| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2005 05:18:34 PM |
| Object: |
Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/11/wheres_et.html
Where's ET?
Carl Sagan and IS Shklovskii, in their book 'Intelligent Life in the
Universe', developed a formula for calculating the number of
technological civilisations in the galaxy with whom we might be able to
communicate. The calculation depended on some factors which are,
relatively speaking, more straightforward to derive, such as the number
of stars in our galaxy, the proportion of those with planets and the
fraction of these systems with planets that might support life. The
latter half of the equation, though, had to derive probabilities for
matters that are much more imponderable, including the chance of life
developing where conditions allow, the probability of intelligence
evolving, the likelihood of intelligent life developing a technological
culture capable of communicating over interstellar distances and,
finally, the average life span for such a civilisation.
If my memory serves, Messers Sagan and Shklovskii in the end calculated
that there are some 100,000 civilisations in the galaxy. Even though
the Milky Way is a pretty big place, this number does suggest that we
ought to be able to see some evidence of intelligent life out there.
But, as the physicist Enrico Fermi asked, where is everybody? Not a
whisper of a carrier wave, not a deflection of a gravity beam have we
detected. It looks like the universe might be a much lonelier place
than Messers Sagan and Shklovskii believed.
So, what was wrong with their equation? I only want to look at one of
the factors in their equation now: the probability that intelligent
life will eventually develop a scientific and technological culture
unless prevented from doing so by environmental factors (such as being
aquatic) or physiological reasons (a serpentine culture would probably
have difficulty with pipe wrenches) beyond their control. The two Ss
decided, and factored into their equation, that the probability of
intelligent life producing a scientific culture was 1. That is, a
certainty. They based this belief on the evident utility of technology
for the survival of any species - we humans are unlikely to be hunted
out of existence now by rampaging packs of hyenas, but it was a
distinct possibility on the plains of Africa millennia ago.
However, I think their confidence was based in large part on being
embedded in such a culture and thus being unaware of the philosophical
and religious foundations underlying the whole scientific enterprise. A
useful question to ask is why, in the Middle Ages, science was not
developed in the Islamic world or China. After all, both were
relatively stable civilisations, with long traditions of scholarship,
and, famously, both provided some of the building blocks of modern
science. For instance, the word 'algebra' itself is derived from
Arabic, and the vital concept of the zero also comes from the Muslim
world. I'm less familiar with China, but I suspect that the points I
am going to raise about the House of Islam could also apply, in a
modified form, to the Far East.
Now, it is well known how much a challenge the newly rediscovered works
of Aristotle and other Classical authors posed to medieval Christendom.
What is less well known is that the Classical inheritance were
similarly problematic to the Muslim world. Over the course of a number
of centuries there arose a conflict between the mutakallimun, who might
be called scholastic theologians, whose chief role was to defend the
truth of the Qu'ran against those who doubted it and the falasifa,
the philosophers, who called Aristotle the first teacher and accepted
many of the conclusions of the Greek philosophers as true.
Al-Ghazali was the greatest of the mutakallimun and Ibn Sina (Avicenna
as he was known in the West) of the falasifa. In the end though the
battle was won by the mutakallimun and the Asharite theology defended
by Al-Ghazali became dominant within the Islamic world. This theology
emphasised the limits of human reason when speaking of God to the
extent, in its more extreme forms, of the denial of secondary causes.
Thus when wood burns it burns because God wills it to burn, not because
you have put a match to the bonfire. Once this is accepted there is an
end to philosophical debate. However, such a conclusion was acceptable
within the Islamic world, probably because of the emphasis placed in
the Qu'ran on the will of God.
However, Christian philosophy was indelibly marked by the work of St
Augustine. In his 'Confessions' we read of a man who struggles to
bring his thought and life in to unity. For Augustine faith brought
with it understanding, a fact attested in his own life, and thus there
should be no radical schism between the truths of faith and the truths
of reason, and he set himself the task of incorporating within
Christianity those elements of Classical learning that were compatible
with his faith. For Augustine Christianity contained all that was
necessary for salvation but it did not contain a complete understanding
of the world. To understand the world, and the glory of God it
revealed, it was necessary to develop understanding in the light of
faith.
And, crucially, that understanding was possible because a rational God
had created a rational world. Thus it was possible to understand how
things came about, their efficient causation, without simply saying
that God wills it and that's how it is. From this basic belief flows
the possibility of science, for without it there is no point in trying
to understand the motion of the planets and the fall of an apple.
So, who knows, maybe Messers Sagan and Shklovskii were right, maybe
there are thousands upon thousands of civilisations out there staring
into the night sky of their home worlds. But if they are there, they
will be looking into an ebony sky untouched by the man-made light that
brightens our skies. For, to paraphrase Mr Sagan, the factors producing
a scientific culture could only develop in a Christ haunted world.
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 05:36:06 AM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> suddenly spluttered:
If my memory serves
Can't even cite.
B'bye.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
29 Nov 2005 07:46:40 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in
news:1133306314.379867.88930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/11/wheres_et.htm
l
Where's ET?
Carl Sagan and IS Shklovskii, in their book 'Intelligent Life in the
Universe', developed a formula for calculating the number of
technological civilisations in the galaxy with whom we might be able to
communicate.
The formula is due to Frank Drake. That's why they call it the "Drake
Equation". There are too many imponderables in the formula to achieve a
figure with any confidence.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "pointed" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
05 Dec 2005 07:22:09 PM |
|
|
I haven't read the book, although it sounds very interesting. However,
how is a planet that will "support life" defined? Humanoid life? What
about something like anaerobic, non-carbon based life? (I'm wildly
speculating here.) Wouldn't the existence of types of life forms that
humans have yet to define throw a serious wrench into the equation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brockbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
06 Dec 2005 11:32:33 AM |
|
|
"pointed" <poppypurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133832129.263278.307920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I haven't read the book, although it sounds very interesting. However,
how is a planet that will "support life" defined? Humanoid life? What
about something like anaerobic, non-carbon based life? (I'm wildly
speculating here.) Wouldn't the existence of types of life forms that
humans have yet to define throw a serious wrench into the equation?
Oh, that surely throws the spanner in the works. You have not read a book,
and don't know how a major point is defined and you think of something odd
like non-carbon based life that you once read speculation about and somehow
conclude that you know more than anyone else so aint you grand?
Think a little about your question, of how a planet capable of supporting
life might be 'defined'. I don't think that defined is quite the right
word, but have a think for a while. What sort of planets do we know about?
Gas giants like our big ones - of course there might be some odd sort of
life but surely for the sake of argument we will chuck them out as
candidates. What about little ones, like Pluto, a very long way from a
star? Let's rule them out for the sake of the discussion. Any more trivial
things that you could think up for yourself? How about it must have an
atmosphere and so must be quite massive. How about it should not be too
close to the star? How about it must be part of a double planet, like our
Earth/Moon double?
Why am I choosing these examples? Because the book is very knowledgeable
speculation about a fascinating topic and from which those who know little
about planets, what is needed for life, what are the limits we can impose on
speculation, can learn something.
Your comment is otherwise of the type of 'if you can't disprove something it
might be true so nothing actually means anything except what I believe'.
That is merely a very weak excuse for failing science exams. Read the book
and learn something instead of just guessing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
07 Dec 2005 09:37:23 AM |
|
|
In article <4395cb31_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
John Brockbank <wagley@screaming.net> wrote:
"pointed" <poppypurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133832129.263278.307920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I haven't read the book, although it sounds very interesting. However,
how is a planet that will "support life" defined? Humanoid life? What
about something like anaerobic, non-carbon based life? (I'm wildly
speculating here.) Wouldn't the existence of types of life forms that
humans have yet to define throw a serious wrench into the equation?
Oh, that surely throws the spanner in the works. You have not read a book,
and don't know how a major point is defined and you think of something odd
like non-carbon based life that you once read speculation about and somehow
conclude that you know more than anyone else so aint you grand?
[snippety]
Your comment is otherwise of the type of 'if you can't disprove something it
might be true so nothing actually means anything except what I believe'.
That is merely a very weak excuse for failing science exams. Read the book
and learn something instead of just guessing.
Am I being over-sensitive in detecting hostility here?
-- ***** Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
29 Nov 2005 07:52:50 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133306314.379867.88930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/11/wheres_et.html
Where's ET?
We go under the assumption that another civilization would use radio waves
to communicate. This is as arrogant as to think that they must look like
us, for after all, we are perfect, made in the image of the creator, who
made all of the observable universe just for our viewing pleasure.
It is religion who is in the forefront of the nay-sayers and who suppresses
anything that would prove life beyond Earth. How long did it take to
convince the thumpers that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
How long to make them realize that the Earth was not flat.
We here on Earth have just climbed onto the bottom rung of the ladder, and
already we proclaim to know everything. Where are they ?? Why haven't they
reported to us yet ?? If we can't hear them, then surely they don't exist.
For all we know, they may already be here and we are too stupid to recognize
them. We managed to get a few of our species to the moon and that makes us a
space-faring civilization ?? I think we should come off our high horse and
stop blowing the horn that toots our perceived technical prowess. On the
scale of Columbus' travels, we haven't even left the harbor Lisbon yet.
When we finally manage to reach the nearest star and haven't encountered and
signs of life, perhaps then we may begin to raise those questions of our
uniqueness in the cosmos, but until then, we are merely acting just like the
brats at Walmart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 02:22:43 AM |
|
|
Alternatively, there may exist a civilizing dynamic according to the
understanding and application of an inviolate moral law, which
corresponds with the laws of phisics, as the highest law of life and
Civility, which can only be driven by Love and which may be some sort
of evolving boundary threshold, communicating from the highest point,
unto the very lowest, in order to draw what is low to increasingly
higher heights like some sort of inverting pyramid, both of life AND of
interstellar civilizations, some of whom from time to time, make the
rounds so to speak, at the most opportune times and places, as farmers
in a vinyard. Consciousness alone is a very strange phenomenon. Perhaps
the ultimate communication truly comes by ways and means that we do not
expect, and don't even believe to see or hear it face to face, in human
history. To me it looks like two forms of communication have been
operative in the "seeding" and in the advance of human civilization,
one in which the action is driven by physical means, within a framework
of historical meaning and significance, and the other, through "wedge
issue" which generates a final apex or divided middle of leadership
which is like a road that is paved, or a "substrate" prepared, to
receive a communication from the "chief communicator" who is none other
than the spirit of the universe itself as pure Civil conscious
awareness, most appropriate to each "sphere" of influence, such that
some sort of "prime directive" is not voilated, in order for the
underlying dynamic and principal, Love, to flourish.. This would be the
quantum cosmological holographic interpretation of Christianity AS
communication itself, about increasing and rising Civilization, as a
vital process of transformation, where the medium of communication is
consciousness itself, and therefore spiritual evolution and awareness.
And the first shall be last and the last first. A city of light built
on a hilltop cannot be hidden, and neigther should you place your lamp
under a bushel basket. Instead, you place your light out on the
lampstand for ALL in the house and let your light shine before men so
that they will know that what's done is done in God.
What I am suggesting is that the very height of technology, is the
spoken word, and the transformation of consciousness which can be
brought about as a result, that is, if the ONLY meaning which can be
discerned, may be discerned in terms of a speaking, and a hearing,
through the framework of a relationship, and a relativity of being,
which relates to everyone, and within the ultimate sphere of influence
as may in FACT exist, within a transluminally interdependant,
interconnected "realm" of being and becoming according to a higher
principal and standard, in the light cone of light cones, that to be IS
to be percieved.
What is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven above and what is bound on
earth is bound in heaven also..and the first shall be last and the last
first.
This may certainly stretch the notion of a solipsistic strong anthropic
principal, but if meaningful "divine" interventions are peppered
throughout our history as a civilzation here on earth, then it is
entirely concievable, and certainly in the realm of possible, that a
communication HAS in fact been occuring all along, on a frequency which
we cannot even begin to fathom, and through an occasional intervening
historical causation, by certain "agents" of "God's will" (highest
Civil conscious awareness) who to see face to face would induce a heart
attack! "I am that I am" or "I shall be what I shall be". Sure changes
the framework of what some people like to call mere myths and fables,
along with the final framework of the relativity of human being in
terms of the historical causation of "good and evil". And last but not
least, it posits the final communication right here, at the LOWEST
place, technologically, from which it is to operate with vital intent,
as a communication of psycho-spiritual transformation which, in the
grand scheme of things, as a type of spiritual light tower will impinge
upon the entire spectrum of being and becoming right across the board
and across the entire observing spectrum. Yes, this would make us
"special" and would set us up, relative to a central standard of truth,
justice AND mercy, who's ultimate meaning and significance is of
unimaginable proportions.
All creation is therefore YEARNING and GROANING for the revelation of
the Sons of God, since non-local really matters, in the quantum
holographic universe that is.
If this is true, and upon careful inspection there is much evidence to
support it, when MEANING is taken into consideration, which it must be
and cannot not be, then we may begin to see that it's rather important
that we get the story right, in the final analysis at the end of the
day, and at the end of the age, and thus Bush should STOP bombing the
***** out of our Muslim brothers and sisters, according to what is
illuminated in one simple parable about a Good Sameritan told to some
obstinant lawyers, and told relative TO them as the foil against which
the parable is illuminated.
"I have become death, destroyer of worlds."
~ Baghivad Gita
"We were ONLY hitting dirt and tents"
~ Donald Rumsfeld, with a briefest flash of a wry, sardonic, and *****
eating grin, before the 9/11 Commission.
What is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven also, BUT, what is bound on
earth is bound in heaven too.
Loosed or bound relative to what standard, or boundary?
Civility: Consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical
in submission to a higher power.
Therefore is may not be such a good idea to unleash the dogs of war,
from the chain of Cvility and international law and order which holds
them at bay.
The highest law of life and love and liberty may therefore be and MUST
be, forgiveness all the way down, from the top down, and then, as an
emergent dynamic, from the bottom up, welling up even from the
innermost being, of you, and me until we are a cup filled to the brim
unto overflowing.
Is it any wonder there are reports of landings and little grey aliens
in space suits taking soil samples of this planet? All the navigation
instruments are off the scale on the one hand and they're picking up
something rather extraordinary, but they just can't figure out for the
life of them just what it IS about this place! LOL <and just kidding,
sort of, I think?>
If any of the UFO reports are legit, in terms of them representing
actual ET craft, and, if ancient human history, even Biblical history
were to be re-interpreted in terms of the "farming" analogy, and if at
the apex of the divided middile framed over history through the wedging
of the moral law as a corresponding law of life, in the form of a
re-interpreted Civility may be seen to form a divided middle, which was
"filled" at the point of the cross (an actual divided middile between
two crosses) by none other than you know who, then the implications of
that in terms of a meaningful historical import/export may very well be
absolutely astounding in no uncertain terms, not just for human
history, but for history itself as a formative causation and even
according to a strong anthropic, through rather solipsistic by design
principal of an arrow of progress, where the God of Love as THE God of
the very highest, communicated himself, from the highest height to the
lowest place without any medium of comminication at all, except via
human conscious awareness, and the technology of thought, and
communication, through the use of language, and meaningul circumstance,
not excluding the use or miracles, since in the realm of infinite
possibility ALL things ARE possible, and, in the quantum realm of being
and becoming, given enough time, anything, anything at all can, and
ultimately WILL happen.
Perhaps the fifth element and the missing link is actually a person,
and none other than the person or the essential "who" of God Himself,
as Love itself, since love to be love must a love of action, willing to
give OF itself for the sake of another's pschychological and therefore
spiritual, growth and well being - and since nothing IS unless it is
communicated.
And the meaning of communication is the response you get, in return.
Radio Waves? Pulease. In the grand scheme of things, relative to the
very highest form of technology, which harnesses the very law of life
itself, as Love in action, that would be whoefully inadequate to the
task at hand, which is to raise up to the highest, children of a
familial framework, where the family of origin and destination is
framed by history itself, and where death cannot have the last word,
since life meets life, and since there is nothing that is "not" thus
indicating that death has no meaning, and no relevance, and cannot
serve to motivate a process of continual transformation and growth. We
must be set free. Hammering us with an unloving technology would only
serve the very dissolution of our humanity amid extreme confusion about
things that we cannot understand. What we do understand is the problem
of evil and of suffering, and we know at least SOMETHING about love,
having children of our own.
It's a cosmic Christmas tree, the tree of life, and God of the highest,
and from some territorial soveriegn place over history, has placed
before us a gift of incaculable value, the whole world over, and all we
have to do is to "get it" to open it up and to fully "grok" it's true
meaning and significance!
Bottom line, what I think it states, first and formost is that "local
matters", and that the stone which was rejected by the builders became
the keystone, and that history has a tendency of repeating itself,
where one among us was the first born among many, and the elder brother
to us all, and a true friend, and personal savior.
"Go tell my brothers...
"There is no greater love than that of a friend who lays his life down
for his friends."
He did the very best he could do, with everything he had, and then
some.
And all you can do is mock him for it, and for us who seek to
understand.
A new world requires new thinking.
And if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the
problem, and for EVERY problem there IS a solution. That must is
plainly obvious, Big Time!
Cheers!
Rudolf.
:0)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 05:41:34 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
Consciousness alone is a very strange phenomenon.
It is for you, that's for sure. That's because false consciousness is
possible, therefore, to divine truth, a methodology is required to
transcend consciousness. This methodology has a name, it is called
'science'.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 02:50:26 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 00:22:43 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
Alternatively, there may exist a civilizing dynamic according to the
understanding and application of an inviolate moral law, which
corresponds with the laws of phisics,
And the babble begins again!
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 02:39:20 AM |
|
|
There is no longer any need to make the rounds in a transluminally
interconnected universe, except for purposes of friendship, and the
true meaning of friendship, is the presense of the friend.
To think about significantly more advanced beings, running around and
knocking off sentient lifeforms and cultures and civilizations in order
to colonize for selfish gain - well, that's the kind of thing the
United States would do, if it were ever permitted to so do. Perhaps it
might justify the act, in retaliation against the sheer terror of an
unknown unkown..LOL
I say if we are hurtling healong toward the end of the age and towards
a series of intersecting superdeterministic spacetime events, like a
technological singularity with almost NIL in the way of a corresponding
morality and character, amid the possibility of a runaway greenhouse
effect and in the words of ***** Cheney, perpetual WAR, for a generation
- that some sort of Civil invasion from on high, if ethically motivated
by Love, would certainly be in order, and ought to be something which
we should welcome with open arms, even if it were to mean and to
signify that the Bible is ALL TRUE! <laughing>
Soon enough the atheists might be in a real pickle! That is if contact
IS made, and the first communication is, in essence "Merry Christmas!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 03:21:03 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 00:39:20 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
There is no longer any need to make the rounds in a transluminally
interconnected universe, except for purposes of friendship, and the
true meaning of friendship, is the presense of the friend.
To think about significantly more advanced beings, running around and
knocking off sentient lifeforms and cultures and civilizations in order
to colonize for selfish gain - well, that's the kind of thing the
United States would do, if it were ever permitted to so do. Perhaps it
might justify the act, in retaliation against the sheer terror of an
unknown unkown..LOL
I say if we are hurtling healong toward the end of the age and towards
a series of intersecting superdeterministic spacetime events, like a
technological singularity with almost NIL in the way of a corresponding
morality and character, amid the possibility of a runaway greenhouse
effect and in the words of ***** Cheney, perpetual WAR, for a generation
- that some sort of Civil invasion from on high, if ethically motivated
by Love, would certainly be in order, and ought to be something which
we should welcome with open arms, even if it were to mean and to
signify that the Bible is ALL TRUE! <laughing>
Soon enough the atheists might be in a real pickle! That is if contact
IS made, and the first communication is, in essence "Merry Christmas!"
But on the other hand, if the first question the ETs ask is "What is a
god?".......
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 03:26:50 AM |
|
|
But on the other hand, if the first question the ETs ask is "What is a
god?".......
As if they wouldn't understand the meaning and significance of
Christianity...or would have never heard of it.
Raise your thinking a little higher. What you don't think that if such
intersetellar civilizations exist that they don't exchange info? Or
that they don't function in accordance with certain timeless, spaceless
principals of truth and justice?
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..
I think you atheists are clueless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
07 Dec 2005 11:15:06 AM |
|
|
*snip*
I think you atheists are clueless.
That's a meaningless statement from someone who (in your previous post)
produced one of the most extreme (and unintentionally hilarious)
examples of condensed gibberish I have ever read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 04:08:45 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 01:26:50 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
But on the other hand, if the first question the ETs ask is "What is a
god?".......
As if they wouldn't understand the meaning and significance of
Christianity...or would have never heard of it.
Raise your thinking a little higher. What you don't think that if such
intersetellar civilizations exist that they don't exchange info? Or
that they don't function in accordance with certain timeless, spaceless
principals of truth and justice?
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..
I think you atheists are clueless.
And I think you Christians tend to forget that your beliefs are not
universal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 04:25:24 AM |
|
|
And I think you Christians tend to forget that your beliefs are not
universal.
How do you mean? In what way? Do you mean the other branches of faith
here on earth?
Christianity, at least in my view is not exclusive, but all inclusive,
and that it is a belief about Spirit, and about Grace as Love in
action.
You are not talking to your average fundy bible thumper here, so spare
me the traditional arguments. They don't wash.
The only real problem with Christianity is that most people don't take
the time to investigate it, or try to understand it. Their approach is
that of contempt, prior to investigation, which is a recipe for
ignorance. Every heard of C.S. Lewis? He was an athiest. He was also
one of THE greatest Christian writers and thinkers of the last century.
He "grokked" it pretty much for what it was and what it signifies,
which truly is well beyond this small world of ours, which is but a
grain of sand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 05:03:49 AM |
|
|
All creation proclaims God's magesty.
You just need to think about it in a whole new light, and frame of
reference, which is a relationship, between subjective self and an
objective reality, which is spiritual in nature, and entirely capable
of communication something as to the true nature and nurture of love as
the very glue which holds everything together, with integrity and
wholeness, bound by certain laws, the height of which has to do with an
arrow of progress, by the very neccessity of free will choice, at all
levels. What it states is that life is not a meaningless absurdity and
history something more than an abitrary meaning which we merely impose
upon it. What it states is that there is a supreme value, which is
preserved without compromise, and if that can be communicated to us in
a meaningful way, it's a good thing, and a very good thing indeed. Who
can stand apart from themselves, and assign their own value or lack
thereof? Therefore we are not in a position to judge, yet there must be
judgement for history to have any meaning and significance, and that's
why ***** Cheney is screwed. History itself stands much much taller than
the will of man to control it, and distort it for purely selfish gain.
We will all stand before that white throne of pure conscious awareness,
and then we will know as we are known, since to be, is to be percieved,
and since consciousness, even our own, is woven right into the very
fabric of reality, a reality which to be real must also be just and
true. We are therefore under judgement by the supreme being, and there
is nothing we can do about that, not even TRY to make up for our
shortcomings by being extra good. No, we fall short of the mark, and we
cannot engineer our own salvation. God must do, and did, what we of
ourselves could never do, and so he did, and now, we who believe, and
recieve, are free, and because we are set free by the ransom paid by
the Son of God, then we are free indeed - free, within an eternally
forgiven, eternally unfolding present moment in no time at all with
nothing to fear, not even death itself, since that particular fear,
drives a certain will to destruction. But one cannot "get it" or
recieve it without experiencing the provocation towards true
repentance, since there IS no other possible response in the face of
such love and mercy. Those who don't get it, either won't because of
their own pride, or cannot, because their heart is made of cold stone.
Ya ever note the tone around here..? I do. It's ice cold. There is no
warmth in atheism and no love which does not serve a self satisfying
agenda, and if you are a seeker like me, then you will have come to the
full realization long ago, that nothing in this world truly satisfies a
certain thirst and hunger deep within. That hunger, is a hunder for
meaning, and for purpose, but we are not projecting that into
Christianity, no. We are merely recognizing that there, in the meaning
inherent in it, there is true and lasting satisfaction. Jesus was not a
liar, and there's enough of his sayings there, imbedded in his own
historical reality, which reveal something of his true character, as
both sane and trustworthy. He was not a madman, a liar, a fool, or some
sort of evil man. Quite the contrary, so what are we to make of him, of
his teachings, his character, and the epic of his life and death. If it
means anything at all, then it means absolutely everything. The one
thing that Christianity is not, is unimportant, or even moderately
important. No, it is either true, or untrue, either a delusion and an
illness from which we Christians ought to be cured, or it is the very
antidote to the human sickness we call evil. It is either sane, or
insane. However, upon investigation and philosophical reflection it
comes through the wash, as being the very height of sanity, and if
true, then the verdict, for you and for me is "NOT GUILTY" by reason of
Jesus' own sanity which drove him to make the final sacrifice as his
own meaning and purpose in history. It is worthy of consideration.
To say that it is of no consequence, does no justice to what's rendered
there. Something which C.S. Lewis became convinced could not possibly
have originated in the mind of man, no matter how creative. He too came
to the conclusion that the whole concept is just so alien to human
conceptions of justice, and so perfect in the magnitude of its genious,
that it simply had to be true, and the greatest story ever told. Jesus
played his part, to a T! ;-) It either is meaningful, or, it is not.
Christianity is an all or nothing proposition and that is why a person
is advised to measure the cost of descipleship, since the building will
be completed no matter how challenging and no matter how long it takes.
Once you are into it, you are a work in progress with an end in mind,
which is just the end of one way of being, and the beginning of a new
one, which is the real you, the authentic self that you really and
truly are, yet without having to pattern yourself based on what
everyone else is doing or saying. As a Christian, you are the light of
the world and the salt of the earth. You no longer conform, and you are
therefore a new type of rebel with a cause, a mission, a vision and a
purpose. You become a force of nature, and a cocreator of something
novel and life vivifying, and your presence makes a difference in ways
that you cannot at this stage even begin to fathom, and that's ok,
since all the glory goes to God who did for us what we could not do for
ourselves. Does that mean we are not taking responsibility? Hardly - it
gives us the means to do so effectively and for all time. In Christ, we
are to take a stand for the sake of and in the name of the Truth.
Like I said, you "atheists" simply don't have a clue. You think you
know but you don't know, and what you don't know exists in a realm that
you don't even know that you don't know it yet.
On behald of the Spirit of the Universe, through Jesus Christ, let me
chose you now.
All it takes is courage, willingness and open mindedness - to
investigate more fully WITHOUT contempt prior to investigation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 05:48:13 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
All creation proclaims God's magesty.
I see, messiahs get the company of cows and sheep, magicians get pigs.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramod Subramanyan" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 11:22:44 AM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote something which is a pain to read:
Please write smaller paragraphs with shorter sentences.
All creation proclaims God's magesty.
You just need to think about it in a whole new light, and frame of
reference, which is a relationship, between subjective self and an
objective reality, which is spiritual in nature, and entirely capable
of communication something as to the true nature and nurture of love as
the very glue which holds everything together, with integrity and
wholeness, bound by certain laws, the height of which has to do with an
arrow of progress, by the very neccessity of free will choice, at all
levels.
Translation:
I can say whatever I want to say and you can't find fault with it
because you thinking isn't working the "right" way. Don't ask me what
the "right" way, it is obvious if you have an Open Mind!
What it states is that life is not a meaningless absurdity and
history something more than an abitrary meaning which we merely impose
upon it. What it states is that there is a supreme value, which is
preserved without compromise, and if that can be communicated to us in
a meaningful way, it's a good thing, and a very good thing indeed.
Some proof for this "statement" of yours is required.
Who can stand apart from themselves, and assign their own value or lack
thereof? Therefore we are not in a position to judge, yet there must be
judgement for history to have any meaning and significance.
More unsupported assertions.
And that's why ***** Cheney is screwed.
Huh, who cares about ***** Cheney? I thought we were talking about god
and the universe here.
History itself stands much much taller than
the will of man to control it, and distort it for purely selfish gain.
Okay.
We will all stand before that white throne of pure conscious awareness,
and then we will know as we are known, since to be, is to be percieved,
and since consciousness, even our own, is woven right into the very
fabric of reality, a reality which to be real must also be just and
true.
The first part of the sentence seems to be a reference to god. The part
about "Fabric of reality, a reality which to be real must also be just
and true" is an unsupported assertion (maybe even a plea) that god is
real. Both are unsupported.
We are therefore under judgement by the supreme being, and there
is nothing we can do about that, not even TRY to make up for our
shortcomings by being extra good. No, we fall short of the mark, and we
cannot engineer our own salvation.
Proof?
God must do, and did, what we of
ourselves could never do, and so he did, and now, we who believe, and
recieve, are free, and because we are set free by the ransom paid by
the Son of God, then we are free indeed - free, within an eternally
forgiven, eternally unfolding present moment in no time at all with
nothing to fear, not even death itself, since that particular fear,
drives a certain will to destruction. But one cannot "get it" or
recieve it without experiencing the provocation towards true
repentance, since there IS no other possible response in the face of
such love and mercy.
Proof?
Those who don't get it, either won't because of
their own pride, or cannot, because their heart is made of cold stone.
Translation:
Look, I don't intend to reason with you, you're plain wrong and its
your fault.
Ya ever note the tone around here..? I do. It's ice cold. There is no
warmth in atheism.
My reckoning is that you call whatever that makes you feel
uncomfortable "ice cold". So if people argue that god doesn't exist,
they're stone hearted demons denying you your share of happiness.
And no love which does not serve a self satisfying
agenda, and if you are a seeker like me, then you will have come to the
full realization long ago, that nothing in this world truly satisfies a
certain thirst and hunger deep within.
Translation:
I'm right. You're wrong. I just KNOW it.
That hunger, is a hunder for
meaning, and for purpose, but we are not projecting that into
Christianity, no. We are merely recognizing that there, in the meaning
inherent in it, there is true and lasting satisfaction.
If "we" denotes your co-followers, go right ahead and believe whatever
you want to believe. But, if you want to your claims of superiority to
have any value, you need to support your claims with evidence/proof.
Jesus was not a
liar, and there's enough of his sayings there, imbedded in his own
historical reality, which reveal something of his true character, as
both sane and trustworthy. He was not a madman, a liar, a fool, or some
sort of evil man.
Irrelevant.
Quite the contrary, so what are we to make of him, of
his teachings, his character, and the epic of his life and death. If it
means anything at all, then it means absolutely everything.
Isn't this just a plain old false dichotomy?
The one
thing that Christianity is not, is unimportant, or even moderately
important. No, it is either true, or untrue, either a delusion and an
illness from which we Christians ought to be cured, or it is the very
antidote to the human sickness we call evil. It is either sane, or
insane.
The same false dichotomy is carried over here.
However, upon investigation and philosophical reflection it
comes through the wash, as being the very height of sanity, and if
true, then the verdict, for you and for me is "NOT GUILTY" by reason of
Jesus' own sanity which drove him to make the final sacrifice as his
own meaning and purpose in history. It is worthy of consideration.
More unsupported assertions.
To say that it is of no consequence, does no justice to what's rendered
there. Something which C.S. Lewis became convinced could not possibly
have originated in the mind of man, no matter how creative. He too came
to the conclusion that the whole concept is just so alien to human
conceptions of justice, and so perfect in the magnitude of its genious,
that it simply had to be true, and the greatest story ever told.
Opinions do not count. Reason does.
Jesus
played his part, to a T! ;-) It either is meaningful, or, it is not.
Christianity is an all or nothing proposition and that is why a person
is advised to measure the cost of descipleship, since the building will
be completed no matter how challenging and no matter how long it takes.
Once you are into it, you are a work in progress with an end in mind,
which is just the end of one way of being, and the beginning of a new
one, which is the real you, the authentic self that you really and
truly are, yet without having to pattern yourself based on what
everyone else is doing or saying. As a Christian, you are the light of
the world and the salt of the earth. You no longer conform, and you are
therefore a new type of rebel with a cause, a mission, a vision and a
purpose. You become a force of nature, and a cocreator of something
novel and life vivifying, and your presence makes a difference in ways
that you cannot at this stage even begin to fathom, and that's ok,
since all the glory goes to God who did for us what we could not do for
ourselves. Does that mean we are not taking responsibility? Hardly - it
gives us the means to do so effectively and for all time. In Christ, we
are to take a stand for the sake of and in the name of the Truth.
Translation:
We are better than you. We don't have to prove it to you. We are better
than you. Look, there's no point arguing with you. We are better than
you.
Like I said, you "atheists" simply don't have a clue. You think you
know but you don't know, and what you don't know exists in a realm that
you don't even know that you don't know it yet.
Nice, you've also managed to slip in the customary fundy insult.
On behald of the Spirit of the Universe, through Jesus Christ, let me
chose you now.
All it takes is courage, willingness and open mindedness - to
investigate more fully WITHOUT contempt prior to investigation.
All you've done is make unsupported assertions of the kind "This has to
be this way", "The right path is obviously this", and "This cannot
happen without that happening" without a shred of argument or evidence.
Please try an support your assertions.
And PLEASE try to write in a manner that is more reader-friendly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat, Esq." |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
07 Dec 2005 01:02:56 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
All creation proclaims God's magesty.
You just need to think about it in a whole new light, and frame of
reference, which is a relationship, between subjective self and an
objective reality, which is spiritual in nature, and entirely capable
of communication
The notion that God is capable of communicating to us, is completely
irrelevant until God actually starts communicating to us. I was raised
Christian, yet Christ rejected me; He refused a relationship with me,
so after much sorrow, I gave up. What good is an open mind if God will
not fill it? Complain to God, not to us.
Like I said, you "atheists" simply don't have a clue. You think you
know but you don't know, and what you don't know exists in a realm that
you don't even know that you don't know it yet.
Then teach. Teach me how to believe in something that does not look
real. If you are unwilling to help me come to Christ, then you have no
right to complain about me.
On behald of the Spirit of the Universe, through Jesus Christ, let me
chose you now.
All it takes is courage, willingness and open mindedness - to
investigate more fully WITHOUT contempt prior to investigation.
I was raised Christian. I investigated it without contempt. I found
nothing. Either tell me what I did wrong, or stop complaining. Fix me,
or shut up.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 08:04:21 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name>
posting the following on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:52:50 -0800 iin
alt.atheism?
We go under the assumption that another civilization would use radio waves
to communicate. This is as arrogant as to think that they must look like
us, for after all, we are perfect, made in the image of the creator, who
made all of the observable universe just for our viewing pleasure.
I'm writing a setting (either for sale to a game company, or *gasp*
for my own writing) where humanity's main allies are the "Blimps",
large critters that float along under their own natural gasbags. The
Blimps communicate by projecting patterns and colors on their skin
(something I stole from several species of cephlapod.)
So they never developed radio in the big way we did. Bit of a shock
when we found them.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Brockbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 12:25:37 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133306314.379867.88930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/11/wheres_et.html
If my memory serves, Messers Sagan and Shklovskii in the end calculated
that there are some 100,000 civilisations in the galaxy. Even though
the Milky Way is a pretty big place, this number does suggest that we
ought to be able to see some evidence of intelligent life out there.
There are some 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. If there are
100,000 civilisations, spread fairly evenly, then it is not very likely that
there is a civilisation on any planet orbiting a star which a person can
actually see with the unaided eye. If one's eyesight is not great, one can
see about 2,000 stars and the average occupancy is about 1 per 2,000.
In other words if Sagan's figures as quoted by you are right, of all the
stars one can see, only one, the Sun, has an occupied planet. Anyone who
thinks that Carl Sagan expected the galaxy to be teeming with civilisations
does not understand the numbers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
29 Nov 2005 06:06:32 PM |
|
|
-snip crossposting-
words of truth wrote:
http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/11/wheres_et.html
-snip-
And, crucially, that understanding was possible because a rational God
had created a rational world. Thus it was possible to understand how
things came about, their efficient causation, without simply saying
that God wills it and that's how it is. From this basic belief flows
the possibility of science, for without it there is no point in trying
to understand the motion of the planets and the fall of an apple.
So, who knows, maybe Messers Sagan and Shklovskii were right, maybe
there are thousands upon thousands of civilisations out there staring
into the night sky of their home worlds. But if they are there, they
will be looking into an ebony sky untouched by the man-made light that
brightens our skies. For, to paraphrase Mr Sagan, the factors producing
a scientific culture could only develop in a Christ haunted world.
ironically, this article does show a very good reason to believe that
only a small number of intelligent beings would gain science....namely,
religion is so likely to develop and quash it.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
29 Nov 2005 09:09:28 PM |
|
|
It's not likely that if life starts that anything would ever stop it. I
say given time it will always reach intelligence. That's the whole
point of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brockbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 12:49:55 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133320167.980632.323760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's not likely that if life starts that anything would ever stop it. I
say given time it will always reach intelligence. That's the whole
point of course.
The Earth has existed 4.5 billion years. Life intelligent enough to be
technological has existed for only a tiny fraction of that time. If you
were an independent observer looking at the Earth when it was 4.4 billion
years old then you might well consider that extremely strong evidence that
life is extremely unlikely to become technological.
This question, of how humans came to be, is a very interesting one.
Archaeologists of course work on it, but the evidence is fairly sparse I
think and it might be a long time before we have a fairly good idea how it
happened.
People being what they are, and wanting to know what is not yet known,
invent answers. Unfortunately the line between what is known and what is
invented becomes very blurred. Religious people fill in the gaps with God,
and we atheists need to be slightly careful that we too should not accept
invented ideas as anything other than that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 05:28:04 PM |
|
|
John Brockbank wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133320167.980632.323760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's not likely that if life starts that anything would ever stop it. I
say given time it will always reach intelligence. That's the whole
point of course.
The Earth has existed 4.5 billion years. Life intelligent enough to be
technological has existed for only a tiny fraction of that time. If you
were an independent observer looking at the Earth when it was 4.4 billion
years old then you might well consider that extremely strong evidence that
life is extremely unlikely to become technological.
Read "Snowball Eath" and you'll see earth was too cold for surface
metazoan life until about 600 million years ago. Add to that the fact
that the Sun is gradually getting warmer, and some time between 500
million and 1.5 billion years from now, depending on mitigating effects
of clouds, the climate of Earth will be similar to that of Venus.
There's a very short time frame of about 1 or 2 billion years for
intelligent life to develope
- A McIntire
This question, of how humans came to be, is a very interesting one.
Archaeologists of course work on it, but the evidence is fairly sparse I
think and it might be a long time before we have a fairly good idea how it
happened.
People being what they are, and wanting to know what is not yet known,
invent answers. Unfortunately the line between what is known and what is
invented becomes very blurred. Religious people fill in the gaps with God,
and we atheists need to be slightly careful that we too should not accept
invented ideas as anything other than that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lupus" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
01 Dec 2005 09:57:31 AM |
|
|
that's ok then because pretty much everything lived in the sea 600
million years ago
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22BoD_!_=A9_2005=2E=22?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
01 Dec 2005 09:59:54 AM |
|
|
Lupus wrote:
that's ok then because pretty much everything lived in the sea 600
million years ago
You have been watching the Gunniess Ad !
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 11:45:34 AM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 15:18:34 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Where's ET?
Oh *****, it's the Cut&Paste Queen.
PLONK.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Hertzlinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
29 Nov 2005 10:09:42 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 15:18:34 -0800, words of truth
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Al-Ghazali was the greatest of the mutakallimun and Ibn Sina (Avicenna
as he was known in the West) of the falasifa. In the end though the
battle was won by the mutakallimun and the Asharite theology defended
by Al-Ghazali became dominant within the Islamic world.
....
And, crucially, that understanding was possible because a rational God
had created a rational world. Thus it was possible to understand how
things came about, their efficient causation, without simply saying
that God wills it and that's how it is. From this basic belief flows
the possibility of science, for without it there is no point in trying
to understand the motion of the planets and the fall of an apple.
So, who knows, maybe Messers Sagan and Shklovskii were right, maybe
there are thousands upon thousands of civilisations out there staring
into the night sky of their home worlds. But if they are there, they
will be looking into an ebony sky untouched by the man-made light that
brightens our skies. For, to paraphrase Mr Sagan, the factors producing
a scientific culture could only develop in a Christ haunted world.
Why would the same Middle-Eastern political struggle turn out the same
way on other worlds?
My theory, for what it's worth, which isn't much, is that Europe
escaped being held down by would-be dogmatists because it was a fringe
area. During the "Dark" Ages, even the nuttiest bishops couldn't
suppress philosophical ideas. There were attempts to declare
Aristotle's philosophy to be heresy. Those attempts could not succeed
in the Dark Ages and by the time of the High Middle Ages, something
resembling reason had become entrenched.
There was a close call during the "Renaissance." By that time, Europe
was no longer a fringe area and the authoritarians had a free hand.
The formerly-unified Church broke up just in time.
Come to think of it. Islam was (prior to the influence of oil money)
at its most tolerant in the fringe area of Indonesia.
--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "BernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's ET? The Atheist's False Hope In Space Aliens |
30 Nov 2005 02:25:05 AM |
|
|
In article <aC9jf.10534$aA2.8288@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com says...
On 29 Nov 2005 15:18:34 -0800, words of truth
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Al-Ghazali was the greatest of the mutakallimun and Ibn Sina (Avicenna
as he was known in the West) of the falasifa. In the end though the
battle was won by the mutakallimun and the Asharite theology defended
by Al-Ghazali became dominant within the Islamic world.
...
And, crucially, that understanding was possible because a rational God
had created a rational world. Thus it was possible to understand how
things came about, their efficient causation, without simply saying
that God wills it and that's how it is. From this basic belief flows
the possibility of science, for without it there is no point in trying
to understand the motion of the planets and the fall of an apple.
So, who knows, maybe Messers Sagan and Shklovskii were right, maybe
there are thousands upon thousands of civilisations out there staring
into the night sky of their home worlds. But if they are there, they
will be looking into an ebony sky untouched by the man-made light that
brightens our skies. For, to paraphrase Mr Sagan, the factors producing
a scientific culture could only develop in a Christ haunted world.
Why would the same Middle-Eastern political struggle turn out the same
way on other worlds?
My theory, for what it's worth, which isn't much, is that Europe
escaped being held down by would-be dogmatists because it was a fringe
area. During the "Dark" Ages, even the nuttiest bishops couldn't
suppress philosophical ideas. There were attempts to declare
Aristotle's philosophy to be heresy. Those attempts could not succeed
in the Dark Ages and by the time of the High Middle Ages, something
resembling reason had become entrenched.
There was a close call during the "Renaissance." By that time, Europe
was no longer a fringe area and the authoritarians had a free hand.
The formerly-unified Church broke up just in time.
Come to think of it. Islam was (prior to the influence of oil money)
at its most tolerant in the fringe area of Indonesia.
Question: Assume that the Europeans had not advanced beyond the Dark
Ages. We now have China, Japan, Americas and Islam. Given a few
thousands of years, one have progressed into a industrial civilization?
Progress in these areas was still going on it was just not as fast as in
parts of Europe.
--
Only in movies do guys pick the engagement ring.
Observations of Bernard - No 89
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
