Would Finding Alien Life Change Religious Philosophies?

[cbayer]

http://www.livescience.com/48208-religion-extraterrestrial-life.html

By Megan Gannon, News Editor | October 09, 2014 07:21am ET


The nonprofit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute's Allen Telescope Array in California has been listening for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations. So far, no aliens have tried to get in touch.
Credit: SETI Institute

The discovery of extraterrestrial beings — be they slimy microbes or little green men — would dramatically change the way we humans view our place in the universe. But would it shatter religion? Well, that depends on what you believe.

In his new book "Religions and Extraterrestrial Life" (Springer 2014), David Weintraub, an astronomer at Vanderbilt University, takes a close look at how different faiths would handle the revelation that we're not alone. Some of his findings might surprise you.

Public polls have shown that a large share of the population believes aliens are out there. In one survey released last year by the companySurvata, 37 percent of the 5,886 Americans who were polled said they believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, while 21 percent said they didn't believe and 42 percent were unsure. Responses varied by religion: 55 percent of atheists said they believed in extraterrestrials, as did 44 percent of Muslims, 37 percent of Jews, 36 percent of Hindus and 32 percent of Christians.

Weintraub found that some religions are more accommodating to the idea of E.T. than others. Those with an Earth-centric spiritual point of view are the most likely to be made uncomfortable by questions about the discovery of aliens. Certain evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, for example, are of the opinion that God's sole intent was to create people here on Earth. Some believe that if God created life anywhere else, it would say that in Genesis, Weintraub said.

more at link

[Cary]

1. Any reasonably objective person knows there are "aliens"

It defies logic and our current knowledge base to believe otherwise. But then millions of us defy logic and our current knowledge base and are "conservative" so such is life

[trotsky]

2. The incomprehensible size of the universe virtually guarantees it.

However there are some that think belief aliens exist is on par with believing god exists. Well, at least it fits their agenda to promote that silly equivalence.

[Cary]

11. Yes, and more

There is a fascinating discussion about the fact that we have exactly the right amount of dark matter in our universe. I'm actually not sure it's dark matter as my recollection of the exact discussion isn't as sharp as I want it to be. Anyway, if there were any more or any less our universe, and us, would be much different. So how do we come to have the exact amount of this? For that matter our earth is exactly the right distance from the sun to support life. How does that happen?

One possible explanation is not just "on par with believing god exists" but exactly that. It isn't the one I buy, by the way.

Another possible explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes and we are in one where there is exactly the right amount of dark matter and in which our planet is in the exact right orbit. Of course since there are an infinite number of universes there are also an infinite number of universes where there is exactly the right amount of dark matter, and where our planet is in the exact right orbit. And of course there are an infinite number of universes where the opposite conditions exist.

On another level we have advanced beyond the point where we experience the world only through our 5 senses, but it only stands to reason that our experience is still something other than reality. After all, we are mostly nothing so our whole existence is an illusion. Further we really still have very little understanding of our own incorporal essence.

Paradoxically, given our current knowledge base, the "belief that aliens exist is on par with believing god exists" is, in and of itself, on par with believing god exists. And also paradoxically our current knowledge base is that the universe is far more complex and bizarre than any creation story concocted by ancients.

But that, if you think about it, is only logical.

[bvf]

116. Check out "The Fabric of Reality"

by David Deutsch, if you haven't already. It has next to zero to say about aliens per se except to say that anything allowed by the laws of physics does indeed happen.

Deutsch even addresses Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Immortality," which I imagine to be a popular read in certain circles among the some you refer to.

He also weaves the strand of life (as a source of information and--more importantly--knowledge) into his model. Gets kind of abstruse in places, but a great read.

[cbayer]

3. I agree that they are out there, but the question

of whether we will ever find them (or them us) is still open.

[Cary]

12. If we survive as a species an encounter is perhaps inevitable

In my opinion our survival as a species is more than doubtful and paradoxically the very thing about us that allows us to ponder such an encounter is the thing that will prevent such an achievement.

Our intelligence is simply another adaptation and since we acquired that intelligence a mere 50,000 years or so ago our intelligence appears to be an unsuccessful adaptation.

[cbayer]

13. Adaptations can be successful only for a certain environment.

But if the environment changes, what was once successful can become a liability.

It is fascinating to ponder.

[Cary]

14. Except our adapatation of our intelligence altered our environment

It is fascinating to ponder because we are a product of our universe, so we are literally our universe contemplating itself if only for a brief moment in time.

[cbayer]

15. I think all adaptations have the potential to alter the environment.

That is what evolution is all about.

[Cary]

16. There are many, many times more unsuccessful adaptations than there are successful ones

That is what evolution is all about. The difference in this one, our intelligence, is the irony of it.

Our intelligence ends up being stupidity.

[cbayer]

32. I'm not convinced that it is that simple.

It is our intelligence that may help us find a way out of this.

It's our narcissism that will prevent that from happening, imo.

[Cary]

34. True, our intelligence is our only hope

But I'm not sure about the narcissist part. I'm still willing to say that for all of our intelligence we are plenty stupid.

[edhopper]

17. Nobody knows their are aliens.

there is zero evidence for it.
But, given what we know about the Universe, it is much more likely that alien life exists than not.
But even if we accept the premise of alien life being very probable, we have no way of knowing how intelligent that life is.
Technological, intelligent life seems to be rare, or just limited to Earth, at least in our neighborhood.
(And it is pretty clear that "aliens" have not visited us)

[Cary]

35. There is no direct evidence

That isn't the same as saying there is no evidence. The nature of the universe is evidence.

[edhopper]

40. I think we would have to agree on a definition for evidence

But I do understand what you are saying. I would say likelihood rather than evidence.
But the idea would be the same.

[Cary]

41. I'm not going to agree that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence

You would have to be saying here that Einstein had no evidence for his discoveries. That is simply untrue.

[edhopper]

42. Yes Einstien had evidence

and his theories later proved to be true by experiments.

I understand you are using the facts that occurred on earth to speculate about the Universe.
And I agree with your speculation.

Of course saying we "know' has no basis in any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
It is all an educated guess until real evidence is presented.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Belief in aliens may be reasonable, but the belief is not objective.

If we cannot scientifically demonstrate the existence of an object, then I don't think saying that object exists is being objective.

[Cary]

36. The term is "reasonably objective"

The word objective is modified by the word reasonably. If you want to technical we are subjective creatures doing our best to simulate objectivity but that isn't really applicable to the term I used quite intentional. Reasonably objective is a very low standard. It simply means there is some basis for the conclusion, that's all. There is a colorable argument.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. However that requires an assertion that life on earth is unique in the universe.

The fact that life exists on earth coupled with the fact that planets are vastly plentiful argues convincingly, to me, that the only rational position is that life also exists on other planets, even without having directly observed that life.

We can scientifically demonstrate the existence of life in the universe. The claim that it is unique to earth is the claim that needs to be proven. The default position is that of course it exists on other planets.

[BillZBubb]

105. NONSENSE!!!!! You have totally wrong.

In science you are never expected to "prove the negative". The person making the positive assertion must prove that assertion. If you claim existence you have to prove it, I don't have to prove non-existence. You are like the republicans saying Saddam Hussein had to prove he didn't have WMDs.

It is NOT rational to claim life exists on other planets. You may want it to be so, but that doesn't make it so. The rational position is that there is a chance (we don't know how big a chance) that life exists on other planets.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. again, the claim that life is unique to earth is the extraordinary claim.

that is what needs evidence to validate it. Absent proof of the uniqueness claim, life is not unique to this planet. I agree that proving life is unique to earth cannot be done by demonstrating it does not and never has existed anywhere else. That is permanently beyond our capabilities, although not impossible given infinite resources and time to examine every planet in the universe. On the other hand we are likely to have evidence of life elsewhere within the decade, either from Mars or from our fast increasing capabilities of remote exoplanet examination. Yes the current lack of direct evidence allows room for the uniqueness argument, but the room it allows shrinks as the number of known earth similar relatively nearby exoplanets increases. The probability of uniqueness is effectively nil. It is far more likely that catastrophic climate change is just a localized data anomaly.

[rug]

111. Give up while you're still not that far behind.

[BillZBubb]

113. Look, I'm not going to go after you on this, but you are wrong.

If you make the claim that life does or has existed on other planets the total onus is on you to prove existence--it is not on me to prove non-existence. I am not saying life is unique to earth, what I am saying is that is all we can say for certain given the evidence on hand. Notice the difference?

We may find evidence later, but we don't have it now. So that line of reasoning falls short as supporting evidence.

As for your probability argument, it is entirely unpersuasive. We simply do not know, at this time, that even given the materials required for life what exact conditions and sequence of events is required for life to arise. There may be 10 to the 10th (just a random big number) planets with the basic materials for life, but the necessary sequence of events and conditions may only occur once every 10 to the 20th years. We simply don't know.

My guess is that life does pop up from time to time in other places. How common it is, I couldn't say. But that isn't based on any more than a hunch.

[ZombieHorde]

114. In my opinion, the default position

should be "I don't know."

[DetlefK]

4. Hahahaha, no. Religion is independent from fact.

We would get a new branch of religious extremists, trying to kill the aliens, but the rest would stay the same.

Quackery would see an upturn. "This sand was touched by jovian mind-rays. Wear this bracelet with a grain of sand in it and you will be in touch with the cosmic all-being."

[Peacetrain]

5. That is an excellent question!!

I have often wondered that myself.. And I think those who seek a magical being will be so terrified of the prospect that it will drive them deeper into their delusions on both extremes of the issues.

When you have people on one side who think the world is only 6,000 years old and that texts written by man to explain the world around them is somehow the absolute truth will be terrified.

On the other extreme you have people who demand that texts 6,000 (2,000) be viewed through the lens of today's knowledge and therefore all things of religious nature are bogus will be terrified..

I for one cannot imagine that there is not life on other planets..I am sure if I am still alive when life is discovered on other planets it will make my heart skip more than one beat.. excitement at the possibilities and of course fear of the unknown..

[cbayer]

6. Have you ever been to the Very Large Array?

It is what is pictured here and was the location for "Contact".

Contact remains one of my very favorite movies for lots of reasons, but one is because of the questions it raises about humans would react if we did make contact with extra-terrestrials.

I agree that it would be terrifying to many, particularly those on the extremes who believe they hold "the truth".

But I would imagine that many, including me, would be fascinated.

Another really great read about this is "The Sparrow". It's about the first manned mission to a known inhabited planet. The crew includes a large number of Jesuits and the issue of religion is critical to the plot.

[Peacetrain]

9. Hey I had just signed off and was reading the entire article.

.. it asks some very good questions.. the author brings up some very good points about cults within religious bodies.. and we deal with the crazy for sure.. from Jim Jones, to Isis to Heavens Gate (which he mentioned) but people looking for magic.. and of course it would terrify them and I agree with his assessment.. it would drive them deeper into their delusions..And those who demand a magical being solve the worlds issues would be deep into their fears also..Wishful and magical thinkers who would rather not be involved with solving the worlds problems.. will always run deeper into it if they become afraid.

I like you would be very excited.. but I can guarantee you, I would be hesitant too because of just not knowing what will happen next..

Knowledge frees us all in the end doesn't it..

I will have to look that up.. "The Sparrow" thank you.

Edit to add.. nope never been to an Array.. did not even know that was what it was called

[cbayer]

10. If you read The Sparrow, let me know what you think.

The VLA is in the middle of nowhere New Mexico and is really cool. It is a destination and you would be highly unlikely to just drive by it by accident. It is well worth the visit.

And not far away are the best chili cheeseburgers on earth, I kid you not.

[Fumesucker]

117. There's another story regarding first contact and a Jesuit

Well, for a certain value of "first contact" anyway...

http://emp.byui.edu/davisr/202/TheStar.htm

[cbayer]

118. Never heard of this. Will read it later. Thanks.

[safeinOhio]

7. Religion has adapted to lots of things.

Round earth that circles the sun. Germs that are the cause of illness and so on and so on. We need a volunteer to call the 700 club to find out.

[cbayer]

8. I would love to call the 700 club and get their take on this!

[rug]

18. It depends on whether the life was intelligent and conscious or not.

Microbes would have no effect but intelligent, conscious extraterrestrial life would constitute polygenism, which contradicts original sin. Certainly it would contradict the mechanism of original sin.

As it is, the evidence for that is simply a statistical argument. "But there are so many planets!" The converse of that is that the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life are exceedingly rare. In fact, none yet found to exist. There is no reason, other than statistical, to posit that the conditions in the near universe are significantly different from conditions further out. It's a statistical push.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Actually we have found water-bearing worlds in the 'goldilocks' zone in other star systems.

Which gives us a very conservative estimate that still numbers north of the billions, of possible planets that have the ingredients to support life as we know it.

And that's just life as we know it. There are non-carbon based possibilities as well.

"More recently, on February 2, 2011, the Kepler Space Observatory Mission team released a list of 1,235 extrasolar planet candidates, including 54 that may be in the "habitable zone."[8][9][10] Based on these latest Kepler findings, astronomer Seth Shostak estimates that "within a thousand light-years of Earth" there are "at least 30,000 of these habitable worlds."[11]"

[rug]

21. The "goldilocks zone" refers to the distance from a star and atmospheric pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

There are many, many other factors that go into the existence of any life, let alone intelligent life.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. That's why I mentioned water-bearing.

Kepler-62f and E are both water-bearing, and in the habitable zone.

[Jim__]

20. Yes, and there was a paper in 2010 that said complex life probably only evolved once in the universe

An article about the paper appeared in NewScientist: here.

An excerpt from the article:

The universe may be teeming with simple cells like bacteria, but more complex life – including intelligent life – is probably very rare. That is the conclusion of a radical rethink of what it took for complex life to evolve here on Earth.

It suggests that complex alien life-forms could only evolve if an event that happened just once in Earth's history was repeated somewhere else.

All animals, plants and fungi evolved from one ancestor, the first ever complex, or "eukaryotic", cell. This common ancestor had itself evolved from simple bacteria, but it has long been a mystery why this seems to have happened only once: bacteria, after all, have been around for billions of years.

The answer, say Nick Lane of University College London and Bill Martin of the University of Dusseldorf in Germany, is that whenever simple cells start to become more complex, they run into problems generating enough energy.

...

[rug]

22. Very interesting paper.

I don't understand the eagerness to elide from simple life to complex life.

[edhopper]

24. That fact that it did happen

and had a proven evolutionary benefit, would point to a parallel evolution probable somewhere else.
Rare in the pool of hundreds of billions is still a significant amount.

[Jim__]

25. Do you have any evidence to back your claim? Or, is it purely based on faith?

For instance, you claim that a parallel evolution is probable somewhere else. What is the probability? If you don't know, how do you know it's probable?

[edhopper]

26. It's all speculation

based on parallel evolution in remotes places and eras here.
I think we are all just expressing educated guesses and opinions.
None of us "know" anything about alien life.

[arcane1]

31. I'd imagine a curious, technological, fast-spreading species would be even more rare.

Especially when we consider how unlikely our emergence was.

Fascinating stuff.

[bravenak]

27. Religion would adapt.

And they would send some missionaries to bring the aliens the 'Good' news. Then we would probably find out they had their own gods and both religions would find a way to combine. People will never give it up completely. I expect the same from aliens.

[Feral Child]

28. Probably not.

Religious folk already defy rationality and scientific evidence to insist that their "beliefs" are fact. They're unlikely to see reality because of an alien visit. They'd probably just claim that it's a trick of "Satan" to test their faith, then twist the whole affair into "proof" they were right all along.

What's your thought on this, CB? Do you think this will negate Genesis? Do you think that religious philosophers will abandon their platforms? Will Pat Robertson recant?

[cbayer]

33. Such a broad brush statement.

While some religious folks may be as you describe, many do not insist that their beliefs are facts, only that they are beliefs and that they have faith.

It is helpful (and much more open minded) to make distinctions when you are discussing religious people. Otherwise, it would appear that your view of them is entirely monochromatic.

I think the article gives a good analysis of how different types of religious people may respond to this. Since I think genesis is allegory at best, I don't think it would "negate" it at all. As for religious philosophers, it would merely provide more material for them to ponder and explore, so I don't think they would abandon anything.

And Pat Robertson? He will find some way to make money off it.

[Feral Child]

37. You asked a question about "religious philosophies"

I gave my opinion on religious philosophers; ie, those that philosophy religiously. I didn't make distinctions because on religious persons because I see little or no difference in them.

I don't feel any need to be open-minded of religious people; the only differences are in degree. I certainly don't feel a need to be helpful.

I know you want me to be "tolerant" of people of religion, but you fail to understand. I'm tolerant of them in the same way I'm tolerant of UFOlogists, anti-vaxers, and all other woo-peddlers. I let them believe what they want and don't waste my time making them see reality. That tolerance does not extend to pretending their fallacies are fact.

In this thread I've spoken of them, not to them (unless you happen to be one of them). You're not really very clear on that. I'll admit that I sometimes think your attempts to preach "tolerance" are your attempts to make it non-PC to question their beliefs. I'll also admit that my responses to you are a bit of a goad.

Until they affect other people with their "beliefs", I ignore them. When they interfere with government or schools, I do my best to fight them. When they refuse medical treatment for their children because "prayer" I hope they get arrested and their children given to caring folk.

When they knock on my door, I inform them with contained irritability that they are the reason for the "No Trespassing" and "No Soliciting" signs on my property.

I don't mean to offend, but I think I'll stop responding to your posts. I see your insistence on defining tolerance to mean giving credulity to religion as a form of proselytizing, little different than the guy who knocks on my door in a clip-on tie (to be honest, you are less intrusive.) I can choose to acknowledge you or not. Since I see no chance of us reaching an accord, I'll choose "not" and keep out of your threads.


Again, none of this is personal and I do hope you've not taken offense. If you have, the only recompense I can offer is leaving you alone.

[cbayer]

39. Just FTR - I didn't ask anything, only posted the article.

It is too bad that you can't see any difference between religious people. There are religious people with whom you likely have much more in common than you do differences and then there are extremists with whom you probably have very little in common.

Not being able to distinguish them may lead to your making incorrect assumptions and missing out on opportunities to work together towards shared goals.

You are right about what I would like to see. I think one of the foundations of progressive/liberal politics is the ability to be inclusive and relatively non-judgmental. I think we lose when we exclude or vilify large groups of people simply because they may not share a portion of our beliefs.

Your position that you have a claim on reality and truth is comforting, I am sure, but it is not accurate.

I think we totally agree on where to draw the line. When ones beliefs start interfering with the rights or safety of others, then intervention and objection is certainly called for.

But I see no purpose in ridiculing, dismissing and broad brushing all who believe other than to make one feel somehow superior.

Feel free to engage or not. I certainly won't take it personally, as I see the problem as yours, not mine.

[skepticscott]

45. You chose the article to post

out of all of the zillions of possibilities out there, and not by accident. I know you like to play the "I just posted it for discussion" card to absolve yourself of any responsibility for posting other people's nonsense, but when someone is constantly posting other people's writing without offering any opinion of their own about it, it does make you wonder.

[3catwoman3]

30. I would...

Last edited Thu Oct 9, 2014, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

...love the opportunity to find out!

[TheNutcracker]

38. If God created the universe, well that would include everyone in it.

[mmonk]

43. Doubt it. Scientific discoveries seem to have no impact.

[cbayer]

44. Scientific discoveries have not impact on religious beliefs?

That's total baloney.

Why do you imagine that greek and roman gods are no longer believed in?

[skepticscott]

46. Please enlighten us as to how science

caused belief in Greek and Roman gods to be abandoned. That will be fascinating, since it happened long before modern science was a factor. And while you're at it, please explain how the current beliefs in gods who control all of those things is anything significantly different.

[rug]

56. Philosophy disproved them.

Unless you consider Epicurus a modern scientist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Because Christianity got seriously organised to suppress and terrorise its opponents

Greek and Roman gods lost their following at the end of the large Roman Empire and the start of the Dark Ages - the era of no scientific discoveries whatsoever in their world.

[cbayer]

48. No disagreeing with that, but there were also scientific findings and explanations that

seriously countered the ideas about those gods, making it easy to suppress them.

Do you agree with this post that religion doesn't change in response to science. I may not have chosen the best example, but the statement is foolish.

[mmonk]

49. Sometimes but generally no.

But religion affects whether some people believe in what has been discovered at times. Therefore, the impact is marginally at best and sometimes no real impact at all.

[cbayer]

51. I agree that people sometimes cling to religious explanations despite

there being clear contradictory evidence, but that tends to wane over time.

Your conclusion that the impact is there for marginal or even non-existent is not supported by facts, though. Many, many religious beliefs have been abandoned over time in light of scientific findings.

Can you provide an example of a scientific finding in which the impact on religious beliefs were marginal or non-existent? I don't mean examples where a portion of the population still hangs on, but where there is little or not change at all.

[Curmudgeoness]

96. Almost every scientific finding has had no impact

of religious beliefs. Look at the enormous finding that the earth revolved around the sun instead of being the center of the universe. The church did deny this for a short time, but then they accepted it and made their doctrine fit the new facts. Religious "beliefs" were not impacted in the least.....but religion was. There is a difference. The religions normally will take the new discoveries and explain how they still fit with their beliefs.

[cbayer]

97. That is not the point though.

Althout the religious beliefs may not change much in response to scientific findings, the perception of the world does change, even among the religious.

As you correctly point out, doctrine has been adapted to new findings and it will continue to adapt, imo.

Why would beliefs be impacted by scientific finding. They are beliefs based on faith precisely because they are not scientifically based.

This is an interesting article on how those belief systems might adapt to the introduction of extraterrestrials. I thought it was interesting.

[Curmudgeoness]

98. I was only answering the last question in your post.

"Can you provide an example of a scientific finding in which the impact on religious beliefs were marginal or non-existent?"

So that is the point.....the finding that the earth was not the center of the universal had zero effect on the beliefs. They just found a way to incorporate it or ignore it.

As to extraterrestrials, it will be the same thing. They will explain it away and the believers will continue to believe just the way they do today. And probably the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses will get a mission together to go knock on their doors.

[cbayer]

100. I see your point and perhaps I worded it poorly.

The claim was made that religion never changes in response to scientific findings. I think that is patently wrong and was asking for examples of scientific findings to which religious people did not respond.

I don't think the finding about the universe would or should have any effect on someone's core religious beliefs, and they certainly didn't ignore it.

Incorporating it is exactly the right thing to do. It didn't provide anything that would disprove their core religious beliefs, so why would anyone expect those to change?

And why would the presence of extraterrestrials change anyone's core religious beliefs? It doesn't do anything to either prove or disprove the existence of a god.

There is a great book called "The Sparrow" about the first manned visit to a planet inhabited by other intelligent life. The crew of this mission doesn't include any Mormons or JH's, but does include a number of Jesuit priests. Their inclusion in the mission is critical to the story's plot.

You might enjoy it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Some religions adapt to certain scientific findings, but grudgingly

Look how about 40% of Americans can still say that humans came into existence in the past 10,000 years. They're joined in that by many Christians in other countries (not so much in Europe, but plenty in the developing world). Most of the rest of Christians claim God diected evolution in some way. Catholicism still insists officially that Adam and Eve actually existed. Miracles are still believed in. Exorcism is officially endorsed by the Vatican.

I can't think of any scientific findings that made the Greek or Roman gods harder to believe in than the Christian one(s).

[cbayer]

52. I think creationism is a good example, but there are also large numbers of people

that are abandoning or altering their beliefs about that in light of scientific findings. In the relative shame of things, evolution is fairly recent. I suspect that creationism will continue to lose it's grip and eventually disappear.

While I find god directed evolution foolish, it is harder to combat that with hard evidence, so that in itself is an "evolution" of the idea.

There are lots of scientific findings that made greek and roman gods harder to believe over time. That you can't think of any is not surprising, but if you give it a few moments, I bet you can come up with some.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. The Bible claims its God throws lightning around too

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=lightning&qs_version=NIV

Belief in Greek gods stopped long before anyone worked out what lightning was.

[cbayer]

55. Yes, but no one believes that literally. Do you?

You haven't answered my question. Do you agree that scientific discoveries have no or little impact on religious beliefs?

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. My answer was #50

With plenty of people still claiming all of the Bible is literally true, I think some people do believe it. You get famous TV preachers saying storms are signs of God's wrath, and he's not the only one. Since people looked on storms and disease as punishments from God for centuries after Greek polytheism disappeared, I don't think there was any difference in the attribution of weather or other natural processes as being under the control of gods.

[cbayer]

60. So while you see that some people still hang on to their

religious beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary, you recognize that some religious beliefs do change in response to scientific findings, right? Am I getting that right or do you actually agree with the person I was initially responding to?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. The overall change is small (nt)

[cbayer]

65. Baloney.

The changes throughout the course of humankind have been enormous.

Taking the initial position was ridiculous and unsustainable. It was meant only to make another broad brush attack on the 84% of the earth's population that is religious.

It looks sillier and sillier to take these kinds of positions and then try to justify them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. How much has Christianity changed over 2000 years? Or Islam?

Those are the big two. How much have they been changed by advances in knowledge? The resurrection is still the centre of Christian belief. Both religions still talk about people being taken up into the sky. Both have large amounts of believers in a flood story. Both believe what the founding book says about an afterlife. Both believe in an immortal soul without any evidence whatsoever.

What significant religious belief, in any religion, has appeared because of an advance in scientific knowledge?

[cbayer]

72. They've been changed a great deal by advances in knowledge.

While their philosophical tenets may have remained essentially the same, their explanation for things have changed a great deal.

How could the resurrection be changed by "advances in knowledge"? Going to heaven has nothing to do with science and science has provided nothing that would prove that there is no heaven or that people don't go there after death.

The flood story is a great example, as I think most people see this as allegory, even if there may have been a time when most took it literally.

There is no evidence for or against an immortal soul. You have no more basis to take a definitive position than a believer does.

Where did I make the claim that science would lead to a new and significant religious belief?

Now you are just grasping at straws.

You don't believe any of this stuff. That's cool. Other people do. That's cool too. You are not wiser or smarter than they, you just have a different POV.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. People could apply the standards of evidence they use for real life to religion

in which case they'd drop the ideas of prayers to dead saints who intervene on their behalf. But, and this is the point of the post that you don't like, they don't. Religious philosophies (the subject of the OP) don't get changed by advances in knowledge. People still believe there are dead people or angels looking out for them. They think that they have inherited 'sin' from Adam and Eve. Others think they are reincarnations. If I made a claim similar in concept - such as my choices today deciding the result of the 2016 US election because my soul can travel in time and space - people would say "we can prove that's not true". But believers still accept similar nonsense in their religions.

[cbayer]

74. But they are very different things and can't be evaluated using the same methods.

If you insist upon that, then you will find religion lacking every time.

It is such a narrow view to think that religion must meet some kind of scientific standard to be worthwhile or valid.

Sorry, Muriel, everything you say just comes across as you making the claim that your perspective is somehow superior.

It's not. What you consider nonsense is not necessarily nonsense.

[skepticscott]

79. Exactly

As someone wisely said, you can't expect to reason people out of thinking that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

[immoderate]

59. Invisible gods do have a believability advantage.

You can always point to an invisible god and say "There he/she is!" And who could show that's wrong? Thor, -- not so much.

--imm

[cbayer]

61. That's correct.

But some day perhaps the current notions of god will come under the same kind of scrutiny.

My bet, however, will be on the development (evolution?) of a new concept of god.

[immoderate]

64. As long as there will be "the gaps," there will be gods.

And evolution favors the "adaptable."

--imm

[cbayer]

66. And there will always be the gaps.

The question is whether there will always be gaps because there is a god or just because we can't know anything.

Evolution favors genetic mutation not "the adaptable", but I think a human's ability to individually adapt is an overall asset.

[immoderate]

69. Mutations, if significant are generally maladaptive.

Do you think the Galapagos finches have different bills because of mutation rather than natural selection? The results of mutations are random. Not likely it's adaptive.

I agree there will always be gaps.

--imm

[cbayer]

71. Mutations are what drives evolution.

Natural selection is all about mutations that provide traits that, for whatever reason, lead to an increase in adaptability. That is natural selection.

Surely you know that and if you don't, you would probably really enjoy a course in introductory genetics or evolution.

[immoderate]

76. Yes I would like to see the reference that says that all natural variation results from mutation.

I teach by the book, but I am always open to new information. Again, most mutations, if significant, will lead to the extinction of that line. They are random, and maladaptive.

Can you provide a credible reference that will correct me?

--imm

[cbayer]

82. Whoa, you really do need to take an introductory course.

Seriously, I think you would enjoy it and I don't' mean this as a put down at all.

As a credible reference, I suggest Darwin's Origin of the Species.

New mutations lead to adaption and are essential for adaptation.

This seems counter intuitive and that is exactly why Darwin was such a genius.

[immoderate]

83. Darwin uses the word "mutation" about a half dozen times in "Origins."

And he generally means "change over time." He of course, had no idea of DNA. He talks about natural selection about 150 times in Origins before he mentions the word mutation.

My problem is with English, not biology. My understanding of mutation, is (or was) that it's a result of atomic decay in one of the "letters" (G, A, C, T) of the DNA code, causing a substitution of a base code. From a quick perusal, I see it's generally applied to other types of variations which I was calling "natural variation," which of course, they are. So I'll adjust my vocabulary. Maybe I was confusing it with "mutagens."

I don't see what else I got wrong. Mutations are random, and most are maladaptive if they're not 'silent.' New mutations do not lead to adaptation. They're either adaptive or they're not. Adaptive traits are more observable because they are the ones that survive, and maladaptive ones are extinguished. That's where natural selection comes in. Perhaps I would enjoy an introductory course. But a "need?"

--imm

[cbayer]

86. Serious, imm. I like you and I think you generally speak from

a solid knowledge base, but in this instance I think you are not understanding this concept.

Whether Darwin understood the mechanics or not, he was definitely describing random genetic mutations.

Mutation is not about atomic decay. It is random errors in sequencing. The "letters" aren't damaged, they are simply substituted by other letters. I think you were confusing it with mutagens.

This is how new mutations lead to adaptation. Let's say a bug is sought out by a bird by a smell and that all the bugs have this smell. Then, randomly, a bug is born with a mutation that keeps it from emitting this smell. In this case, that could be good, because it increases it's chances of survival. That means it increases it's chances of reproducing and passing on the mutation, which then become an adaptation by the species to avoid getting eaten by this bird.

You are right. Most mutations are maladaptive but once in awhile one occurs randomly that increases the likelihood of reproduction.

You probably would enjoy a course, but you don't need one, and I apologize for being rude.

[immoderate]

90. I'm glad we cleared this up.

I don't think we disagree past my vocabulary malfunction. My reference was to a particular type of mutation, which results from atomic decay. When carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 it changes the code. This is transmutation, and added to my confusion. I thank you for straightening me out.

And I appreciate your being helpful.

--imm

[cbayer]

92. Your english is much superior to my handle on any other language,

including whatever else it is in which you are fluent.

I have enjoyed talking to you and hope we will talk again soon. I apologize if I was too harsh initially, but I am very glad we came to see this in the same way.

[immoderate]

99. Uhm. English is my native tongue, (depending on how you view Brooklyn...)

But it is tough to master. A little ignorance can go a long way.

--imm

[cbayer]

101. Oh, I completely misunderstood what you said earlier.

I thought you were saying that english was not your first language.

[immoderate]

110. Shows to go ya!

--imm

[skepticscott]

80. If you're going to be snarky and condescending

you might want to at least try to know what you're talking about first. Traits do not lead to "an increase in adaptability" That's a meaningless, nonsensical phrase that you pulled out of thin air. It has no meaning with respect to evolution.

Enjoy that course in introductory genetics, c.

[mmonk]

68. Yes, the god of the gaps.

And religious dogma still stands fast. And the religions that formed out of protest didn't primarily do so due to scientific discoveries. And things like a Creationist museum were created to refute science. The scientific discoveries weren't created to refute religion.

[cbayer]

75. God of the gaps is not such a bad thing.

Perhaps there are actually gaps that can't be explained by science but could be explained by a god.

Who are you or I to say that is not the case.

The creationist museum is a joke and those that hang on to creationism despite the strong evidence that dispels it are sad.

[immoderate]

77. "God did it" is not an explanation. It is a deflection, a lack of an explanation.

It doesn't tell you who, or what, did anything.

--imm

[cbayer]

81. It's as good an explanation as any when there is no other explanation available.

You have a better one?

[immoderate]

85. Yes I do. It's called being honest.

Pretending you have an answer does not stimulate curiosity, and precludes the search for reality. Bullshit does not make the flowers grow.

--imm

[cbayer]

88. When there is no definitive answer, saying you believe something is not

dishonest and not bullshit. it can be just a statement of faith.

But I agree that pretending you know something that is not known does preclude further search. That is why I take equal issue with people who make that claim that there is no god as those who make the claim that there is.

I guess you are not much of a gardener, because bullshit can indeed make flowers grow, lol.

[immoderate]

91. Well, there's bullshit...

... and then there's bullshit!

--imm

[okasha]

115. Indeed it does.

Very literally.

[mmonk]

84. Many early scientists were Catholic

and their discoveries were financed by the church . Some were even persecuted by the church that financed their work. Nonetheless they taught us the Earth was not the center of the universe to today's Big Bang and an expanding universe. While the church has since accepted much of their work and doesn't persecute them like the old days of the Middle Ages, church doctrine remains largely unchanged.

[cbayer]

87. I agree that church doctrine remains unchanged, at

least the major doctrine of the last 2000 years, but it has changed significantly form former religious doctrines.

And the views of the world held by religious people have changed, even if the doctrine has remained static.

Much research is still done at religiously supported schools an institutions, but there are clearly other examples of religion standing in the way of science, like stem cell research.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. um, uh, just about everyone was catholic, unless they were protestant

and galileo was most certainly not funded by the church, he was at the university of Padua. The church did not both fund him and persecute him, they settled for just the persecution.

[trotsky]

89. Yes, perhaps.

While we haven't yet found a single gap that requires a god over the past several thousands of years, there MIGHT be one out there.

So there's not a single example that supports your position, and the odds are vastly against you but hey - cling to whatever you need, cb. People need their religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. other than being intellectually dishonest, not bad at all.

[pinto]

67. I think science as well as society at large is reflected in religion. Sometimes ironically.

Evolution and sexuality are good current examples. As science and society document and exemplify both as inherent aspects of life, some religions have changed their outdated mindsets.

The irony, imo, is that conservative religious groups have unwittingly aided in the change, the evolution of religious thought. By making both topics a hot button issue they bring them to the fore. Some religious groups have responded & chosen to speak out in support of both.

I don't think all religions exist in a vacuum, untouched by what we see as progressive or scientifically valid points of view. Takes two to tango. There will be a lull in the dance, imo, and we may see a different set of partners in the whole thing.

[skepticscott]

78. No, there weren't. That's utter nonsense

I defy you to point out even one scientific finding that made it easy suppress beliefs in Greek and Roman gods.

You're just making shit up here, and we both know it. If your agenda requires something, you really don't give a ratfuck about the truth, do you?

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Which ones were those circa 200-1200 AD?

Which would be around the time frame that all ancient religions disappeared from Europe and Christianity became the universal religion of the region. The end date is the Christianization of Scandinavia, more or less complete by 1200 or so.

This should be fascinating. of course perhaps you could have somebody close to you respond as you have me on ignore.

[rug]

57. No, it collapsed because it lost its usefulness to the state.

[okasha]

62. And in any case,

the Eastern Empire didn't experience the Dark Ages at all, and science hummed along quite nicely.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. WTF? the greek and roman gods are no longer believed in because science?

Seriously?

[skepticscott]

103. I guess when you spend your days

on a yacht, you have lots of time to double down and try to defend anything you say that's exposed as silly. If you just admit you were wrong or made something up when it's pointed out to you, what else would you have to do with the other 99% of the day?

[Phlem]

53. No.

I'm surrounded by Jesus freaks in my family and my wife's family. There's that proverbial wall of ignorance that can't be penetrated.

[gordianot]

102. Interestingly the Catholic Church has pondered this question.

The weird light displays in front of large masses during broad daylight in the early 20 th Century at Fatima Portugal still haunts some for a rational explanation.

[BillZBubb]

106. There would have to be some tweaking on interpreting religious dogma.

But, religions are very adaptable to "adjusting the message".

[BillZBubb]

107. The more interesting question is what if alien life came to us?

That would require technology well beyond our level. If we interacted with them, their beliefs might seem more powerful and legitimate as well. There would be a significant change in human religions in that case.

[MannyGoldstein]

112. IIRC from Hebrew school, many years ago...

Either the Old Testament is compatible with extraterrestrial life, or perhaps even hints at it.

But I'm no scholar; hopefully someone knows better than I.