "god".

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Intelligent aliens who had no notion of a "God" or understanding of a "God" would constitute good "evidence" against a "God". I feel though that this would be somewhat unlikely.

So how do you think religions would react to that? I think we can safely assume that they wouldn't declare that the game was up and start converting the churches into Starbucks outlets...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus

Not a better understanding of "God" let me assure you. Almost to a man they have the most crass conceptualisation of "God" imaginable. No wonder they're atheists!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I said "religion". I did not say "god".



{Shrugs} Indeed. But even assuming they have a better understanding of religion, this is not so impressive when we bear in mind their breathtaking crass conceptualization of "God".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Intelligent aliens who had no notion of a "God" or understanding of a "God" would constitute good "evidence" against a "God". I feel though that this would be somewhat unlikely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So how do you think religions would react to that? I think we can safely assume that they wouldn't declare that the game was up and start converting the churches into Starbucks outlets...

Well, it's just an incredibly implausible scenario. I mean that they would have no notion of "God".

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well, it's just an incredibly implausible scenario. I mean that they would have no notion of "God".

Well, we can't really tell how implausible it is can we? I mean, aliens are alien, after all. They might well think in alien ways. Their thought processes might be far less diverse than ours are, leading to the sort of monoculturalism which is common in sci-fi aliens.

But even granting that it may be incredibly unlikely... the point is to ask "what if?" What if this incredibly unlikely thing did, in fact, happen?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I attended a skeptic discussion on this very topic two weekends ago.

It was very interesting.

[fishbob]

So how do you think religions would react to that? Probably just ignore the aliens. Kinda like they ignore much of terrestrial reality.

[shemp]

It would be our duty to civilize these godless beasts, to teach them the ways of mankind, such as war, murder, theft, lying, politics, etc. Only then would the Universe be safe!

[Win]

Let me offer an alternative scenario.

Imagine that we meet an alien race. In the course of our exhanges with them, they tell us that they have answers to some of our long standing mathematical queries, like, say the Goldbach conjecture.

When our mathematicians meeet with theirs, however, they learn, to their dismay, that the aliens don't in fact have proofs. What they offer us instead is the record of the explorations of their computers. Their computers have run programs which have determined that, for example, all positive even integers greater than or equal to four are in fact the sum of two primes, up to some incredibly, majestically large number. They take this exploration of mathematical space as reliable evidence that the Godbach conjecture is "proved."

What would be the implications of this for human science and mathematics, do you think?

[MRC_Hans]

Win:
I'm not sure I get your point. So the aliens are ardent Pragmatics; they say: "We will never meet a number that doesn't fit the rule, so we use the rule."

We have three choices:

1) Say "Heureka!" and become Pragmatics.

2) Say "Uhm, yes, thank you very much!" and keep on using our own definition of proof.

3) Start educating them on "the real way" to make scientific proof.

Either way, there is nothing new. We're already busy doing all three things (not educating aliens, of course, but other Pragmatics).

Hans

[Win]

Hans:

3) Start educating them on "the real way" to make scientific proof.

I have to quibble with your choice of words here. We would not be educating them with regard to "the real way" to make a "scientific proof." Rather we would be educating them as the "the real way" to make a mathematical proof.

At the risk of failing to hide the ball properly, the concepts in conflict under my example are those of mathematical proof and scientific proof.

What's more, while I think the idea of aliens without the concept of God is an interesting thought experiment, I also think that the idea of aliens without the concept of proof is equally interesting.

The concept of aliens with ideas and practices that contradict our own is amenable to lots of different uses.

Just trying to keep the, er, metaphysical field even, as it were. ;)

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Win
Let me offer an alternative scenario.

Imagine that we meet an alien race. In the course of our exhanges with them, they tell us that they have answers to some of our long standing mathematical queries, like, say the Goldbach conjecture.

When our mathematicians meeet with theirs, however, they learn, to their dismay, that the aliens don't in fact have proofs. What they offer us instead is the record of the explorations of their computers. Their computers have run programs which have determined that, for example, all positive even integers greater than or equal to four are in fact the sum of two primes, up to some incredibly, majestically large number. They take this exploration of mathematical space as reliable evidence that the Godbach conjecture is "proved."

What would be the implications of this for human science and mathematics, do you think?

I suspect the first question to be asked would be along the lines of "but what if there is a number higher than that..."

And the answer to your question would depend on their answer to that one.

[Win]

Seismosaurus:

I suspect the first question to be asked would be along the lines of "but what if there is a number higher than that..."

I suspect you don't understand the thought experiment very well. That surely wouldn't be a question, let alone the first one.

See my reply to Hans.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Win
Let me offer an alternative scenario.

Imagine that we meet an alien race. In the course of our exhanges with them, they tell us that they have answers to some of our long standing mathematical queries, like, say the Goldbach conjecture.

When our mathematicians meeet with theirs, however, they learn, to their dismay, that the aliens don't in fact have proofs. What they offer us instead is the record of the explorations of their computers. Their computers have run programs which have determined that, for example, all positive even integers greater than or equal to four are in fact the sum of two primes, up to some incredibly, majestically large number. They take this exploration of mathematical space as reliable evidence that the Godbach conjecture is "proved."

What would be the implications of this for human science and mathematics, do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Seismo
I suspect the first question to be asked would be along the lines of "but what if there is a number higher than that..."

And the answer to your question would depend on their answer to that one.



Hmmmmm, suppose we met an alien race, who discovered that everything that ever happens in the empirical realm happens of mathematical necessity (so quite the opposite to Win's aliens). Now we know about gravity through experience, so then they could raise a similar question here. Namely how do we know that the next time we release an object it will fall rather than remain suspended in the air, or shoot off upwards, or explode or whatever?

BTW I'm not entirely sure what Win is getting at either. Possibly that the idea of aliens without mathematical proof is as implausible as aliens without absolutely any conception of "god" whatsoever.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Win
Seismosaurus:



I suspect you don't understand the thought experiment very well. That surely wouldn't be a question, let alone the first one.

See my reply to Hans.

It's what I would ask. I would want to know why they are pragmatists - did they just never think of doing it another way, or do they have some reason for not doing it that way? If so, what reason?

How is that an invalid question?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmmm, suppose we met an alien race, who discovered that everything that ever happens in the empirical realm happens of mathematical necessity (so quite the opposite to Win's aliens). Now we know about gravity through experience, so then they could raise a similar question here. Namely how do we know that the next time we release an object it will fall rather than remain suspended in the air, or shoot off upwards, or explode or whatever?


Interesting. One of the big assumptions of science is that you can project past experience into the future. There's no particular reason to suppose that you can - maybe gravity is random, and we're just on a gigantic lucky streak which will end tomorrow.

It would be very interesting to see what these aliens would have in the way of science...


BTW I'm not entirely sure what Win is getting at either. Possibly that the idea of aliens without mathematical proof is as implausible as aliens without absolutely any conception of "god" whatsoever.

Could be. There may be genuine mind readers out there, but I'm not one of them. :)

[Win]

Seis:

Your initial question was:

"but what if there is a number higher than that..."

You follow up by suggesting that this:

It's what I would ask. I would want to know why they are pragmatists - did they just never think of doing it another way, or do they have some reason for not doing it that way? If so, what reason?

is the equivalent of your initial question.

It's not.

How is that an invalid question?

Your initial question, having an obvious answer, is pointless, not "invalid." In any event, it doesn't raise, by implication, any of the other questions you ask subsequently.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Win
Seis:
Your initial question, having an obvious answer, is pointless, not "invalid." In any event, it doesn't raise, by implication, any of the other questions you ask subsequently.

I apologise profusely if I'm being unclear here. Those questions are not indentical, but to me they are indeed linked.

For instance, suppose I ask the question "what if there was an even higher number... [where your theory fails]" and they turn around and say "wow, we never thought of that - you're right, what we had wasn't a proof at all!"

This goes towards them adopting the original attitude because they just didn't think of doing it another way.

Whereas if they answer "Oh, that's because of [radical new way of looking at the universe]" then that goes towards their having some good reason for doing it.

In the first case we have taught them something new and important, in the second they have taught us something new and important. Either way, it seems a sensible and important question to me.

[Win]

Seis:

And I apologize if I'm being brusque with you, but look, the aliens aren't moronic aliens. They realize that any given number has a successor.

I'll direct you again to my comments to Hans.

[Frostbite]

You'd have three types of reactions:

Suicidal: People's beliefs are fatally challenged. Everything they've been told and believed all their lives, and the very foundations of their character is shattered. They kill themselves.

Violent: Religious fanatics see these aliens as demonic. Nukes, grenades and guns.

Constructive: Some more open-minded people see this as an opportunity to open their plane of knowledge and existence. Communicating with these aliens and proving that we aren't alone in the universe is a liberation.

My 2 coppers.

[Brown]

For a bizarre discussion of the relationship between UFOs and Christianity, take a look at "Omega Conspiracy: Satan's Last Assault on God's Kingdom." I believe excerpts may be available through Amazon.com.

Basically, the author's thesis is that the Bible refers to aliens and UFOs, and the so-called "sons of God" or "Nephelim" were really a race of super aliens that engaged in interbreeding with Earth women. The author is, as best I can tell, completely serious about his thesis.

[Frostbite]

L.Ron Hubbard, Velikovsky, Sitchin, Von Daniken, Rael.. the idea isn't new.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Win
Hans:

I have to quibble with your choice of words here. We would not be educating them with regard to "the real way" to make a "scientific proof." Rather we would be educating them as the "the real way" to make a mathematical proof.

I concede that there is generally a difference between "scientific proof" and "mathematical proof". However, in this particular example, since the theory in question is a mathematical one, they are identical.

At the risk of failing to hide the ball properly, the concepts in conflict under my example are those of mathematical proof and scientific proof.

So do you say that their method of obtaining a mathematical proof equals our way of obtaining a scientifical proof? By a lot of experiments? I don't quite agree: An important part of scientific proof, besides verifiying by repetition, is to verify the logical predictions made by the theory, which would lead to the conclusion that simply testing higher numbers is not enough.

What's more, while I think the idea of aliens without the concept of God is an interesting thought experiment, I also think that the idea of aliens without the concept of proof is equally interesting.

Well, actually the two concepts are quite consistent: The Pragmatic Alien will have a philosophy to the tune of "I need to know how it works, I don't care why it works". So once he has ascertained that he is never gonna meet a number that does not follow the Godbach rule, he is satisfied. Religion is very much about the "why" and really very little about the "how", so our Pragmatic Alien is quite likely to be uninterested in religion.

The concept of aliens with ideas and practices that contradict our own is amenable to lots of different uses.

And, should we ever meet aliens, such situations are almost inevitable.

Just trying to keep the, er, metaphysical field even, as it were. ;)

Hans

[Win]

Hans:

The most interesting thing about your reply is the way in which you have read "pragmatism" into my aliens, when their approach to mathematics isn't necessarily "pragmatic."

They simply have a different idea of "mathematical proof" than we do, and it's only based on "what works" in your mind.

In the end, perhaps, this is what we should take from thought experiments of this kind. When we meet aliens, we'll all sit around arguing about how, really, they agreed with with us all along. We'll project our own prejudices and assumptions on to them, just like you've done to my thought experiment aliens.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Win
Hans:

The most interesting thing about your reply is the way in which you have read "pragmatism" into my aliens, when their approach to mathematics isn't necessarily "pragmatic."

Of course I interpret them, what else was your purpose? My interpretation may not be the one you intended, but -there it is. Of course it may be other than pragmatic. For instance they might be number blind and rely totally on computers for any calculation, or something else.

They simply have a different idea of "mathematical proof" than we do, and it's only based on "what works" in your mind.

Mmmm, actually, math and logic would be among the few things that should be valid everywhere in the universe. If you had picked some cultural value, sure, but if they have a different way of making mathematical proof, it must be because they have a different use for it.

In the end, perhaps, this is what we should take from thought experiments of this kind. When we meet aliens, we'll all sit around arguing about how, really, they agreed with with us all along. We'll project our own prejudices and assumptions on to them, just like you've done to my thought experiment aliens.

I dont see how that follows. I have tried to explain why aliens might do as you suggested. This may not have been your purpose with the thought experiement, but that was the way I used it. If we were to meet aliens, it would be important to try to understand them, even at the cost of attributing some of our standards to them. After all, for starters, our standards are all we have to go by.

But then, I too am a pragmatic.

Hans