Spirituality
18 Dec 16
18 Dec 16
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react
I seems to me that insofar as religions have any response to this at all, monotheistic ones are more likely to struggle to integrate it into their ideologies, whereas polytheistic ones tend to be more open to plurality and multiplicity.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by moonbusThis is pretty big.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react
I seems to me that insofar as religions have any response to this at all, monotheistic ones are more likely to struggle to integrate it into their ideologies, whereas polytheistic ones tend to be more open to plurality and multiplicity.
"scientists say its more "when" not "if" ' in terms of finding aliens.
Fascinating...[gonna read some more]
19 Dec 16
Originally posted by moonbusBut the theory of evolution would tell you that life evolves.
It's a big jump from finding exo-life (microbes) to finding intelligent exo-life. I'm not holding my breath till we find the latter.
So if you find microbes on one planet then the likelihood of finding intelligent life is just a hop,skip, and a jump away.
20 Dec 16
Originally posted by OdBodSame old anti-religious BS. You think science can explain everything. We ask it one question, Why the universe? and look how inept your god of science is.
I think it is great that science brings new ideas and information to human thought,whereas religion rehashes the same old BS.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29975
21 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'Why' is such a human, emotive question. The one that really matters is 'how.'
Same old anti-religious BS. You think science can explain everything. We ask it one question, Why the universe? and look how inept your god of science is.
Science does a much better job at answering that question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScience does not claim to explain everything,in fact it recognises that current ideas will change and develop with the acquisition of new information.Religion seems to limit thought by adherence to a number of absolutes[depending on the type of religion].Your own post for example has assumed that there must be a why to the universe.
Same old anti-religious BS. You think science can explain everything. We ask it one question, Why the universe? and look how inept your god of science is.
22 Dec 16
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat the theory of evolution does not tell us is how life gets started. It remains to be seen whether life does in fact get started wherever conditions favour it, or whether something else is required beyond chemicals and energy. If the former, then the monotheistic religions are going to have trouble integrating it into their ideology, IMO.
But the theory of evolution would tell you that life evolves.
So if you find microbes on one planet then the likelihood of finding intelligent life is just a hop,skip, and a jump away.
How long it would take to hop, skip, and jump from microbes to intelligent life, is another kettle of fish. It took a few billion years here, according to the best available evidence. A higher temperature and a different mix of chemicals might decrease the time required elsewhere, whereas a lower temperature might considerably lengthen the time, or preclude higher forms from evolving altogether. The evidence of one planet is not a statistically significant sample.
Moreover, there have been several mass extinction periods in Earth's history. Even if life were to get started on another suitable planet, nothing guarantees that it would survive catastrophes similar to Earth's previous mass extinctions.
22 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodOf course there is a why. There has been ever since there were humans.
Science does not claim to explain everything,in fact it recognises that current ideas will change and develop with the acquisition of new information.Religion seems to limit thought by adherence to a number of absolutes[depending on the type of religion].Your own post for example has assumed that there must be a why to the universe.
How is easy. The evidence is right in front of us.
It's the why that is hard.
22 Dec 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes, science does a superb job of answering how.
'Why' is such a human, emotive question. The one that really matters is 'how.'
Science does a much better job at answering that question.
Just as religion answers the why. Pretending there is no why doesn't answer that question.
22 Dec 16
Originally posted by moonbusI have to resort to an internet meme for a response to this.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react
I seems to me that insofar as religions have any response to this at all, monotheistic ones are more likely to struggle to integrate it into their ideologies, whereas polytheistic ones tend to be more open to plurality and multiplicity.
"Not sure if serious."