Is a belief in aliens a religious belief?

[KingMerv00]

Imagine we are in an alternate universe. The Dover Panda trial starts and Behe is called to the stand. He uses exactly the same vapid reasoning except he says:

"For life to have formed on this planet, an intelligent designer was necessary. There is an excellent chance that aliens exist on other planets. Some of those aliens are probably intelligent. Therefore, life on Earth was most likely created by aliens.

Perhaps THOSE aliens were not irreducibly complex and evolved on their own but we know nothing about them and cannot possibly comment on their origins."

Ok...this argument is really stupid. But is it religious? If it isn't a religious belief, it isn't a volation of the Establishment Clause.

What do skeptics do then? Is there a way to challenge it?

[kuroyume0161]

1. All the evidence (and there's tons of it) shows no signs of 'tampering' by any form of 'intelligent designer'. The only stage at which such speculation has any merit is during abiogenesis (alien's seeded Earth with the nodules of life, and so on). We cannot know for certain without sufficient evidence.

2. I don't think that 'belief' in the existence of extra-terrestrial lifeforms is religious. Note that I'm using 'belief' with respect to probability, evidence, and theoretical applicability. The evidence for life in this universe leads to a probability of 1 (life on Earth exists). That there are so many galaxies, with so many stars, with so many orbiting planets, it seems improbable that life only exists (will exist, has existed) on one of them.

3. The finer points:

a. Current physics basically precludes long distance interstellar flight by living organisms. It is just too dang far between stars. I've already expounded on the time it would take to travel from one galaxy to another in another forum (millions of years at light speed). The distances between stars, at improbable light speed for material objects, is not much more condusive. This is mere fabrication, science fiction at best.

b. Ummm, if the aliens are not irreducibly complex, then why are we held to such an absurdity? The aliens are allowed to evolve, but, oh no, life on Earth needed intervention? Not very convincing.

So, belief in the probability of 'aliens' (extra-terrestrial life) is not religious. Believing that they can do such perposterous things is! :)

[Mangel]

What do skeptics do then? Is there a way to challenge it?

One can challenge it the same way one does any postulate/hypothesis/theory. I don't think it is particularly more or less defendable than ID as it stands.

[KingMerv00]

One can challenge it the same way one does any postulate/hypothesis/theory. I don't think it is particularly more or less defendable than ID as it stands.

How could you have it removed from the classroom if it doesn't qualify as establishment of religion?

[sphenisc]

[QUOTE=kuroyume0161;1268440]1. All the evidence (and there's tons of it) shows no signs of 'tampering' by any form of 'intelligent designer'.

How do you know, what would tampering by an intelligent designer look like?

[PatKelley]

1. All the evidence (and there's tons of it) shows no signs of 'tampering' by any form of 'intelligent designer'.

How do you know, what would tampering by an intelligent designer look like?

Ah, the perennial question! Dare we look for evidence of ... ancient... astronauts?

Well, take a look at life. A really good look. Now, we are all made up of the same chemical sets, right? For something to be artificial, it would have to be somehow biochemically different, immutable, immortal, non-reproducing, and so on. Anything else would simply fit in with the evolution explanation and couldn't be determined to be different, so would not matter. The question becomes why posit a designer when absence of a designer fits the scenario just as well and raises fewer questions and requires fewer ad-hoc and spurious assumptions?

[sphenisc]

Ah, the perennial question! Dare we look for evidence of ... ancient... astronauts?

Well, take a look at life. A really good look. Now, we are all made up of the same chemical sets, right? For something to be artificial, it would have to be somehow biochemically different, immutable, immortal, non-reproducing, and so on. Anything else would simply fit in with the evolution explanation and couldn't be determined to be different, so would not matter. The question becomes why posit a designer when absence of a designer fits the scenario just as well and raises fewer questions and requires fewer ad-hoc and spurious assumptions?

So all artificial things are "biochemically different, immutable, immortal, non-reproducing, and so on. "

Please explain how a cheese sandwich is either
a) not an artificial object.
or
b) has the properties you list.

I'm quite happy to ask my own questions - I don't need you to rewrite them for me, thanks.

[PatKelley]

So all artificial things are "biochemically different, immutable, immortal, non-reproducing, and so on. "

Please explain how a cheese sandwich is either
a) not an artificial object.
or
b) has the properties you list.

I'm quite happy to ask my own questions - I don't need you to rewrite them for me, thanks.

I would say that a cheese sandwich cannot reproduce, is biochemically different (especially in the nature of processed cheese, not having DNA of any type), and again in the case of artificial cheese immutable. But then, it is not alive and doesn't fit the idea of an organism that is alive, so unless you think cheese sandwiches are living organisms...

As you say, I cannot ask your questions for you; but in your case you may wish to ask for some advice.

[sphenisc]

I would say that a cheese sandwich cannot reproduce, is biochemically different (especially in the nature of processed cheese, not having DNA of any type), and again in the case of artificial cheese immutable. But then, it is not alive and doesn't fit the idea of an organism that is alive, so unless you think cheese sandwiches are living organisms...

As you say, I cannot ask your questions for you; but in your case you may wish to ask for some advice.

I didn't say 'processed cheese', please don't rewrite my questions.
cheese has DNA in it
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2000/00000063/00000003/art00020

The cheese sandwich is the product of a highly succesful meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

which certainly existed by the 16th century
http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/SandwichHistory.htm

and has self-replicated to result in a multi-million pound industry in the UK alone.
from
http://www.sandwich.org.uk/infocentre.asp?param=view&id=68
Approximately 1.8 billion sandwiches are purchased outside the home each year
Cheese (15%)

Gives ~270,000,000 cheese sandwiches per year.

Cheese of any description is not immutable, nor is it immortal.

Your original statement was
'For something to be artificial, it would have to be somehow biochemically different, immutable, immortal, non-reproducing, and so on.'

Life was not the issue under discussion - please don't rewrite my questions, again. If I want advice on my questions, I'll choose from whom to get it.

[kuroyume0161]

[QUOTE=kuroyume0161;1268440]1. All the evidence (and there's tons of it) shows no signs of 'tampering' by any form of 'intelligent designer'.

How do you know, what would tampering by an intelligent designer look like?

I'll throw it back to you. What would it look like? Could you distinguish it from the current set of evolutionary connections? When was the last tampering? How many tamperings were there? Are they still tampering?

I don't see any evidence of tampering - only natural occurences over billions of years. Again, I made no statements about abiogenesis since there could have been tampering at that early and vague stage. Yet even here there are plausible explanations for abiogenesis to be a natural process.

Maybe the aliens are actually our DNA! How best to 'tamper' than to be the agent of 'tampering'! ;) Now all we need is to show that DNA is a sentient extraterrestrial lifeform...

[sphenisc]

[QUOTE=sphenisc;1268691]

I'll throw it back to you. What would it look like? Could you distinguish it from the current set of evolutionary connections? When was the last tampering? How many tamperings were there? Are they still tampering?

I don't see any evidence of tampering - only natural occurences over billions of years. Again, I made no statements about abiogenesis since there could have been tampering at that early and vague stage. Yet even here there are plausible explanations for abiogenesis to be a natural process.

Maybe the aliens are actually our DNA! How best to 'tamper' than to be the agent of 'tampering'! ;) Now all we need is to show that DNA is a sentient extraterrestrial lifeform...

Sorry, that's not how it works here. You made the claim - you provide the support. If you don't know what tampering would look like, it's not surprising if you don't see any evidence of it.

[kuroyume0161]

Oh, no no no. There is ample support for evolution. There is scant (if any) support for tampering. I said that there is no evidence of tampering. It is up to anyone claiming that there has indeed been tampering by an 'intelligent designer' to provide said support. I need not provide support that there has been no tampering - it is quite fulfilled by the opposing evidence.

[Elind]

Imagine we are in an alternate universe. The Dover Panda trial starts and Behe is called to the stand. He uses exactly the same vapid reasoning except he says:

"For life to have formed on this planet, an intelligent designer was necessary. There is an excellent chance that aliens exist on other planets. Some of those aliens are probably intelligent. Therefore, life on Earth was most likely created by aliens.

Perhaps THOSE aliens were not irreducibly complex and evolved on their own but we know nothing about them and cannot possibly comment on their origins."

Ok...this argument is really stupid. But is it religious? If it isn't a religious belief, it isn't a volation of the Establishment Clause.

What do skeptics do then? Is there a way to challenge it?
Supposing someone once said that billions of years ago really really bad characters were chained up in volcanoes on earth and their vibrations are still screwing up people sex lives; but never fear, for money or labor there are people who can cure you by attaching gold plated empty cans of baked beans to your extremities and teaching you how to counter the vibrations?

What do skeptics do? Have you ever tried to argue with the IRS? Forget it and move on.

[Iacchus]

Yes, because most people (on this board anyway) treat God very much as if He were an alien. ;)

[Elind]

Yes, because most people (on this board anyway) treat God very much as if He were an alien. ;)

:roll:

[sphenisc]

Oh, no no no. There is ample support for evolution. There is scant (if any) support for tampering. I said that there is no evidence of tampering. It is up to anyone claiming that there has indeed been tampering by an 'intelligent designer' to provide said support. I need not provide support that there has been no tampering - it is quite fulfilled by the opposing evidence.

You are at perfect liberty not to provide support for your claim that there is ample evidence with no signs of tampering, just as I'm allowed to be sceptical of your claim until you supply some evidence of your evidence.

[Roboramma]

You are at perfect liberty not to provide support for your claim that there is ample evidence with no signs of tampering, just as I'm allowed to be sceptical of your claim until you supply some evidence of your evidence.
Here's the thing - we don't know what tampering would look like because there are millions of different ways that it could look.
Aliens might really like cats and have manipulated evolution both so that felinidae would evolve and that humans would evolve to domesticate some of them.

Who knows?

But we can't conclude that there has been tampering until there is evidence of it. And until then, the assumption that there has been no tampering is valid. Just as it's valid to assume that there are no aliens visiting the earth now until there is evidence of it.

To put it another way, nothing that we see in nature now is better explained by tampering than by evolutionary theory as it now stands. Some things might not be explained by either.
It's possible that a specific theory of tampering could better explain one specific instance that is not explained by evolutionary theory yet. But that would be at the expense of all the other things that are explained by evolutionary theory.
It's also possible that I'm wrong about this - maybe there is something that is better explained by tampering. I certainly haven't seen it, and until I do, I won't credit the idea.

To posit tampering isn't impossible. But it's unnecessary until we have a reason to do so. I don't think we do yet. I'm open to be convinced otherwise, however.

[Ragutis]

Neither the simple question of the topic title, nor the belief in alien tampering/directed panspermia postulated in the OP would constitute a religious belief, IMHO.

Even if the creators/tamperers are supposedly extraterrestrial... as long as they are purported to be real beings within our universe, subject to it's physical laws and if they created Earth life using scientific methods and processes, we have a natural solution as opposed to the supernatural solution posited by the ID crowd. Big difference between a super-advanced species doing genetic manipulation and an invisible sky-daddy using magical powers. However, they would have the same heavy burden of proof that the ID'ers and Creationists carry... the hypothesis may be natural, but it's hardly less extraordinary.

[sphenisc]

What Roboramma said.