It’s fun to watch religious conservatives grapple with pop culture, because they really don’t get it. Today is the goofy pseudo-holiday called May the Fourth (it’s not a real holiday, ‘k? It’s a silly riff on the phrase “May the force be with you from Star Wars). The big dumb dorks at Answers in Genesis would like to get in on the fun in the worst possible way. Like a particularly clueless high schooler showing up at the prom to tell everyone dancing is stupid, their way of celebrating a fake holiday is to announce that Star Wars is fake.
We know, guy.
The AiG approach, though, is to “prove” that intelligent aliens don’t exist using theological “logic”. They imagine a group of fictitious aliens finding a Bible.
Let’s consider physical, intelligent beings like Wookies, Klingons, or other “humanlike” beings. Although they definitely make for good entertainment in sci-fi movies and shows, the concept of advanced alien races is theologically problematic. Let me explain using the following (imaginary) scenario, with Chewbacca, Superman, and Spock reading the Bible: can these intelligent aliens be redeemed from the curse? (See Genesis 3 and Romans 8.) In other words, does God’s plan of salvation apply to them?
These imaginary aliens would not think about that at all, any more than you would wonder whether you were going to be rewarded with some kind of paradise if you found some book of mythology. Are you wondering if you’ve been sufficiently “cleared” to earn Scientology’s afterlife? Probably not. Chewbacca is going to be similarly unconcerned about meeting weird-ass Christian criteria. However, AiG’s theology says poor Chewie is either “fallen” or irrelevant.
Romans 8 makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected all creation—not just mankind. So then we have to ask the question: are these high-level sentient aliens fallen? If not, then they’re redundant. God already has the angels (the cherubim, seraphim, etc.). And even if these aliens have never sinned, they would still suffer the effects of sin, suffering under the bondage of corruption—despite having never sinned!
So are they claiming that the Bible accuses the Wookies of Kashyyk of being slammed with the guilt of sin when Eve bit into the apple? Because it doesn’t say that. No human has any knowledge of aliens on other worlds, so it would be really weird if Moses, the putative author of certain books of the Bible, had enumerated all these unrelated alien creatures. So this is a rather stupid assertion. Also, sin is not an actual phenomenon — it’s invective used against certain behaviors, rather than something intrinsic to humans or aliens — so claiming it’s a property of people as well as Wookies is not demonstrable.
As for being irrelevant…that’s an ugly anthropocentric and often racist attitude.
Obviously, it makes no sense to have intelligent beings—who suffer because of Adam’s sin—but cannot be saved! Christ is able to redeem man because he represents man by taking upon himself a second nature—as being fully God and fully man. Christ is the God-man (i.e., he’s not the “God-Klingon” or the “God-Wookie”).
“Obviously” and “it makes no sense” are phrases no fundamentalist/evangelical Christian should ever use. The whole premise of their religion, that a god turned into a man who died and thereby allowed everyone to go to heaven, “obviously” “makes no sense.”
AiG somehow turns this strange twisted logic into proof that aliens don’t exist, because “it makes no sense.”
Simply put, the work of Jesus cannot atone for the sins of advanced alien beings. And so, the idea of intelligent life existing on other planets is completely unbiblical! Actually, these kinds of issues highlight the problem of trying to mix unbiblical ideas into a biblical worldview. I mean, can you imagine a gospel message that begins with: “Long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” No, that would obviously trivialize the gospel!
And speaking of the gospel, I should also quickly mention that it’s unbiblical to believe Jesus somehow visited multiple alien worlds, lived there, died for them, rose again . . . and repeated this process on each world. In other words, Jesus dying multiple times is NOT biblical! The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus died once (e.g., Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 3:18).
There’s an awful lot of bullshit excused as “biblical”, so “unbiblical” is not the condemnation they think it is.
They then leap to rebut an argument no one has made. What about unintelligent life? The argument from sin and salvation wouldn’t apply, so maybe tauntauns could exist? Nope. Any planets orbiting those 1023 stars in the universe must be completely sterile.
…recall from Genesis 1 that God created everything for man’s benefit and enjoyment. In other words, we have dominion over God’s creation (Genesis 1:28), which is also stated in Psalm 8. So the question would be: do we have dominion over those plants and animals on alien worlds? What purpose would they serve for us? So, for this reason alone, I believe it’s unlikely that there’s any non-intelligent life out in the cosmos.
So trillions of dead planets many light years away must have been put there for “man’s benefit and enjoyment.” How does that work, anyway? What benefit do I get from an unreachably distant scorched cinder orbiting Betelgeuse, pray tell? Doesn’t the fact that I don’t, and that I don’t have dominion over distant planets, show that their interpretation of the Bible is already wrong?
It always amazes me how small their God is. Like if there is a God, and I don’t happen to know one way or another though I tend toward said beings non-existence, it would be so collosally different and incomprehensible we wouldn’t be able to fathom it. Yet this yokle seems determined to cram such a theoretical being in a tiny box of human understanding. Like he is infinitely mote insulting to a putative God than an athiest like me.
So, he realises the bible clashes with the reality of our vast universe.
Of course he concludes that the bible is true and reality doesn’t exist!
Some of the more clever SF authors addressed the issue of the Bible being non-compatible with sapient life elsewhere.
Such speculations seem a better use of their time than some things they could be doing, like passing laws that kill people. Perhaps they should spend a lot of time thinking about dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe. If it’s dark energy it must be evil.
Trying to take the fun out of fun.
Theologically problematic? Since when has that ever been a problem? They will simply adjust their theology and claim it’s always been that way.
I would argue that trillions of potentially habitable planets are out there waiting for our AI descendants to stabilise their biospheres to see if anything interesting happens.
For every world that remains stable enough for long enough for complex life to emerge there will be a ton of worlds that become inhospitable.*
Our descendants might be able to repair the damage and allow the local life to explore its possibilities.
Not “terraforming”. Maybe we should call it “David Attenboroughforming”.
see *Rare Earth by David Waltham.
To be honest, since interstellar distances are what they are, the chances of meaningful contact with any advanced alien civilization is pretty much zero if FTL (or even near light speed) travel is indeed impossible. At most, we could have Xenoarchaeology.
Betting on “there is no aliens, the bible says so” is pretty smart, and if he’s proven wrong, nobody will correct him due to the massive societal impacts of such a contact (and with the current state of affairs we would have aliens “truthers” anyway)
But an empty universe is a sad thought nevertheless. Even if we are isolated, imagining there are countless other civilizations, lonely in their own space time bubble is a more hopeful universe.
birgerjohansson @3: Don’t know if this fits the bill, but James Blish’s A Case of Conscience comes to mind.
Probably not best to make recourse to Klingons, given that they famously killed their gods for being too much trouble.
Can people be rightfully punished for something they have no control over? Is collective punishment a sin?
crimsonsage @1:
Nothing amazing about it. People’s gods are at least partly reflections of themselves. Small people, small gods.
You become a god is this life if you pay a lot of money to Scientology. A master of MEST, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.
Being a Scientology god and $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
You and AIG are all on the wrong track anyway.
Aren’t you wondering what you will be in your next Reincarnation?
I’m sure Ken Ham is coming back as an invertebrate of some sort.
Brahma hates Pascal’s Wager.
Personally, I think theology is theologically problematic.
Of course the idea of life on other planets is “unbiblical.” The writers of the Bible were seemingly unaware that there were other planets. In fact, they didn’t even know they were on a planet. Dudes thought stars could fall to Earth.
One agreement I do have with the Christian kids, however, is this: dancing is stupid. Or, more precisely, people look stupid when they dance.
Did wookies evolve or were wookies a special creation of God?
George Lucas is not a god.
And if advanced aliens do arrive here, the conservative Christians will likely point out that it is god’s will. There is no way they will not give their god credit for whatever happens.
@16 Ozzie is god.
I am an “atheologicist”: I don’t believe in the existence of theology. There is no such thing as a science of God. Therefore theology makes no valid contribution to science, or even science fiction.
Maybe fantasy. Does theology refute the existence of Shrek?
#6 Matt G:
Theology is like string theory that way.
If they weren’t intent on what they ARE intent upon: harming our people (and. in general, harming living things) in order to pretend they are powerful, I could only feel sorry for them.
They are truly horrible, twisted, empty.
I remember hearing on one of his putrid radio shorts about thousands of people going to the so-called “First Church of Star Wars,” which Dumb Idiot Ham likens the movie theaters showing Star Wars to out of blatant ignorance of the famous sci-fi fantasy franchise being made by George Lucas solely for entertainment, not religion. I remember saying of how Dumb Idiot Ham gets so “churchy” every time he ‘lectures” about anything he doesn’t understand or is far too stupid to know better. In fact he’s more like a cult preacher no different than that Stupid Idiot Trump than an actual scientist he’s really not.
Heck. Does he realize that there are dimwitted idiots like him who believe that gods, angels, and demons are really aliens from outer space who came to earth to control mankind in every way they please? Apparently not.
#22 Owosso Harpist: please state an objective definition of the distinction between religion and entertainment.
Once Ken discovers aliens have money, he’ll be desperately trying to fix rockets on to his stupid concrete boat.
I was at a worldcon in Melbourne, I think around 1998. I can’t remember who was on a panel, but one of the audience member asked how aliens would invade Earth. One of the panel members replied that they wouldn’t have to invade, as their ideas would be so powerful that they would overwhelm us.
Matt G: there’s two strategies to handle theological complications. Either retcon the theology, as you suggest, or do as AiG does and deny reality. They both work pretty well.
#24 Nathaniel Hellerstein
Well, I think Dumb Idiot Ham just can’t tell fantasy from fact. Is that what you mean by that?
Separate creations, separate theologies. Wookie Eve ate a wookie apple, and a Binks savior died to redeem JarJar’s sins. The Tuscan Raiders are still following Tuscan Moses in the desert.
#27 Owosso Harpist
It could be that he can’t tell, or that he doesn’t have to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Streets_of_Ashkelon#Plot
(Harry Harrison, 1962)
Worf said the Klingons killed their gods, so that was it for space Jesus.
Star Wars isn’t a documentary?
Din Grogu is the messiah.
crimsonsage @1:
Thanks to the typo, I misread that as “he is an infinitesimal mote insulting his putative god,” which, if such a thing as a god existed, would be just as accurate a representation of what’s going on here. Small people, small gods.
AiG, quoted in the post:
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. If gods existed, I doubt they would be, either. We’re supposed to be aligning our ideas about reality to what we can observe happening in the universe.
Human beings suffering because of Adam’s original sin doesn’t make any sense to me. Does that make Genesis and the Bible as a whole just as false?
Quantum mechanics makes very little sense to me, but it’s making this block of metal, silicon and plastic into a communication device as I type. Get me a god who can do something practical and reliable, and then we can talk about how deities work and (gasp) conduct experiments.
Mr. Ham, meet Mr. Alighieri. Mr. Aligheiri would like to discuss the ultimate fate of the pre-Christian “Noble Pagans” with you.
@19 Nathaniel Hellerstein
That fits nicely into my mind’s puzzle.
The science of god = unscience.
@7. birgerjohansson :
Including ultimately our own planet.
Also “long enough” is a relative term. As, I guess is complex life and we don’t really know yet what might have lived – or even still live – on Mars, Venus, under the ice of Europe, Enceladus, etc …
Counterpoint – I’ve mentioned before but,again, will recommend reading Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart’s What does a Martian Look Like? The Science of Extraterrestrial Lifea.k.a. Evolving the Alien which in addition to what’s noted in this review :
https://thoughtsonx.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/review-what-does-a-martian-look-like-by-jack-cohen-and-ian-stewart/
Takes a pretty critical look at and I think makes a fairly good case against the whole Rare Earth idea.
Presently, we have insufficient evidence and really donot know how rare or common life is although fof cours ethe mroe common it is the more the Fermi Paradox / question looms.
Huh???
As opposed to “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?
I second @alfalfamale #11. I’ve always thought original sin was terribly unjust. Why on earth would an entire population of countless different species be punished for the sin of only two individuals? Are they not responsible for their own actions? It never fit the image of a just and benevolent deity.
I don’t understand how someone can write these words and not realize they are worshipping a monster and having the whole thing unravel from there. However, it does make it easy to see why they’re fine with collective punishment and not seeing that as a war crime, making them give genocide a pass.
@28. david : “Separate creations, separate theologies. Wookie Eve ate a wookie apple, and a Binks savior died to redeem JarJar’s sins. The Tuscan Raiders are still following Tuscan Moses in the desert.”
Binks? Darth Jar Jar/ Hmm.. a Gungan saviour would have their work cut out indeed..
You know. Ken Ham’s argument equally applies non-sentient animals. Before the fall they were immortal and happy and at peace and after the fall they all day, and are either prey or kill or die or both and struggling. And they don’t have any salvation. I guess their perpetual damnation doesn’t really matter as they don’t have souls but … it’s still pain, oblivion and, well, it’s cruel.
Well…. that may, or may not, be an oversimplication. I can buy “it’s human nature to be permeate (‘conceived in’) in sin” just as I can buy we had no choice whether to be born human or penguin (with advantages and disadvantages implied). But dishonest hucksters like Hamm cherry-pick and over-simplify to dishonestly fit their philosophy to what they want. They are claiming “fairness” now but not in general?
I’m not getting why human sin applies to aliens but salvation doesn’t. The few honest theist sci-fi writers who wrote about this (either seriously or as food for thought– ray bradbury comes to mind) usually concluded the potential of other planets being free of original sin and/or a intergalactic redeemer of multiple manifestations.
This doesn’t tell me anything about the existence of intelligent aliens, but it does tell me how AIG would treat them if they did show up. Kind of how the inhabitants of the western hemisphere were treated when the Europeans first ran into them, as creatures that can do all the work that they can but somehow didn’t have any rights. Bet they miss that. :(
When it comes to the Star Wars ‘verse not only is Jedi kinda its own non-Christian religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism ) ditto Sith, both in verse and out but it also (superficially?) seems to resemble Zoroastrianism more closely than anything else established religions~wise. Not that I’m particularly familiar with Zoroastrianism but there is that whole cosmos-wide battle between good and evil (light & dark side) where mortals (human and alien alike) can determine and sway who is presently winning the endless manichean battle by their choices and actions.
Or, huh, think manichean, well :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
SW does seem quite Manichean to me anyhow.. not that I’m any sorta expert here & something that really just occurred to me now but thoughts folks? Am I wrong?
(Not an exact analogue but still..)
At that superficial level, Christianity is also Manichean.
So is any belief that includes malevolent spirits or ideas.
(Pretty much all of them)
—
It’s no surprise a fictional religion become a parody religion is similar in some senses to actual religions.
@ crimsonmage, # 1: “Puny god.”
Fun fact: In the novel Dracula, May 4th was the night all evil things had full sway over the world.
whheydt@35:
And I seem to recall that fate was to live in the outermost circle of Hell, where their punishment was to be able to see Heaven and to know that they had missed getting into it.
And that’s it.
Even the denizens tended to think that wasn’t much of a punishment. (And, frankly, it only had to be a punishment because Dante knew his work would be read by people looking for excuses to consider him a heretic.)
Canto IV has a reference to the Harrowing of Hell. A one-off, but still.