The probable existence of planets has always been factored into the optimistic view of the likelihood of intelligent life. So this should not really surprise us. No one doubts, or ever has doubted, the existence of planets outside our solar system. The better understanding we are gaining is in the detailed factors and conditions needed for intelligent life and this has been pointing inexorably toward lower probabilities. For example, we can believe with confidence that galactic areas with dense star formation would be sterile. This is just one of many examples.
And what would you say are some other examples? There are plenty of areas that do not have dense star formations.
__________________ Don't worry, I'm from the Church and I'm here to help!
There is no conspiracy. Come along. The helicopter's waiting.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Animal behavior is interesting, yes agreed, but are you suggesting something more?
My point seemed pretty obvious, the more we study animals, the more of the traits we thought were human only are observed. Our arrogant line between us and animals is slowly blurring the more we learn.
I don't understand your definition of divine. Are you a deist?
That's probably because I didn't give a definition of "divine" (purposely). Why would me using that term imply a deist? I am a Christian and I am a Panentheist (note: not a Pantheist). I believe in God as described by the historical Jesus and experiencing God as shown by Jesus. Hence I am a Christian by definition.
What troubles you that I define God as the divine... I could call him The Divine all the time and I doubt God will care, especially since people have described God by many words over history, even if you restrict yourself to Judaism.
In fact, as our understanding increases the evidence is pointing to intelligent life being less likely then once believed. This trend is continuing.
I will have to disagree, as Dark mentioned it seems like the opposite. I too have noticed what he has, that we now are predicting the number of Earth-like planets much much more than we used to. We are also learning that the "sterile" areas are probably not as sterile as we thought. Heck we have learned that places on our own planet that we thought were sterile in fact have life.
The more we learn the more likely life becomes and that increases the chances of intelligent life (whether human-like or not). On top of that the odds are just getting better of another Earth-like planet (all situations considered) than it used to be, the more we learn.
And what would you say are some other examples? There are plenty of areas that do not have dense star formations.
You can not discount regional stellar densities since a significant portion of all stars in the universe occur in these dense areas.
Other examples? The metallicity of a star matters. Star size is very important. In our galaxy alone 85% of all stars are red dwarfs or smaller. A third of all star systems in the galaxy are estimated to be n-ary systems (which is bad for life). There is the notion of a Galactic Habitable Zone. There is also the notion of a habitable zone within a solar system. A planet needs a proper percentage of carbon - too much is bad and too little is bad. Our planet actually only has .05% carbon. The planet needs a carbon cycle. This implies plate tectonics. Plate tectonics requires a specific metallicity. The list goes on and on.
Now even if you end up with the perfect planet you run the gauntlet of evolution in a capricious universe. This is another list of events that must coincide for intelligent life to evolve and survive. Yes, I'm aware of extremophiles. These are examples of how the most simple life can adapt once it exists. It says nothing about whether abiogenesis can occur in these environments. BTW - The best examples of extremophile life is not sea floor vents. These are beautiful, but no where near as interesting as endoliths which are bacteria living miles below the surface in "solid" rock.
As our knowledge grows about the universe and our planet's history and makeup, it is becoming clearer that intelligent life is less likely not more likely then we thought. The universe is a great place to study high energy physics, but a very, very hostile place for complex biology. This is the simple truth. I know this bothers some people. Believe me I enjoy science fiction as much as the next person, but a universe full of aliens does not jive with the evidence so far. Intelligent life is very very difficult to achieve.
I don't have enough posts to post links, but here are some mangled (sorry) links that if you piece together you can get some info.
My point seemed pretty obvious, the more we study animals, the more of the traits we thought were human only are observed. Our arrogant line between us and animals is slowly blurring the more we learn.
If two items being compared are similar in 49 out of 50 comparisons, but different in the one item of importance then the similarities are of less importance. In other words, chimps are remarkable animals. Clever with demonstrated intelligence of a kind. This does not mean the line between us is blurred. They are clearly and demonstrably distinct from humans. It is clear to me that we are not obligated to preach Christ to chimps. They are clearly distinct in God's plan. This implies no arrogance just as it would be foolish of me to impart guilt on a chimp for murder.
That's probably because I didn't give a definition of "divine" (purposely). Why would me using that term imply a deist? I am a Christian and I am a Panentheist (note: not a Pantheist). I believe in God as described by the historical Jesus and experiencing God as shown by Jesus. Hence I am a Christian by definition.
What troubles you that I define God as the divine... I could call him The Divine all the time and I doubt God will care, especially since people have described God by many words over history, even if you restrict yourself to Judaism.
Well, I admit I have not heard of Panentheism before. I'll have to read up on this. Looking at the wikipedia definition the first couple paragraphs strike me as an equivocation of sorts.
So you say you believe in an historical Jesus. Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God as described by the NT? Do you believe Jesus is the only path to salvation?
If two items being compared are similar in 49 out of 50 comparisons, but different in the one item of importance then the similarities are of less importance.
That is completely subjective and relative to the context. If I am in this context:
"Are chimps the same as humans?"
Then yes you are right, if I instead am in this context:
"Are chimps very similar to humans compared to the other species on the planet?"
Then it's a completely different situation... chimps -> humans in some ways have less differences than different kinds of dog breeds.
They are clearly distinct in God's plan. This implies no arrogance just as it would be foolish of me to impart guilt on a chimp for murder.
Except imparting guilt on an animal is a very common training technique, such as if my dog bites someone I punish him (by telling him "bad", making him lay down and submit, etc.. plenty of simple ways proven to work) and then he responds with a whimper. This is even a dog, which is quite distinct from us in comparison to a chimp.
Well, I admit I have not heard of Panentheism before. I'll have to read up on this. Looking at the wikipedia definition the first couple paragraphs strike me as an equivocation of sorts.
Roughly put it (and in my own context) I believe in God as being above and outside of our natural world as well as permeating our very existence. I believe we experience God all the time and that nature is an expression of God not separate from God. Some semi-accurate analogies are God being the power source for our existence, in all of us and connecting us, as well as being a separate power station that distributes the power (not the best but close enough). Marcus Borg is both a prominent Liberal Jesus Scholar/Author and a Panentheist, I'm sure he could explain it (and does in his own writing) much better than I.
So you say you believe in an historical Jesus. Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God as described by the NT? Do you believe Jesus is the only path to salvation?
Yes and no. Jesus is the only way in that he is the representation of transforming ourselves from one way to another... that progressing and making ourselves better is needed and also that Jesus was radically inclusive and radically fought against the exclusivity systems of his time. So yes in a different interpretation, no in the modern Christian "traditional" interpretation. Based on my studies on the historical Jesus (tracing back what parts of the gospels most likely go back to Jesus himself and were not added by the post-Easter Christian communities) I find this view to align with that very much, and the former view I held, of atonement, and salvation by syllables (having to know "Jesus" or you go to Hell) to not align with it (In fact based on textual studies Hell doesn't even exist in the text in our modern concept, only Gehenna, a physically location used to represent punishment).
Jesus is even more important to me than he was before since I see a real person with real human struggles (not he's divine but not contradiction) and he truly is a good example for living your life for God and fighting against exclusion. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that everyone must know Jesus to know God (God is much bigger than that), though to me Jesus is the definitive way to God even if I can recognize that this is not the case for everyone.
Personally I do not believe in aliens. It's entirely possible they exist in some form or another, but as of yet we have no evidence they do.
If aliens were discovered (be they intelligent space-travelling beings or microbes) I think the most profound theological implication would be to how similar they are to humans. If they have many similarities to us, I might conclude that evolution does have some sort of 'design' and/or 'destiny'.
That is completely subjective and relative to the context. If I am in this context:
"Are chimps the same as humans?"
Then yes you are right, if I instead am in this context:
"Are chimps very similar to humans compared to the other species on the planet?"
Then it's a completely different situation... chimps -> humans in some ways have less differences than different kinds of dog breeds.
The context we are interested in is the context of similarity with regard to intelligence, theory of mind, morality and spirituality. In other words we are, by definition, focusing on what makes us human. If an observer focuses on sameness then the context is sameness. Focusing on sameness does not remove or obviate the dramatic differences. These differences exist and are blaring.
Except imparting guilt on an animal is a very common training technique, such as if my dog bites someone I punish him (by telling him "bad", making him lay down and submit, etc.. plenty of simple ways proven to work) and then he responds with a whimper. This is even a dog, which is quite distinct from us in comparison to a chimp.
Sure, and geese and chimps "mourn". Do geese and chimps build shrines for the dead? No. Do they contemplate an afterlife. Well, there is no reasonable evidence that would allows us to conclude they do. The gap between us is very large and obviouse.
Marcus Borg is both a prominent Liberal Jesus Scholar/Author and a Panentheist, I'm sure he could explain it (and does in his own writing) much better than I.
Thanks, I'll read what he has to say.
Yes and no. Jesus is the only way in that he is the representation of transforming ourselves from one way to another... that progressing and making ourselves better is needed and also that Jesus was radically inclusive and radically fought against the exclusivity systems of his time. So yes in a different interpretation, no in the modern Christian "traditional" interpretation. Based on my studies on the historical Jesus (tracing back what parts of the gospels most likely go back to Jesus himself and were not added by the post-Easter Christian communities) I find this view to align with that very much, and the former view I held, of atonement, and salvation by syllables (having to know "Jesus" or you go to Hell) to not align with it (In fact based on textual studies Hell doesn't even exist in the text in our modern concept, only Gehenna, a physically location used to represent punishment).
Jesus is even more important to me than he was before since I see a real person with real human struggles (not he's divine but not contradiction) and he truly is a good example for living your life for God and fighting against exclusion. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that everyone must know Jesus to know God (God is much bigger than that), though to me Jesus is the definitive way to God even if I can recognize that this is not the case for everyone.
Jesus was inclusive, but only after conformity.
But you said in the "Wrong Ideas" thread that truth was not within our ability to obtain. If you believe this then your interpretation is untrustworthy and ultimately irrational.
The context we are interested in is the context of similarity with regard to intelligence, theory of mind, morality and spirituality. In other words we are, by definition, focusing on what makes us human. If an observer focuses on sameness then the context is sameness. Focusing on sameness does not remove or obviate the dramatic differences. These differences exist and are blaring.
Except you can never discover what is different without focusing on what is the same and vice versa. They are a pair, you determine one by evaluating the other, they happen together, to dismiss one is silly. On top of that how can we even decide how different we are as a species to chimps if we don't also observe how different we are to other species, or how different chimps are to other species. We are different but the fact is we are finding more similarities, that we didn't think were the same, the more we study. This shows we are realizing we are less different than chimps the more we learn, hence being more similar. A lot of the "human" factor may not in fact we as distinct as we believe, though obviously some of it still is.
Sure, and geese and chimps "mourn". Do geese and chimps build shrines for the dead? No. Do they contemplate an afterlife. Well, there is no reasonable evidence that would allows us to conclude they do. The gap between us is very large and obviouse.
Sure it is, I never said it wasn't, but arguably a lot of our emotions are expressed among both us and other animals... Building a shrine or thinking about the afterlife are different expressions of these emotions. Sure ours are more "developed" or advanced, though we see a lot of similarities, just at different levels.
What exactly are you arguing though, the only point I made is we are learning that in some ways we thought we were different, we in fact aren't. That's it.
Thanks, I'll read what he has to say.
He may be too liberal for you, though he is on the spiritual side of the liberal Christian scholars.
Jesus was inclusive, but only after conformity.
I think for me to adequately respond to this I would need more of an explanation by what you mean in "inclusive" and "conformity." I don't think we are meaning the same thing.
But you said in the "Wrong Ideas" thread that truth was not within our ability to obtain. If you believe this then your interpretation is untrustworthy and ultimately irrational.
Ahh, except you forgot to include a very important word in your statement there, a word I used to give context to my own...
Arrogance is to believe that we as flawed humans could ever definitely proclaim an absolute truth. Sure they are out there, but they are beyond our ability to confirm or deny.
I said absolute truth... You cannot realistically say there is absolutely a God since you can not offer inconclusive proof for it. Even things we can offer proofs of we can disprove, this is the case in the physical world and the spiritual one. It's even harder to find proofs in the spiritual one.
You may in fact know an absolute truth but there is no way you can be sure what is or isn't an absolute truth, it is beyond our grasps to completely and absolutely confirm or deny.
Based on your misrepresentation of my words maybe I should deem your words as untrustworthy, if you remove the most important contextual word in a quote from another thread how can I trust anything else? (If it isn't obvious I am being sarcastic, trying to represent how you tried to dismiss me based on a quote, which in fact was incorrect, so I dismiss you. No need to be childish and throw sentences or two at eachother and use it as a means to dismiss someone)
What exactly are you arguing though, the only point I made is we are learning that in some ways we thought we were different, we in fact aren't. That's it.
Humans are special and unique in God's plan.
Ahh, except you forgot to include a very important word in your statement there, a word I used to give context to my own...
I said absolute truth... You cannot realistically say there is absolutely a God since you can not offer inconclusive proof for it. Even things we can offer proofs of we can disprove, this is the case in the physical world and the spiritual one. It's even harder to find proofs in the spiritual one.
You may in fact know an absolute truth but there is no way you can be sure what is or isn't an absolute truth, it is beyond our grasps to completely and absolutely confirm or deny.
Based on your misrepresentation of my words maybe I should deem your words as untrustworthy, if you remove the most important contextual word in a quote from another thread how can I trust anything else? (If it isn't obvious I am being sarcastic, trying to represent how you tried to dismiss me based on a quote, which in fact was incorrect, so I dismiss you. No need to be childish and throw sentences or two at eachother and use it as a means to dismiss someone)
I don't agree I misquoted or misrepresented your statements. I certainly did not intend to do that. The last paragraphs of post #16 (this thread) were making absolute statements. As you point out the "Wrong Ideas" thread was regarding absolute truths. Your distinction seems to be, though, calling your beliefs less then absolute based on a philosophical position of some level of uncertainty in your ability to know something.
Based on your own philosophy you should logically distrust my words and your own words. The point I'm making is that you claim we can not know absolute truth and then make categorical statements about what you believe to be true. How can you believe yourself if you don't believe we can know absolute truth? If you say your belief is less then absolute (which seems to be your position) then how much less? If you can not qualify your level of belief in truth then your belief is arbitrary and capricious. If you can qualify your level of belief then there is no reason to believe we can not qualify some truths to the point of true knowledge - absolutely. Note, this does not mean we can know all truth absolutely, but it does suggest there exists truth that we can know (and know we know) absolutely.
For example, in the natural world we know absolutely that gravity exists under certain conditions in the universe. Pretending it does not exist will cause severe and possibly irreversible trauma to any philosophical purist who acts otherwise. No rational or sane person would deny this. Making a vacuous epistemological point about whether we "really" know this to be true is mental silliness. Their actions speak louder then their philosophy.
In the world of the supernatural it is different, agreed, the warrant we have in some of these beliefs ultimately requires faith because we are biological entities. This does not mean we can not build soundly reasoned cases for our belief in absolute truth. Logically sound and plausible arguments can be made for the supernatural world - existence of God for example. Will everyone believe, no, but that is irrelevant. Someone will be wrong and someone will be right regarding these fundamental truths. Each of us has used reason and faith to believe in these positions. People do in fact bet there eternal lives on these beliefs. Again, actions speak louder then philosophy.
Linear Mode
