John Carter of Mars: What Would Religious Views Look like on other planets if you had to guess?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom.

Anyone who knows me well enough knows that one of my favorite stories of all time is John Carter of Mars. Far more thrilling any day than what I'd expect in something like Superman - and much more thrilling in story as well as in the love interest too...for Superman can never compare to the epic nature of being a warlord that came to another world nor can he compare with the way Martian culture is astounding.

​

The religion from John Carter of Mars is very fascinating.....as it concerns their worship of a Supreme Creator known as Isis (who is a female) - all of it based on Martian religion. As opposed to God being seen in predominately male terms, the Creator is seen from a female perspective. And this is not something the Early Church was opposed to at all points, as shared before here:

the persons of the Godhead are distinct but relational and one thus "God is love" as John states. This is not the case with the Olympians (or other gods that I know of). Further, in discussing this issue, a list was made of the abilities etc. of the persons of the Holy Trinity in Scripture, and were found to have the same attributes with the exception that the Father originates, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. This is again not the case with the Olympians, etc.

Very excellent points - and yet within that there's the dynamic of the Trinity having relationship amongst itself just as it is within a Human Family of Father, Mother and Son...and on a side note, to be clear r with the Family Dynamic - as noted elsewhere more in-depth - it is challenging seeing others tackle other possibilities of there being a FEMININE Aspect of the GOD-Head, as it relates to the concept of Family (i.e. Father, Son, Mother, etc), "Lady Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 (and how the Historical Church often viewed the issue)----and understanding the reasons behind why many had issues with it down in later centuries of the Early Church.[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT]. If aware of what is taught in the Syriac Orthodox CHurch on the Holy Spirit and women, it's very surprising to see their thoughts on a Feminine Holy SPirit (Even though others disagree in regards to the reasons why feminine language was used by parts of Ancient Christendom)- more here at The Role of Women in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch*/The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature or The Holy Spirit: Classic and Contemporary Readings - Page 113


And on the issue of the Trinity having a highly SOCIAL aspect to it even as all are unified together - for good review on the issue, one can consider going here:

• social trinity | Eclectic Orthodoxy

Dr. Michael Heiser did an excellent presentation on the issue once:

Dr. Michael Heiser: Gnosticism Lecture (Full) - YouTube
Jesus Christ and the Old Testament: Jesus Christ as Co-Creator- Michael S. Heiser - YouTube
​

Obviously, not all gnostics are the same - there were other aspects of it within the Early Church that were well-accepted...as noted best in The School of Alexandria - Part I/Ch 4 - The Gnostics .....

But on the rest of the religion on Mars, But there are other middle-men beings known as Therns who claim to represent Issus and are a threat to Barsoom since they have been misrepresenting things. As another commented more in-depth:

Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Mars is basically like earth – lots of evenly matched civilizations destroying each other for centuries until one gets an advanced technology (gunpowder, etc) and annihilates the other side. But there is also an element of magic, mysticism and religion. The main God (Goddess, actually) on Mars is Isis, and her desires are arbitrated by a supremely advanced, but nevertheless biological, group of beings called the Holy Therns (in other words, the white men… in the novels, John Carter is, like the Therns, the rare white man surrounded by technologically lesser savages).

In both worlds (Earth and Mars) the savages are supremely religious and superstitious, but also dogmatic, closed to change and violent.

The plot revolves around the Thern interfering in Martian history by giving an advanced weapon to a brute leader who will dominate and rule the planet for the years to come. They have chosen him for this role.

This is important – they aren’t interested in ruling themselves; in fact they’ve gone to great lengths to make everybody believe that they don’t really exist. They work very hard at staying invisible, and yet guiding the historical developments. They do this so that they can forge alliances with the leaders they’ve elected, who will let them plunder the planet for valuable resources (exactly as, for example, America’s leaders treat Middle Eastern countries – by supplying weaponry behind the scenes to make sure the person in charge will sell them cheap oil).

The Therns have no interest in helping these races develop or mature; in fact if a smart, benign race were given technology, they would use science to control and understand it – eventually perhaps being able to stand up to the Therns and throwing off the colonialistic plundering. Hence they sabotage the princess’s very close attempt at replicating the technology.​

• John Carter: Book vs Movie | Guardians of Geek

I've watched the movie before many times...and as said before, John Carter" is a very beautiful film (based on the book "John Carter of Mars" made by the same man who made "Tarzan" ) - with the dynamic of other species in other worlds having their own religion and views making the issue of Christ that much more interesting...as the concept of alien life presupposes that all of creation would need to encounter the Messiah Jesus.

And To be clear, no, I'm not opposed to extraterrestrial life existing - but it really doesn't phase me seeing others who don't believe in God trusting ET exists when reading the Bible does suggest the universe is A LOT more complicated than people give credit for. And for other theologians speaking whom I've greatly appreciated, I am reminded of "CCR 040: Dr. Michael Heiser Interview" (http://www.canarycryradio.com/2013/01/01/ccr-040-dr-michael-heiser-interview/ )./ (http://drmsh.com/ )...excellent series which tackles the reality of how the "Divine Council in scripture relates to the current subject of UFOs and ETs as well as the underlining theological question of how we define God."

-"Dr. Michael Heiser on The Unseen Realm - trinities 097" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Ru9rAejqA )

-"The Sharpening 079: Dr. Michael Heiser and The Unseen Realm" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_CxlVsG9c )

http://www.slideshare.net/SiriCErickson/intro-to-process-week-1


But I am curious - if John Carter was real, how would you respond to it? More specifically, if alien life existed, what would be your theological or religious views you have of it and what would you be expecting of that world? And for that matter, what would their views of the world be like?

​

That said, again, I'm curious as to how others felt on the concept and would love to hear any thoughts on the matter And for anyone else who is a John Carter Fan, would love to get your perspectives....

​

​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The problem with imagining alien forms of religion, is they still tend to mimic forms on earth. Pretty much most forms of worship conceivable to man has either been practised or hypothesised on.

I would expect that any race that built any form of civilisation, ie created something, would consider a Creator at some point. Likely polytheism or monotheism or a pantheism would arise thereof.

James Blish's a Question of Conscience has a race with no god conception, but it ends with their world being blown up for political reasons while a Jesuit performs an excorcism for the Manichaean nature of their planet, if I remember correctly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would hope for religions that insist that their religious symbols are only symbols, and not intended to reflect reality in any direct or literal way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The problem with imagining alien forms of religion, is they still tend to mimic forms on earth. Pretty much most forms of worship conceivable to man has either been practised or hypothesised on.

I would expect that any race that built any form of civilisation, ie created something, would consider a Creator at some point. Likely polytheism or monotheism or a pantheism would arise thereof.

James Blish's a Question of Conscience has a race with no god conception, but it ends with their world being blown up for political reasons while a Jesuit performs an excorcism for the Manichaean nature of their planet, if I remember correctly.

What James Blish noted seemed interesting...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'd say most extraterrestrial religions would be based on the sense of existence/consciousness they are familiar with: i.e. a race resembling state-building insects would imagine their deities to think and act like their queens, and be motivated by the same factors as well. (Just look at how closely human gods resemble the human potentates of the people who first imagined them - or even how closely they overlap with the general psychological structure of the "alpha male" in other species of ape.)

Since such a large part of religion is based on a desire to explain the natural world in a pre-scientific world with limited means of obtaining knowledge, I could also imagine that extremely advanced civilizations no longer practice the kind of religion our own species has exhibited throughout most of recorded history - although I'd wager that some form of spirituality and symbolism is part of the general structure of sapience.

 

[dlamberth]

For my part, I'm basically looking at this from the perspective of "evolution of consciousness". I like to think that those living on other planets have awakened enough such that religion is not needed by those cultures. Yet that they do have a depth of conscious awareness of life and the cosmos more along the trajectory of the Mystics among us.

 

[actionsub]

The problem with imagining alien forms of religion, is they still tend to mimic forms on earth. Pretty much most forms of worship conceivable to man has either been practised or hypothesised on.

I would expect that any race that built any form of civilisation, ie created something, would consider a Creator at some point. Likely polytheism or monotheism or a pantheism would arise thereof.

James Blish's a Question of Conscience has a race with no god conception, but it ends with their world being blown up for political reasons while a Jesuit performs an excorcism for the Manichaean nature of their planet, if I remember correctly.

I am surprised given your profile that you didn't cite Lewis's Space Trilogy. Lewis approached that issue from the perspective of "What would happen if there was a world where The Fall hadn't occurred yet?" The villains in these books are human agents who would try to exploit such a world, introducing sin in the process.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I am surprised given your profile that you didn't cite Lewis's Space Trilogy. Lewis approached that issue from the perspective of "What would happen if there was a world where The Fall hadn't occurred yet?" The villains in these books are human agents who would try to exploit such a world, introducing sin in the process.

Yes, he posited that based on Milton for in Paradise Lost, Lucifer moves past other perhaps unfallen worlds.
The space trilogy also borrowed the idea of planetary Archons.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am surprised given your profile that you didn't cite Lewis's Space Trilogy. Lewis approached that issue from the perspective of "What would happen if there was a world where The Fall hadn't occurred yet?" The villains in these books are human agents who would try to exploit such a world, introducing sin in the process.

I thought what C.S Lewis noted was a big deal...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am surprised given your profile that you didn't cite Lewis's Space Trilogy. Lewis approached that issue from the perspective of "What would happen if there was a world where The Fall hadn't occurred yet?" The villains in these books are human agents who would try to exploit such a world, introducing sin in the process.

So true...

C.S Lewis, in his "Space Triology" series, was very brilliant in the ways that he brought out the concept of alien worlds existing and yet still needing to be under the rule/lordship of the Almighty God - and of course, it makes sense on the issue when considering the vastness of God.

• On Multiple Worlds and Multiple Incarnations: Some Speculation Following St Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis « Vox Nova ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

For my part, I'm basically looking at this from the perspective of "evolution of consciousness". I like to think that those living on other planets have awakened enough such that religion is not needed by those cultures. Yet that they do have a depth of conscious awareness of life and the cosmos more along the trajectory of the Mystics among us.

You may have to break down what you mean with the 'Mystics among us" line

 

[dlamberth]

You may have to break down what you mean with the 'Mystics among us" line

I'm looking at the Wisdom traditions of the various spiritual paths.

 

[Zoness]

I think that Jane's explanation is fairly reasonable. If other species in the universe exist and are religious, their religious probably reflects their experience; everything from their geography to physiology, language, weather, culture etc. probably plays a part in the formation of their religions. If these species are more advanced, I'm not wholly sure if that would make them more or less religious. I'd say its probably about the same unless they have some major cognitive advantage over humanity which enlightens them to a higher truth.

Though I don't generally image the rest of the universe's species to be of massively greater intelligence than us. More than likely they're relatively close to us if their are sapient/sentient at all. Their may be some more or less advanced than others but I suspect a lot of them and fumbling around in the dark of space much like we are trying to, with no FTL technology or communications to discover each other. I think of it as a lot of isolated island tribes existing in parallel but not intersecting.

Of course, its all just fun speculation at this point.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We could argue that an alien species from a completely different world might be so different from our perception that we wouldn't even recognise them as alive let alone sentient. Similarly, we might miss something that was religious and consider it secular or vice versa.
Its like how anthropologists say everything they don't understand is a 'rite' or how Archaeologists assume something is religious or a temple if they fail to find a conclusive secular use.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We could argue that an alien species from a completely different world might be so different from our perception that we wouldn't even recognise them as alive let alone sentient. Similarly, we might miss something that was religious and consider it secular or vice versa.
Its like how anthropologists say everything they don't understand is a 'rite' or how Archaeologists assume something is religious or a temple if they fail to find a conclusive secular use.

I think it'd be fair to say that in reality no one can say they are not spiritual - as even the metaphysical has meaning. And Spirituality can come in many differing forms:

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think it'd be fair to say that in reality no one can say they are not spiritual - as even the metaphysical has meaning.

Please explain, I don't understand how this has to do with my post?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it'd be fair to say that in reality no one can say they are not spiritual - as even the metaphysical has meaning.

How are you defining "spiritual" here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Please explain, I don't understand how this has to do with my post?

To be clear, what I mean is that as much as others who say they are not religious would expect to find something to be religious if they couldn't place it in a category...those same people are still highly spiritual when it comes to meaning. In regards to people calling something secular if they miss where it was really religious in another culture in the galaxy, the people examining would still be deeply spiritual even in the secular sense because of the meaning that they attach...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be clear, what I mean is that as much as others who say they are not religious would expect to find something to be religious if they couldn't place it in a category...those same people are still highly spiritual when it comes to meaning. In regards to people calling something secular if they miss where it was really religious in another culture in the galaxy, the people examining would still be deeply spiritual even in the secular sense because of the meaning that they attach...

I disagree. An atheist could still see something is spiritually significant to someone else without being spiritual in any sense of the word.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I disagree. An atheist could still see something is spiritually significant to someone else without being spiritual in any sense of the word.

It wouldn't really matter when it comes to atheists since the reality is that spiritual isn't just something anyone can escape from when it comes to things having meaning beyond the natural.

We still see in existence on our world Spiritual Atheists as they are people who do not believe in a literal "God" (thus the term "Atheist"), but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people.

• BG 175: The Buddhist Atheist - Buddhist Geeks

We're already seeing the rise of others having faith in what science offers when it comes to meaning for our lives - even though they may not be religious. There was an excellent review on the issue in light of the series by Neil deGrasse Tyson - as seen in Cosmos, Episode One: A Religious Approach to Science and an Unscientific Approach to History | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith from Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith. As it is, not all atheist have ever been of the mindset that being atheist somehow means not being spiritual and many who give EXTREME value to the universe have noted where atheism is highly spiritual (As discussed before here ). We have atheists already reflecting religious systems that do not believe in gods/goddesses or a Deity (Buddhism, Taoism, Pantheism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) -with it being the case that Richard Dawkins described Pantheism as "sexed up" atheism since Pantheists use the word God to describe nature and the universe in non-supernatural terms (more shared in http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm ) and Richard Dawkins writes "Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings" - and secular humanism, which is overwhelmingly atheistic in practice, is deemed a religion. ...

As a basic example on the spirituality inherent in differing forms of atheism, Pantheism believes that the universe and nature are worthy of the deepest religious reverence - that understanding them, appreciating their beauty, and preserving nature, should be the central focus of our lives. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky - and most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children....and pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion, for it sees that they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings, a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

For more, one can go to Pantheism as "Sexed-up Atheism" | World Pantheism - as it concerns Pantheistic Atheism..

Also, others such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson has also spoken on the matter when he noted rather directly "I wanted to become an astrophysicist not because I chose it … in a way the universe chose me. [...] I was called by the universe. I had no choice in the matter.":

The stances of atheists - who place mankind/whatever he feels to have meaning at the center of determining value and morality - is a reflection of pantheism.

​

As it concerns those who are atheists and spirituality, the reality of being unable to escape a spiritual background can again be seen in the realm of the metaphysical.

As an example, Two biologists can come from differing backgrounds----one a Deist and the other an Agnostic--and yet they can have common ground in their desire to understand how the botanical world can operate. They can examine the same kinds of plants and come to the same conclusions when rationally studying the makeup of the plant, how it was designed, how long it lives and how important it is to the environment. Both can walk away from their study on how an organism operates naturally and not necessarily have to have a religious view dictate how they study or what they see organically developing. However, when it comes to the reasons behind why the plant exists and what meaning/purpose it has life, in that area is where the subject of spirituality occurs alongside the realm of the supernatural. For seeing the way something operates does not mean one understands the artistic beauty in it or the back-drop of what significance that plant has in the meaning of life. Essentially, what I'm trying to convey is the entire issue of how there is only explaining the material universe from some particular human perspective, with its own embedded metaphysics.....that if consistent, methodological naturalism leads to a metaphysical (spiritual) level.

There can be no escaping that you in the lab (or in nature) always begin your investigation with a whole conceptual system...and this connects to what can be found in the Kantian concept of the transcendental. That is, there are certain things which are preconditions for our being able to know, or do any empirical investigation at all, but which are themselves not capable of being the objects of our knowledge, or empirically verified. For the entire structure of our thought, which occurs in language, is transcendental.

Methodological naturalism starts with an entire bucket bag of concepts, such as "causation", the "natural", the "observable", and so forth, all of which are in fact metaphysical concepts, and have metaphysics built into them. As soon as one looks at something and says "that is an X", he or she has brought their conceptual system into play...and the investigation is no longer purely empirical. For the individual is filtering the world through an already existing conceptual system. This was the case even with Newton, who did not make any of his laws on gravity without first having a filter that was well-established in Theism. Without a metaphysical framework, we would not be able to entertain notions of what is possible and what is not. For the notion of possibility is fundamentally metaphysical. ...and that is spiritual. We can, of course, understand other people's views, but there is always a degree of misunderstanding involved, because it will be our understanding of their views, framed without our conceptual framework, and this will involve some distortion. Science, even methodological naturalism, is teleological to an extent. For when it comes to asking what purpose or specific character does the universe have, it has been shown how it is knowable, constant, intelligible, predictable, stable, etc. These are all presuppositions of science as well as methodological naturalism. Atheists are often associated with methodological naturalism - but with Methodological Naturalism, what it seems others often forget is that the problem with saying things like the natural is what is observable is that what is observable is purely theory-dependent. ...conceptual in nature.

Additionally, there are scientists who study paranormal phenomenon (i.e. angels, ghosts, etc) and choose not to assume that what they are studying is not so much supernatural as much as it is a part of nature that is currently unknown. They assume that how they are generally conceptualized doesn't matter since in their minds, if they exist, and they impact the material universe (whether they are part of it or not), they can be studied using science at least to that extent. However, "existence" is a concept, and "material universe" is a concept, and what these mean have to be panned out relative to an overall metaphysical system. For concepts are holistic, existing in relation to an entire network of meaning.

And as it concerns the spiritual, other atheists are aware of how even religious motivations have often played a key role in development of theory/science. In example, Niels Bohr, who layed some of the foundations for quantum physics, was influenced by various mystical ideas and the Chinese yin/yang doctrine (which formed the real basis of his doctrine of complementarity). Additionally, Karl Jung, who developed universally acknowledged psychological categories of introvert and extravert, amongst many other things, was very much basing his work on esotericism. As one who is a Human Services professional/in the field, Jung is very central for the theories/science utilized in dealing with human interactions....and it was never seen as not being "science." With both Jung and Bohr, these scientists felt it necessary to reformulate their doctrines in ways that were passably naturalistic. But their basic explanatory categories were religious, and then were then transformed into naturalistic ones. In both cases, that reflected an underlying belief in the religious metaphysics. Furthermore, even if the original ideas were transformed into naturalistic ones, there is still a teleological connection between them, which in fact raises doubts about whether it is right to interpret them as truly naturalistic anyway. Granted, methodological naturalism does not exclude one being merely inspired in a loose sense by ideas of a religious nature....but in the cases cited, it seems to go beyond a level of "loose." For Bohr believed in complementarity because of his religious metaphysical views, just as Jung did

Discussions on subjects such as naturalism/atheism do the exact same things as those in theism when it comes to spiritual questions defining life.

Questions like:

• "What is 'life'?

• "What is the origin of life?"

• "How did I get here?"

• "Why am I here?"

• "What does the future hold for the inhabitants of our world?

"
For all of the questions brought up, they are central behind the way we live our lives...especially as it concerns the reasons behind why we do science to begin with...for even if trying to be objective on finding out one aspect of science, one cannot escape having to deal with the natural consequence of what a scientific fact entails. Its being seen all the time in the consequences discoveries of science have created. When studying the science of physics in an area such as creating safer automobiles, one has to understand that they reason for making something safer/better understanding physics is because they value life. But if they don't even understand the basis behind why life is to be valued, what's the point? Why be concerned with using science for the betterment of mankind?