CATEGORY: Blog [back]

TOPIC: Astrotheology: Do Aliens Have Their Own Jesus? Are Aliens Sinless? [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 15:43 GMT





My first thought was, “No, why should religion crumble just because aliens were discovered?” and I was slightly surprised (perhaps naively) that apparently the opposite view is more widely held. But according to



To address whether religious people really do feel that their beliefs would be threatened by contact, Peters has conducted a



So where does the notion that religion will crumble in the face of contact come from? Well, that was also partially addressed in the survey. Respondents tended to assume that while those following their own religion (or non-religion, in the case of non-affiliates and atheists) wouldn’t be too shaken, _other_ religions would be. “So those other people would have the problems!” says Peters.



Question answered then: Religion will not crumble. Or perhaps it’s not that simple?



Peters responded that he has also looked into the views of many Christian theologians, and there opinion differs. Some believe that there could be only one incarnation—species-specific to humans. Others allow for multiple incarnations, with other alien species (or animals on Earth) having their own “Jesus.”



To complicate matters further, it’s also not clear that Christians _should_ believe that extra-terrestrials even need saving. Peters described how C. S. Lewis once speculated that aliens may never have gone through the



But, if that is the case, then a sinless alien race could be out there waiting to...inspire us? (Altruistic alien missionaries coming to Earth may not be a good thing either.) Which brings me back to the initial assumption that any advanced alien race should have evolved beyond religion. That may be the case. Or they may provide an example of a more spiritual way to live. In either case, how would their discovery affect you (whether you are an atheist, a religious person, undecided, or unwilling to declare)? Will it diminish your sense of human dignity if we meet beings that are more advanced than us? Should it?



While you’re pondering those questions, I’ll leave you with Jon Chase’s astrobiology rap, which was performed live for us at the meeting.







this post has been edited by the forum administrator



Yesterday I attended a meeting at the Royal Society in London about how the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence would affect people and society, and was introduced to a whole new discipline: astrotheology. A big talking point at the meeting (stated somewhat crudely) was whether the discovery of alien intelligence would throw religion into crisis. (Thank you to Mike Croft for his rejoinder yesterday: “That’s a very poor question. Would science be in crisis if God was discovered?”)My first thought was, “No, why should religion crumble just because aliens were discovered?” and I was slightly surprised (perhaps naively) that apparently the opposite view is more widely held. But according to Ted Peters , a Christian theologian (who now also dabbles in astrotheology, pondering whether meeting our space neighbours could throw humanity into an existential crisis) the issue is partly based on the unspoken assumption that religion is primitive and inferior, while science is superior. Should aliens make contact with us, one would assume they are more technologically advanced than we are, and hence—the argument goes—more highly evolved, to such an extent that they will in fact have “evolved beyond religion.” (I will come back to this point later.) What would primitive earthlings do when faced with their more evolved scientific superiors?To address whether religious people really do feel that their beliefs would be threatened by contact, Peters has conducted a survey of people from various faiths to check the hypothesis that “upon confirmation of contact between earth and an extraterrestrial civilization of intelligent beings, the long established religious traditions of earth would confront a crisis of belief and perhaps even collapse.” New Scientist has covered his findings in detail, so I will direct you there for the stats rather than typing them all out myself. But the upshot—not very surprising to many of faith—is that Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Jews, and Buddhists really aren’t too worried by the prospect that the universe contains other intelligent beings. Anecdotal evidence from Muslims and Hindus suggest they feel much the same way. Most disagreed that the discovery would shake their personal faith and many believe that others who share their own faith would also take alien contact in their stride. (Some suggest it would even strengthen their faith and provide evidence for the existence of nonhuman intelligent beings described in sacred texts.)So where does the notion that religion will crumble in the face of contact come from? Well, that was also partially addressed in the survey. Respondents tended to assume that while those following their own religion (or non-religion, in the case of non-affiliates and atheists) wouldn’t be too shaken, _other_ religions would be. “So those other people would have the problems!” says Peters.Question answered then: Religion will not crumble. Or perhaps it’s not that simple? FQXi’s Paul Davies asked rather cuttingly in response to the survey, “how many people have an understanding of their own religion?” While he agreed that most religions could incorporate aliens into their worldview with little difficulty, he argued that for Christians there should be a serious problem: “Can you really be a Christian and not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God who came to save a particular species?”Peters responded that he has also looked into the views of many Christian theologians, and there opinion differs. Some believe that there could be only one incarnation—species-specific to humans. Others allow for multiple incarnations, with other alien species (or animals on Earth) having their own “Jesus.”To complicate matters further, it’s also not clear that Christians _should_ believe that extra-terrestrials even need saving. Peters described how C. S. Lewis once speculated that aliens may never have gone through the fall , that is, no alien Adam and Eve were tempted to eat of the forbidden fruit (or the alien equivalent), and hence aliens do not need saving by a Christ-like figure. I am aware that I am straying into areas of Christian theology (let alone areas of alien Christian theology) that I am not an expert on, so I should maybe open the floor to people who know more than me here.But, if that is the case, then a sinless alien race could be out there waiting to...inspire us? (Altruistic alien missionaries coming to Earth may not be a good thing either.) Which brings me back to the initial assumption that any advanced alien race should have evolved beyond religion. That may be the case. Or they may provide an example of a more spiritual way to live. In either case, how would their discovery affect you (whether you are an atheist, a religious person, undecided, or unwilling to declare)? Will it diminish your sense of human dignity if we meet beings that are more advanced than us? Should it?While you’re pondering those questions, I’ll leave you with Jon Chase’s astrobiology rap, which was performed live for us at the meeting.

Witchy wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 18:08 GMT





However, supposing God _did_ appear and say that actually, I _did_ put the fossils in the rocks? I can see that being more problematic!



(Interesting programme about the coming of Jesus in modern times, "The Second Coming" starring Christopher Eccleston. Raised fascinating questions about modern cynicism.)



report post as inappropriate

Bryan replied on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT



Depending on which religion you follow, likely so! Or can a perfect God make an imperfect creation and say, "Whoops! Need to try that again." It defies his definition as "Perfect" to say otherwise, right?



Also, I'd be careful of statements like this:



> I believe that religion would cope better with aliens than many scientists with God.



Scientists =/= Atheists. Many scientists are religious. I have no problem believing that there are some Atheists who would refuse to accept any evidence that God existed, just as there are some Christians who would refuse to accept any evidence that he did not. True scientists, as a rule, should attempt to replicate the data and then redefine theories based on it, even if that data is evidence of God's existence.



report post as inappropriate > Are we assuming we're the perfect model and God stopped there?Depending on which religion you follow, likely so! Or can a perfect God make an imperfect creation and say, "Whoops! Need to try that again." It defies his definition as "Perfect" to say otherwise, right?Also, I'd be careful of statements like this:> I believe that religion would cope better with aliens than many scientists with God.Scientists =/= Atheists. Many scientists are religious. I have no problem believing that there are some Atheists who would refuse to accept any evidence that God existed, just as there are some Christians who would refuse to accept any evidence that he did not. True scientists, as a rule, should attempt to replicate the data and then redefine theories based on it, even if that data is evidence of God's existence. I believe that religion would cope better with aliens than many scientists with God. After all, if there is a God, perhaps He chose to also create other species as well, why not? Are we assuming we're the perfect model and God stopped there?However, supposing God _did_ appear and say that actually, I _did_ put the fossils in the rocks? I can see that being more problematic!(Interesting programme about the coming of Jesus in modern times, "The Second Coming" starring Christopher Eccleston. Raised fascinating questions about modern cynicism.)

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT





view entire post The one property of the human mind which gives us our capacity for imagination is we project our consciousness onto the world. I suspect this might have something to do with our development of language, for we began to tell stories about the natural world in anthropic terms sometime early in our evolution to Homo sapiens. This permitted information necessary for survival to be passed down...



The idea of space aliens is frankly just as much a projection as is our mental projection of our conscious framework out “to infinity,” which is this thing we call God. The space alien, along with more mundane ideas of UFOs and so forth, are similar projections of minor forms, which in the past took the form of angels, satirs, demons, and so forth. Further, as time went on these projections assumed celestial dimensions, where the heavenly hosts of the bible are vague ideas about angels identified with stars. In our modern world these ideas have assumed an updated or scientific form of the ET or space alien. Our capacity to project our emotional basis onto them is manifold. Some aliens are friendly and benevolent, Spielberg’s ET and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, or Sagans “Contact.” Other aliens are less than friendly, the HG Wells Martians in book and movie forms, the Predator movies, and what I think were the ultimate space bad boys, the Gieger aliens which were hideous and almost implacable. In the end we are projecting our mental and emotional framework onto the exterior world with these ideations.



So do ETs exist? I will say that I think the universe in the FLRW setting is k = 0, which makes space infinite. The field theory content we observe does not saturate the Bekenstein bound until about 10^{26} light years out, and beyond that might be other “pocket universes” beyond an inflaton or scalar field induced barrier of sorts. So anything which is not forbidden is ultimately mandatory. I see no reason to presume that ET is impossible, so I suspect they very likely do exist. Of course maybe the closest ET planet is 100 million light years out.



Our ideas about ET tend to be reflections of ourselves. This was carried to impossible and ridiculous forms on Star Trek where you got aliens and humans bearing offspring, such as Spock is half Human and half Vulcan. Nope, that is not going to happen. Our ideas about ET most often are exaggerated forms of ourselves, such as the bug-eyed bulbous headed grey alien ideas portrayed so commonly. They really are just variations of our selves. This would extend to the idea that any ET would project their selves as we do. The internal mental reality of an ET might be so radically different from anything we experience subjectively that we can’t possibly ever understand it. This would likely, and I think almost certainty, be the case, even if we can decode their electromagnetic signals and figure out how they do mathematics and so forth. The converse might likely hold as well. So the concept of a God, such as projecting their internal mental reality out to infinity, might simply be outside their capacity to internally experience. If they did decode a signal from us and garner our ability to project our minds, they might find this to be a unique way for what to them is an ET to experience external and internal existence. Further, they might find the idea we have of God to be utterly beyond their ability to internalize or understand. Of course this point is likely ever more the case when it comes to particular theological ideas we have.



Cheers LC



view post as summary The one property of the human mind which gives us our capacity for imagination is we project our consciousness onto the world. I suspect this might have something to do with our development of language, for we began to tell stories about the natural world in anthropic terms sometime early in our evolution to Homo sapiens. This permitted information necessary for survival to be passed down generations. So ideas about spirits in the forest, totems, demiurges, gods etc were in nature religions a way of telling about the cycles of life and seasons --- when the fish came up river, when the buffalo migrated, when a certain corn plant went to seed and so forth. We do these things today of course, consider in the USA with Superbowl time coming up the modern use of totems with sports teams. The writing of fiction is another example of such projections. The author projects their mind through a character onto words on a page which are then projected into and out of the mind of a reader. Einstein’s imagining what would happen if he were on a frame moving with an electromagnetic wave is also such a projection.The idea of space aliens is frankly just as much a projection as is our mental projection of our conscious framework out “to infinity,” which is this thing we call God. The space alien, along with more mundane ideas of UFOs and so forth, are similar projections of minor forms, which in the past took the form of angels, satirs, demons, and so forth. Further, as time went on these projections assumed celestial dimensions, where the heavenly hosts of the bible are vague ideas about angels identified with stars. In our modern world these ideas have assumed an updated or scientific form of the ET or space alien. Our capacity to project our emotional basis onto them is manifold. Some aliens are friendly and benevolent, Spielberg’s ET and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, or Sagans “Contact.” Other aliens are less than friendly, the HG Wells Martians in book and movie forms, the Predator movies, and what I think were the ultimate space bad boys, the Gieger aliens which were hideous and almost implacable. In the end we are projecting our mental and emotional framework onto the exterior world with these ideations.So do ETs exist? I will say that I think the universe in the FLRW setting is k = 0, which makes space infinite. The field theory content we observe does not saturate the Bekenstein bound until about 10^{26} light years out, and beyond that might be other “pocket universes” beyond an inflaton or scalar field induced barrier of sorts. So anything which is not forbidden is ultimately mandatory. I see no reason to presume that ET is impossible, so I suspect they very likely do exist. Of course maybe the closest ET planet is 100 million light years out.Our ideas about ET tend to be reflections of ourselves. This was carried to impossible and ridiculous forms on Star Trek where you got aliens and humans bearing offspring, such as Spock is half Human and half Vulcan. Nope, that is not going to happen. Our ideas about ET most often are exaggerated forms of ourselves, such as the bug-eyed bulbous headed grey alien ideas portrayed so commonly. They really are just variations of our selves. This would extend to the idea that any ET would project their selves as we do. The internal mental reality of an ET might be so radically different from anything we experience subjectively that we can’t possibly ever understand it. This would likely, and I think almost certainty, be the case, even if we can decode their electromagnetic signals and figure out how they do mathematics and so forth. The converse might likely hold as well. So the concept of a God, such as projecting their internal mental reality out to infinity, might simply be outside their capacity to internally experience. If they did decode a signal from us and garner our ability to project our minds, they might find this to be a unique way for what to them is an ET to experience external and internal existence. Further, they might find the idea we have of God to be utterly beyond their ability to internalize or understand. Of course this point is likely ever more the case when it comes to particular theological ideas we have.Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 20:01 GMT





Many consider that any of the following: the discovery that the Earth is not flat, that it doesn't lie in the center of the Universe, that the life forms evolve, and so on, is an enough reason to abandon religion. They are of course surprised that all these don't seem such obvious problems for the religious people, and this is why they consider them lacking intelligence. On the other side, many religious people cannot understand why others don't share their conviction that behind the wonders of this Universe must be a Creator, and consider them shallow.



For the human mind it is very difficult to live in uncertainty; it has to have a firm opinion about everything. But as hard it is for it to live in uncertainty, as easy it is to live in contradiction. Forced to choose between completeness and consistency, it usually chooses completeness over consistency.



The key is to learn to live with all the uncertainties life offers, to admit that our knowledge is limited, but to try to overcome its limits and to understand more.



report post as inappropriate Do not underestimate the capacity of human mind to accommodate contradictory data. The belief systems, when confronted with data which seems to contradict them, survive easily, mostly in one of two possible ways: 1. develop "antibodies" against the data which seems to contradict them, and 2. suffer superficial mutations and adapt to the new data.Many consider that any of the following: the discovery that the Earth is not flat, that it doesn't lie in the center of the Universe, that the life forms evolve, and so on, is an enough reason to abandon religion. They are of course surprised that all these don't seem such obvious problems for the religious people, and this is why they consider them lacking intelligence. On the other side, many religious people cannot understand why others don't share their conviction that behind the wonders of this Universe must be a Creator, and consider them shallow.For the human mind it is very difficult to live in uncertainty; it has to have a firm opinion about everything. But as hard it is for it to live in uncertainty, as easy it is to live in contradiction. Forced to choose between completeness and consistency, it usually chooses completeness over consistency.The key is to learn to live with all the uncertainties life offers, to admit that our knowledge is limited, but to try to overcome its limits and to understand more.

Constantin Leshan wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 22:32 GMT





report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 01:11 GMT



I'm not sure I see why? What color is the God of Earth? You don't seem to understand religion or God with any depth, other than what you may have read, and via logic and reason. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm really not. But your comment suggests that you are an athiest who believe that religion is a lot of evolutionary garbage. It's just not possible to teach anything to someone whose mind is closed. Good luck with that.



report post as inappropriate Constantin,I'm not sure I see why? What color is the God of Earth? You don't seem to understand religion or God with any depth, other than what you may have read, and via logic and reason. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm really not. But your comment suggests that you are an athiest who believe that religion is a lot of evolutionary garbage. It's just not possible to teach anything to someone whose mind is closed. Good luck with that. If we meet extra-terrestrial intelligence then it will be the end for all terrestrial religions. For example, if the aliens are green then their God will be green also. They are neither Christians nor Moslems. Since our religions exists on Earth only, it will be the proof that all religions are false.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 01:27 GMT





view entire post I am of the opinion that our prospects for communicating with an ETI are pretty low. I think life in its basic form is fairly common in the universe. There have been some reasons of late to think life does exist on Mars. Some of the Jovian and Saturnian might have life forms in oceans under their ice crusts. Yet in these cases I would be surprised if there is intelligent life, or life forms...



The idea of God, and our beliefs in supernatural beings such as gods or God, has far more to do with psychology than cosmology. The human mind did not evolve to solve the problems of quantum gravity, or to prove the Riemann zeta function conjecture. It evolved to permit us to survive in a wide range of environments by socially communicating information to each other. It is a byproduct or happenstance that our brains are remarkably capable of solving abstract problems and of learning the structure of the universe. In our early imaginative narratives about the nature of things we projected our conscious being onto the world, which resulted in ritual forms which encoded a sense of being-ness and meaning into spiritual forms.



We continue to do that, for when something goes bump in the night most of us at first wonder, "Who did that?," rather than "what caused that?" Children shown nature films will make remarkable statements, such as "The rocks are jagged so the bears can scratch their itchy backs." We are psychologically disposed to see the world according to external agencies, which are similar to ourselves, which act on the world with intentionalism and purpose.



The persistence of religion is a remarkable example of this as well. Saul of Tarsus is probably the most famous and enduring author in history, and there is some possibility the guy actually existed. Abraham, Moses and even Jesus are likely characters developed into narratives than actual people, or they might be compilations of various people around the time. Certainly the literal concepts of the world as laid down in the Bible are wrong from the perspective of science. Yet literal believers in the Bible number in the many tens of millions.



In the case of Christianity the thought-belief system has a highly compelling quality to it. The idea was popular in the 1st century BCE, where Appolonius was supposed to be the incarnation of Hellenic gods, in particular Apollo. This Hellenic idea got incorporated into the Egyptian religions, where Isis and Osiris spawned Mithras, it impacted as far as India with Krishna, and it co-opted Judaism into Christianity. So this idea is not only specific to our psychological make up, but to ancient cultural traditions and their intertwined histories. Christianity emerged as a European-Mediterranean religion, lost the Middle East to Islam, but later was spread as a world religion with the European expansion into the Americas and the world. The religion early on found many converts in the late Roman period, expanded readily through the time of Charlemagne, and later converted many outside of Europe. The notion of a God emerging as a person who then suffered and died for one’s personal salvation is an apparently compelling narrative which plays pretty well to this day. In spite of advances in science, and enormous world view changes such as biological evolution and inflationary big bang cosmology, many people reject these in order to maintain their belief in a God that acts as their personal savior. I see not abrupt change in this either.



Cheers LC



view post as summary I am of the opinion that our prospects for communicating with an ETI are pretty low. I think life in its basic form is fairly common in the universe. There have been some reasons of late to think life does exist on Mars. Some of the Jovian and Saturnian might have life forms in oceans under their ice crusts. Yet in these cases I would be surprised if there is intelligent life, or life forms more complex than a nematode. Intelligent life requires a rich bio-planet like Earth, where on Earth there has been a rather extraordinary evolutionary explosion of complex life forms and ecosystems. That I think is rather rare. Rarer still is likely to be intelligent life.The idea of God, and our beliefs in supernatural beings such as gods or God, has far more to do with psychology than cosmology. The human mind did not evolve to solve the problems of quantum gravity, or to prove the Riemann zeta function conjecture. It evolved to permit us to survive in a wide range of environments by socially communicating information to each other. It is a byproduct or happenstance that our brains are remarkably capable of solving abstract problems and of learning the structure of the universe. In our early imaginative narratives about the nature of things we projected our conscious being onto the world, which resulted in ritual forms which encoded a sense of being-ness and meaning into spiritual forms.We continue to do that, for when something goes bump in the night most of us at first wonder, "Who did that?," rather than "what caused that?" Children shown nature films will make remarkable statements, such as "The rocks are jagged so the bears can scratch their itchy backs." We are psychologically disposed to see the world according to external agencies, which are similar to ourselves, which act on the world with intentionalism and purpose.The persistence of religion is a remarkable example of this as well. Saul of Tarsus is probably the most famous and enduring author in history, and there is some possibility the guy actually existed. Abraham, Moses and even Jesus are likely characters developed into narratives than actual people, or they might be compilations of various people around the time. Certainly the literal concepts of the world as laid down in the Bible are wrong from the perspective of science. Yet literal believers in the Bible number in the many tens of millions.In the case of Christianity the thought-belief system has a highly compelling quality to it. The idea was popular in the 1st century BCE, where Appolonius was supposed to be the incarnation of Hellenic gods, in particular Apollo. This Hellenic idea got incorporated into the Egyptian religions, where Isis and Osiris spawned Mithras, it impacted as far as India with Krishna, and it co-opted Judaism into Christianity. So this idea is not only specific to our psychological make up, but to ancient cultural traditions and their intertwined histories. Christianity emerged as a European-Mediterranean religion, lost the Middle East to Islam, but later was spread as a world religion with the European expansion into the Americas and the world. The religion early on found many converts in the late Roman period, expanded readily through the time of Charlemagne, and later converted many outside of Europe. The notion of a God emerging as a person who then suffered and died for one’s personal salvation is an apparently compelling narrative which plays pretty well to this day. In spite of advances in science, and enormous world view changes such as biological evolution and inflationary big bang cosmology, many people reject these in order to maintain their belief in a God that acts as their personal savior. I see not abrupt change in this either.Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 03:29 GMT





Well, the human race upon the planet earth is getting technologically sophisticated, to some degree. Thank God they haven't noticed us. We've had quite a bit of luck communicating with them telepathically; we don't leave evidence that way. If they do discover us, I give them 20 years before they can build a sub-light speed spaceship and show up at our doorstep. Then what? It's not they we're worried they'll attack. It's more likely we'll have to send embassadors to earth. I don't want to be the first to get shot at, shot down and probed by humans. Yes, they are curious about whether we exist or not. Some of them are caring and naive. Then, there are others who are highly intelligent, crafty, and would come up with highly imaginative ruses to get at our technology. If that happens, how long will it be before the galaxy is swarming with crafty little humans looking for wealth?



Can humans be neighborly? There is still quite a bit of disease, death and poverty on their planet. I really don't want to be the one that has to tell them, "sorry, we'd like to help you, but we're not allowed to share technology with you." I'm pretty sure they would be nice enough to ask first, then take it by force. I mean, shields and force fields work just fine. But it's hard to be a friendly neighbor from behind the safety of force fields. Yes, they would rob us blind. We would have to walk back to Alpha Centauri.



But there are technologies that we can teach them. The problem is, telepathy and all that psychic/psionic stuff, it doesn't lend itself to proof. It also won't make anybody rich. That is stuff we've become very expert at. In fact, some of the same principles by which telepathy works, are similar to how a hyperdrive works. But for now, we'll just work with those whom they call crazy/imaginative/strange/certifiable/crackpot/etc...



On the brighter side, there are a few nations that have learned to behave a little better. If we had to crash land somewhere, I think I would pick a European country. I think the governments there would love to flaunt it in America's face that they know how to conduct a first contact, properly. Not like Ronald Reagan with his, "wouldn't it be great if we were in an interstellar war..." speach.



All we can say is this: learn everything you can about hyper-drives and how to conduct a proper first contact with your neighbors. Then, we'll see about dropping by for a friendly visit. Good luck earhling neighbors.



report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT



By the way, most of our communication is conducted telepathically anyway. If you thought we were hostile with intentions of invading your world, forget it. We have better things to spend money on then sending battle cruisers and alien infantry. If humanity can figure out how they're going to deal with a first contact, maybe we'll visit. Here is a hint. Trying being a little more friendly and neighborly. Practice saying this sentence:



Welcome visitors from another world. We of the planet earth greet you with goodwill and friendship. We hope that our two civilizations can share culture, knowledge and eventually trade with each other.



If you practice saying that, enough to be convincing, maybe we'll visit you.



report post as inappropriate Well so much for finding intelligent life on earth. Hyper-drive technology is expensive to operate. So, we the aliens are supposed to come down to visit you, our neighbor; several light years away, and I can't even get a reply or a comment? Hello! Is there intelligent life down here? Are you so shocked and flustered that you can't even respond. How can you ever hope to understand an alien religion that spans countless worlds if you can't even respond to another human being with some crazy ideas and a hyper-drive theory? If the Christian God created the universe, and the Infinite Intelligence of our religion also created the universe, do you suppose the Christian Deity and the alien Deity (Infinite Intelligence) could some how possibly be the same? Maybe?By the way, most of our communication is conducted telepathically anyway. If you thought we were hostile with intentions of invading your world, forget it. We have better things to spend money on then sending battle cruisers and alien infantry. If humanity can figure out how they're going to deal with a first contact, maybe we'll visit. Here is a hint. Trying being a little more friendly and neighborly. Practice saying this sentence:Welcome visitors from another world. We of the planet earth greet you with goodwill and friendship. We hope that our two civilizations can share culture, knowledge and eventually trade with each other.If you practice saying that, enough to be convincing, maybe we'll visit you.

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 13:08 GMT



I discuss the issue of warp drives and their improbability in this book as well, but I will not dwell on that subject --- we have been around the block on that :-) . It is likely that contact with ETI will be through electromagnetic means. So if we get hailed by ETI it will not likely be by their landing on the Whitehouse lawn, but because they send radio signals, or use large ring-world like ribbons with spaces or masking that orbit their star. The spaces might then generate a slight dimming of their star in periodic pulses which could be observed over large distances. That is of course highly speculative, but not impossible. If we should detect such a signal, then from there the problem is decoding it. Without going into detail, I think the foundations of quantum gravity involve a quantum error correction coding system, which might serve as some universal encryption/decryption system.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate I wrote the book Can Star Systems be Explored? which addresses some of these issues. My book largely focuses on standard known physics required to get a probe to a star within a 50 light year distance. There have been as well considerable discoveries on extrasolar systems, which point to a wide range of diverse configurations for solar systems. In this book I discuss some estimates, based on chaotic dynamics and some Bayesian analysis, on the distribution of solar systems with a G-class star which can support the orbit of a terrestrial planet such as Earth. If the Jovian planets are too close to the 1AU distance they perturb the orbit too much. I frankly estimate that maybe around 1000 planets similar to Earth might exist in this galaxy. Of course other planets may have life, even Mars may well have life, but conditions I think are fairly special for a planet with the degree of biological complexity seen on Earth. So I think the probability of an ETI within the interstellar neighborhood of Earth is very remote.I discuss the issue of warp drives and their improbability in this book as well, but I will not dwell on that subject --- we have been around the block on that :-) . It is likely that contact with ETI will be through electromagnetic means. So if we get hailed by ETI it will not likely be by their landing on the Whitehouse lawn, but because they send radio signals, or use large ring-world like ribbons with spaces or masking that orbit their star. The spaces might then generate a slight dimming of their star in periodic pulses which could be observed over large distances. That is of course highly speculative, but not impossible. If we should detect such a signal, then from there the problem is decoding it. Without going into detail, I think the foundations of quantum gravity involve a quantum error correction coding system, which might serve as some universal encryption/decryption system.Cheers LC As the only person on this website with a FTL hyperdrive theory, I'd like to take the point of view of the advanced and intelligent aliens. This is what they're probably thinking...Well, the human race upon the planet earth is getting technologically sophisticated, to some degree. Thank God they haven't noticed us. We've had quite a bit of luck communicating with them telepathically; we don't leave evidence that way. If they do discover us, I give them 20 years before they can build a sub-light speed spaceship and show up at our doorstep. Then what? It's not they we're worried they'll attack. It's more likely we'll have to send embassadors to earth. I don't want to be the first to get shot at, shot down and probed by humans. Yes, they are curious about whether we exist or not. Some of them are caring and naive. Then, there are others who are highly intelligent, crafty, and would come up with highly imaginative ruses to get at our technology. If that happens, how long will it be before the galaxy is swarming with crafty little humans looking for wealth?Can humans be neighborly? There is still quite a bit of disease, death and poverty on their planet. I really don't want to be the one that has to tell them, "sorry, we'd like to help you, but we're not allowed to share technology with you." I'm pretty sure they would be nice enough to ask first, then take it by force. I mean, shields and force fields work just fine. But it's hard to be a friendly neighbor from behind the safety of force fields. Yes, they would rob us blind. We would have to walk back to Alpha Centauri.But there are technologies that we can teach them. The problem is, telepathy and all that psychic/psionic stuff, it doesn't lend itself to proof. It also won't make anybody rich. That is stuff we've become very expert at. In fact, some of the same principles by which telepathy works, are similar to how a hyperdrive works. But for now, we'll just work with those whom they call crazy/imaginative/strange/certifiable/crackpot/etc...On the brighter side, there are a few nations that have learned to behave a little better. If we had to crash land somewhere, I think I would pick a European country. I think the governments there would love to flaunt it in America's face that they know how to conduct a first contact, properly. Not like Ronald Reagan with his, "wouldn't it be great if we were in an interstellar war..." speach.All we can say is this: learn everything you can about hyper-drives and how to conduct a proper first contact with your neighbors. Then, we'll see about dropping by for a friendly visit. Good luck earhling neighbors.

Constantin Leshan wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 11:42 GMT





There I’m loking for logical reasoning only without dependence if the reader is atheist or believer. I have the following idea: If the Christian God created the universe then the alien Deity must be Christian God. Otherwise appears a question: Why the Jesus selected our planet only and ignore the rest of the planets with intelligence? Thus, if we do not find the Alien Christianity, it will be the proof that the Jesus is not the creator of the Universe.



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 13:32 GMT



So with the intelligent life forms we have on Earth, we might ponder whether any of them have mental ideas of a God. Clearly a species of octopus with these ideas might have an eight legged God, and a dolphin species might have some idea of a god that swims and sings songs. Yet we have no evidence of any of this sort of thing. A “Jesoid” concept is further remote, for this is a particular theological notion which emerged from a cultural mixing of Hellenic and Judaic ideas in the first century BCE, which was completely foreign to many human cultures, say Chinese, up until recent times. It is unlikely this is some universal idea across the universe to all forms of intelligent life. IN fact to presume so is to project our minds onto other life forms, just as we project ourselves onto “infinity” in this ideation we have of a God.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate We have life forms here on Earth which might be considered intelligent. Cetaceans, whales and dolphins, are clearly one example. The brain of a dolphin is bigger and more complex than the human brain, and behaviors of these animals is very complex and they communicate in complex forms. Another example are cephalopods, octopi and squid, which while they are radically divergent from the mammalian evolutionary clade being invertebrates, they are very complex and communicate through rapidly variable skin tone and color. Some octopi have brains the size of basketballs and define up to a quarter their body mass. They are also very capable of solving problems. Their deficit for being intelligent is they are not social beings and don’t live terribly long. So they can’t accumulate ideas or knowledge.So with the intelligent life forms we have on Earth, we might ponder whether any of them have mental ideas of a God. Clearly a species of octopus with these ideas might have an eight legged God, and a dolphin species might have some idea of a god that swims and sings songs. Yet we have no evidence of any of this sort of thing. A “Jesoid” concept is further remote, for this is a particular theological notion which emerged from a cultural mixing of Hellenic and Judaic ideas in the first century BCE, which was completely foreign to many human cultures, say Chinese, up until recent times. It is unlikely this is some universal idea across the universe to all forms of intelligent life. IN fact to presume so is to project our minds onto other life forms, just as we project ourselves onto “infinity” in this ideation we have of a God.Cheers LC Dear Jason WolfeThere I’m loking for logical reasoning only without dependence if the reader is atheist or believer. I have the following idea: If the Christian God created the universe then the alien Deity must be Christian God. Otherwise appears a question: Why the Jesus selected our planet only and ignore the rest of the planets with intelligence? Thus, if we do not find the Alien Christianity, it will be the proof that the Jesus is not the creator of the Universe.

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT





You said, "Thus, if we do not find the Alien Christianity, it will be the proof that the Jesus is not the creator of the Universe. "



I don't know of anyone who says that Jesus created the universe. Jesus is said to have died for our sins. God created the universe. If God created the universe, then God might have created other inhabited worlds. It would not be too farfetched to think that the intelligent lifeforms of these worlds might have behaved very naughty themselves, or sinfully. As bad is sin is, from an evolutionary point of view, sinfulness and animal behavior is a useful thing (lust, greed, murder, anger, etc...). It is conceivable that the Creator of the universe might have to 'correct' the behavior of his children on some other world.



Dear Lawrence,



Wow, I didn't know that dolphins had larger brains than we do. If they could feel a religious instinct, how would we ever know? They can't exactly erect idols. Do we understand how they communicate? I don't think that monkeys have any religious idols. But if they did, that might support an evolutionary source of a religious instinct. If we can't prove that, then does that mean that the bible is supported by default? That humans have souls and hold dominion over all other life forms?



report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT



My understanding of John 1:1-5 -



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."



is that Jesus is 'The Word' and participated with God in the Creation.



Yes, He also died on the cross for our sins, defeated death, and was resurrected to give us hope.



I know some Christians who believe that Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life. Their justification is that the Bible doesn't explicitly name other planets with life. In my opinion, God is large enough, and the Universe is large enough, that I would be surprised if Earth is the only planet with life in the entire Universe.



Without FTL drive, we may never explore enough of our Universe to know...



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate Dear Jason,My understanding of John 1:1-5 -"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."is that Jesus is 'The Word' and participated with God in the Creation.Yes, He also died on the cross for our sins, defeated death, and was resurrected to give us hope.I know some Christians who believe that Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life. Their justification is that the Bible doesn't explicitly name other planets with life. In my opinion, God is large enough, and the Universe is large enough, that I would be surprised if Earth is the only planet with life in the entire Universe.Without FTL drive, we may never explore enough of our Universe to know...Have Fun!Ray Dear Constantin,You said, "Thus, if we do not find the Alien Christianity, it will be the proof that the Jesus is not the creator of the Universe. "I don't know of anyone who says that Jesus created the universe. Jesus is said to have died for our sins. God created the universe. If God created the universe, then God might have created other inhabited worlds. It would not be too farfetched to think that the intelligent lifeforms of these worlds might have behaved very naughty themselves, or sinfully. As bad is sin is, from an evolutionary point of view, sinfulness and animal behavior is a useful thing (lust, greed, murder, anger, etc...). It is conceivable that the Creator of the universe might have to 'correct' the behavior of his children on some other world.Dear Lawrence,Wow, I didn't know that dolphins had larger brains than we do. If they could feel a religious instinct, how would we ever know? They can't exactly erect idols. Do we understand how they communicate? I don't think that monkeys have any religious idols. But if they did, that might support an evolutionary source of a religious instinct. If we can't prove that, then does that mean that the bible is supported by default? That humans have souls and hold dominion over all other life forms?

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 20:43 GMT





This is just my personal interpretation, but to me, the "Word" is the power to create laws of nature. When I interpret it that way, I also think of the power that the president/congress have to create laws. That gave me the idea that it might be possible to create multiple sets of laws of nature within the 3D space. That is how I came up with the idea to create a set of hyperspaces and an aethereal plane. What say you?



report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT



That verse refers to 'The Word' as 'He' or 'Him', but I prefer not to interpret it so literally.



I plan not to talk so much about my research with Lawrence for a couple of reasons: 1) it is private research and we don't want anyone else taking our ideas, and 2) most of the people on this blog site seem to care less.



What you are suggesting seems compatible with some of my ideas.



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate Dear Jason,That verse refers to 'The Word' as 'He' or 'Him', but I prefer not to interpret it so literally.I plan not to talk so much about my research with Lawrence for a couple of reasons: 1) it is private research and we don't want anyone else taking our ideas, and 2) most of the people on this blog site seem to care less.What you are suggesting seems compatible with some of my ideas.Have Fun!Ray Dear Ray,This is just my personal interpretation, but to me, the "Word" is the power to create laws of nature. When I interpret it that way, I also think of the power that the president/congress have to create laws. That gave me the idea that it might be possible to create multiple sets of laws of nature within the 3D space. That is how I came up with the idea to create a set of hyperspaces and an aethereal plane. What say you?

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 22:18 GMT





I understand both your reasons. I feel like I may have to find a more appropriate venue for my ideas as well. I have very limited time; I have had to make choices about how to spend that time. I wish I had the time to understand the deeper level mathematics. In truth, I have found that higher level mathematics might not be necessary (for me) to discover deeper secrets about the universe. It's important to be able to create symbols or a set of symbols which definitions. It gives laypersons something to talk about. Symbols allow the pieces of the puzzle to be manipulated relatively easily. Deeper level mathematics are extremely precise and difficult to manipulate. I can scout out ideas and possibilities using these symbols. Than, later, deeper level mathematics can be applied if desired. That is my approach.



How I wish an FTL propulsion device could be dropped in our laps. I have had this discussion with God. If God were to pull some alien spaceship out of the sky to crash land on the earth, who would take the responsibility if it hit a city and exploded, killing thousands? I would be willing to be killed by an alien spaceship that crash landed on me in my pickup truck; but I can only speak for me. The comments that Lawrence makes about the lack of richly diverse biospheres being separated by millions of light years PLUS his comments about a lack of an afterlife, God or soul suggest one course of action: that we just tinker around until our species becomes extinct. In contrast, if we (1) embrace our spiritual identity and (2) anticipate the existence of ETI (intelligent extraterrestrials) we enjoy several benefits: (a) we search, (b) we embrace others who are different from us, (c) we enjoy the pleasure and experience of hoping, (d) if they do exist, then we are making progress by being assertive, taking the initiative. I have already demonstrated that a belief in these strange ideas, when balanced with reason, can produce results. I had hoped to be able to describe what the tell tale signs of a hyper-drive would look like, but I don't think anyone here is interested. I am trying very hard to get my hyper-drive website set up. After that, I'll probably go to Twitter and talk about it.



I honestly believe that these conversations are helpful, even if their helpfulness is not immediately obvious. Please keep in touch. I'm sure I'll be out there, somewhere in cyberspace, or at wulphstein@gmail.com.



report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 23:01 GMT



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate Jonathan Dickau says that we learn from playing. This forum has been our opportunity to 'play' with ideas. In my geometrical ideas, I have used Petrie polygons to represent something much more complex (dimensionally and mathematically) than it appears. Too many people act like the Standard Model is set in cement. I think its time for a jackhammer. The only way that Lawrence and I can be taken seriously is if the LHC discovers particles whose existence and properties have been previously calculated by us.Have Fun!Ray Dear Ray,I understand both your reasons. I feel like I may have to find a more appropriate venue for my ideas as well. I have very limited time; I have had to make choices about how to spend that time. I wish I had the time to understand the deeper level mathematics. In truth, I have found that higher level mathematics might not be necessary (for me) to discover deeper secrets about the universe. It's important to be able to create symbols or a set of symbols which definitions. It gives laypersons something to talk about. Symbols allow the pieces of the puzzle to be manipulated relatively easily. Deeper level mathematics are extremely precise and difficult to manipulate. I can scout out ideas and possibilities using these symbols. Than, later, deeper level mathematics can be applied if desired. That is my approach.How I wish an FTL propulsion device could be dropped in our laps. I have had this discussion with God. If God were to pull some alien spaceship out of the sky to crash land on the earth, who would take the responsibility if it hit a city and exploded, killing thousands? I would be willing to be killed by an alien spaceship that crash landed on me in my pickup truck; but I can only speak for me. The comments that Lawrence makes about the lack of richly diverse biospheres being separated by millions of light years PLUS his comments about a lack of an afterlife, God or soul suggest one course of action: that we just tinker around until our species becomes extinct. In contrast, if we (1) embrace our spiritual identity and (2) anticipate the existence of ETI (intelligent extraterrestrials) we enjoy several benefits: (a) we search, (b) we embrace others who are different from us, (c) we enjoy the pleasure and experience of hoping, (d) if they do exist, then we are making progress by being assertive, taking the initiative. I have already demonstrated that a belief in these strange ideas, when balanced with reason, can produce results. I had hoped to be able to describe what the tell tale signs of a hyper-drive would look like, but I don't think anyone here is interested. I am trying very hard to get my hyper-drive website set up. After that, I'll probably go to Twitter and talk about it.I honestly believe that these conversations are helpful, even if their helpfulness is not immediately obvious. Please keep in touch. I'm sure I'll be out there, somewhere in cyberspace, or at wulphstein@gmail.com.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 01:03 GMT





Of course all the writers of the Bible, say books with their name in the Ketuvim or Prophets, as well as the books of the Hellenized “Christos books,” which form the New Testament, are really code names. These books were written by a school of men who followed the teachings of some sage who might have had that name. The only person who might have actually written the bulk under his name was Paul, or Saul of Tarsus. There are some reasons to think the guy actually existed more or less as portrayed. It is pretty evident he did not write Hebrews.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 01:47 GMT



"...The opening of John is a statement of Platonism. ..."



Which came first Platonism or the book of Genesis?



"...Curiously quantum mechanics has a feature similar to this, where entanglement and nonlocality are the "pure forms," the atoms or particles the physical "stuff," and quantum information as the "word." ..."



So, as when the 'Word became flesh', quantum information will become flesh?



"...These books were written by a school of men who followed the teachings of some sage who might have had that name. ..."



Who were these men?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,"...The opening of John is a statement of Platonism. ..."Which came first Platonism or the book of Genesis?"...Curiously quantum mechanics has a feature similar to this, where entanglement and nonlocality are the "pure forms," the atoms or particles the physical "stuff," and quantum information as the "word." ..."So, as when the 'Word became flesh', quantum information will become flesh?"...These books were written by a school of men who followed the teachings of some sage who might have had that name. ..."Who were these men?James

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 02:13 GMT



I am aware that it is common among Christians to think that Jews of the 4th to the 1st century BCE were waiting for Jesus, and read Isaiah as a prophesy of God coming to the world. To be honest this is sadly mistaken. The one who “bore our stripes, “ or was “rejected” is not a single man, whether a next prophet or a God-made-man. It refers to the people of Israel, and the messiah is not really a person so much as it is Israel which will bring light to the world. In more recent times we have an individualistic sense of things, whereas in the Hebrew writings this is not the case, but where the “group,” here Israel, is represented allegorically as a person. In fact this sort of allegorical projection is common in the Tanach in general.



This carries over to those who wrote the books of the Bible. Writing then was not like today, where getting published and one’s name advanced is paramount. Back then it was the group which counted. Individualism is a rather modern concept. So the writers were followers of a certain mystical and ritual pedagogical form laid down by a founding sage, and they contributed their writings in these books ---- and did so under a single pen name and namelessly as individuals. It was a different time.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate Genesis as we know it probably came about around 600BCE, as did the rest of the Torah and some other books such as Job. Before that some ancient Hebrew fragments that have been found which suggest a sort of "pre-Bible." The Ketuvim or Prophets, Jeremiah and Isaiah in particular, were probably written a form we recognize around the 5th-4th century BCE, proceeding from a literary tradition set by the writings attributed to Ezra. Further, Judaic and Hellenic concepts are in many ways very different. Christianity is really a Hellenic overlay onto Judaism, where around that time the notion of a god becoming human was popular throughout the Hellenized ancient world and existed within other religious forms.I am aware that it is common among Christians to think that Jews of the 4th to the 1st century BCE were waiting for Jesus, and read Isaiah as a prophesy of God coming to the world. To be honest this is sadly mistaken. The one who “bore our stripes, “ or was “rejected” is not a single man, whether a next prophet or a God-made-man. It refers to the people of Israel, and the messiah is not really a person so much as it is Israel which will bring light to the world. In more recent times we have an individualistic sense of things, whereas in the Hebrew writings this is not the case, but where the “group,” here Israel, is represented allegorically as a person. In fact this sort of allegorical projection is common in the Tanach in general.This carries over to those who wrote the books of the Bible. Writing then was not like today, where getting published and one’s name advanced is paramount. Back then it was the group which counted. Individualism is a rather modern concept. So the writers were followers of a certain mystical and ritual pedagogical form laid down by a founding sage, and they contributed their writings in these books ---- and did so under a single pen name and namelessly as individuals. It was a different time.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 02:45 GMT



"...Genesis as we know it probably came about around 600BCE. ..."



Which came first?



"...It refers to the people of Israel, and the messiah is not really a person so much as it is Israel which will bring light to the world. ..."



So, Paul cannot honestly testify that Jesus was the messiah?



"...namelessly as individuals. .."



What was their name as a group?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,"...Genesis as we know it probably came about around 600BCE. ..."Which came first?"...It refers to the people of Israel, and the messiah is not really a person so much as it is Israel which will bring light to the world. ..."So, Paul cannot honestly testify that Jesus was the messiah?"...namelessly as individuals. .."What was their name as a group?James

show all replies (3 not shown)

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 03:38 GMT



As for Paul, who knows, he may have believed what he believed, or he could have been one hell of an operator. The idea of God becoming a man and existing in a physical form as attributed to Jesus is anathema to Judaism. No Jew thought that God would manifest Himself as a man. The Gospel of John does bring Jesus in as God, not just Son of Man, when Jesus tells the templer priests "I am," which is what God said to Moses. The reaction of the Sadduccee priests was not unexpected, for it is a complete blasphemy in Judaism for someone to say they are God. So Paul, who was a Jew, certainly knew this was not going to be acceptable to Jews, but either he came to this passionate belief or saw the chance to become one of the most important people in history.



It is interesting to read the epistles of Paul and Orwell's "1984" back to back. Paul devised a serious mind control system, complete with crime thought (hell-fire), double thought (ignorance is freedom = Jesus makes the wise simple and simple wise) and so forth. Paul got Orwell beaten by 19 centuries.



The groups identified themselves by names like Isaiah, Daniel, Luke, John and so forth.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate Genesis and Platonism are independent in their origin. Genesis as we know it came about in the 6th century BCE and Plato is 428 – 348BCE. Genesis is based on the Epic of Gilgemesh, a Sumerian text dating back a thousand years earlier.As for Paul, who knows, he may have believed what he believed, or he could have been one hell of an operator. The idea of God becoming a man and existing in a physical form as attributed to Jesus is anathema to Judaism. No Jew thought that God would manifest Himself as a man. The Gospel of John does bring Jesus in as God, not just Son of Man, when Jesus tells the templer priests "I am," which is what God said to Moses. The reaction of the Sadduccee priests was not unexpected, for it is a complete blasphemy in Judaism for someone to say they are God. So Paul, who was a Jew, certainly knew this was not going to be acceptable to Jews, but either he came to this passionate belief or saw the chance to become one of the most important people in history.It is interesting to read the epistles of Paul and Orwell's "1984" back to back. Paul devised a serious mind control system, complete with crime thought (hell-fire), double thought (ignorance is freedom = Jesus makes the wise simple and simple wise) and so forth. Paul got Orwell beaten by 19 centuries.The groups identified themselves by names like Isaiah, Daniel, Luke, John and so forth.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 03:58 GMT



Dr. Crowell,



"...As for Paul, who knows, he may have believed what he believed, or he could have been one hell of an operator. ..."



"...it is a complete blasphemy in Judaism for someone to say they are God. So Paul, who was a Jew, certainly knew this was not going to be acceptable to Jews, but either he came to this passionate belief or saw the chance to become one of the most important people in history. ..."



So Paul suffered tortuous persecution so that he may become one of the most important people in history? Your point is what: That he forsaw that Christianity would become a major religion of the world and last for thousands of years, even though he may have personally knew it to be phony and anathema to his beloved Jewish people?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,Dr. Crowell,"...As for Paul, who knows, he may have believed what he believed, or he could have been one hell of an operator. ...""...it is a complete blasphemy in Judaism for someone to say they are God. So Paul, who was a Jew, certainly knew this was not going to be acceptable to Jews, but either he came to this passionate belief or saw the chance to become one of the most important people in history. ..."So Paul suffered tortuous persecution so that he may become one of the most important people in history? Your point is what: That he forsaw that Christianity would become a major religion of the world and last for thousands of years, even though he may have personally knew it to be phony and anathema to his beloved Jewish people?James

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 13:41 GMT



Paul is probably the one character in the Bible we can say is maybe the most historical, or at least not a purely mythic character. The subsequent apostolic writings leading to Tertullian and Origen and the development of the post-Pauline period are fairly clear and this gives some weight to Paul existing as a real person. There was probably a pedagogical school which followed Paul, most theologians think Hebrews was not written by Paul, and those who penned the other books of the New Testament did so under various penned names. The most wildly mystical trend was the followers of John, leading to the great flight of fancy seen in Revelations, while Paul was primarily devoted to codifying the “Christos scheme” into a legal and social format, with a degree of what might be called psychological conditioning required for believers.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate It is hard to know what went on the mind of someone who lived nearly 2000 years ago. I don't want to go in the question of whether Jesus actually existed, but around the year 50 where was clearly a range of Jewish midrash coupled with what at the time would have been neo-Hellenic mythology about this character "Jesus." Around that time the writers of Gospels who penned themselves according to the name of the disciples began to write their accounts based on these stories, and there are "lost Gospels," attributed to Thomas, Phillip etc, and recently found are those attributed to Judas! Now it is nearly impossible to know for certain what went on.Paul is probably the one character in the Bible we can say is maybe the most historical, or at least not a purely mythic character. The subsequent apostolic writings leading to Tertullian and Origen and the development of the post-Pauline period are fairly clear and this gives some weight to Paul existing as a real person. There was probably a pedagogical school which followed Paul, most theologians think Hebrews was not written by Paul, and those who penned the other books of the New Testament did so under various penned names. The most wildly mystical trend was the followers of John, leading to the great flight of fancy seen in Revelations, while Paul was primarily devoted to codifying the “Christos scheme” into a legal and social format, with a degree of what might be called psychological conditioning required for believers.Cheers LC



hide replies The opening of John is a statement of Platonism. Plato said that the world existed in two categories, pure forms which are mathematical and physical objects. What gives physical reality a form which is mathematical is the logos, or word, which in Platonism is the unseen form behind the shadows we observe in his metaphor of being in the cave. Curiously quantum mechanics has a feature similar to this, where entanglement and nonlocality are the "pure forms," the atoms or particles the physical "stuff," and quantum information as the "word." Some of the writers of the Hellenic text titled "John" on the life and theology of Jesus clearly understood Plato's metaphysics. The system was used as the allegory to frame the theology of Jesus Christ. Here the pure forms we the Judaic God, the physical form is the world "God so loved the world ..." as John later says, and Jesus is the Logos.Of course all the writers of the Bible, say books with their name in the Ketuvim or Prophets, as well as the books of the Hellenized “Christos books,” which form the New Testament, are really code names. These books were written by a school of men who followed the teachings of some sage who might have had that name. The only person who might have actually written the bulk under his name was Paul, or Saul of Tarsus. There are some reasons to think the guy actually existed more or less as portrayed. It is pretty evident he did not write Hebrews.Cheers LC

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 01:31 GMT





Come to think of it, since our left brain makes distinctions, while our right brain makes connections, we wouldn't need aliens to show us. Then again, we would be connected to them on some level as well.



report post as inappropriate What if they showed us reality isn't fundamentally digital, but unitary? Not only would it disprove a distinction between creation and creator, but show particle physics isn't fundamental either.Come to think of it, since our left brain makes distinctions, while our right brain makes connections, we wouldn't need aliens to show us. Then again, we would be connected to them on some level as well.

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 04:16 GMT





The main thing will be who is more technological advanced? If they are, new cults will spread on Earth like wildfire and the new religions will overwhelm the established ones. If we are, we will try to assimilate them. This is no different from the case where Japan was forced to modernize after contact with the west in the middle of 19th century.



Another major factor will be the separation distance and the time it takes to have a message exchange. If the distance is too big for practical communication, then nobody assimilates anybody and there will be a lot of apocalyptic scenarios perpetuated by madman thirsty for power. Now this is a very dangerous scenario in the age of nuclear weapons.



report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 04:26 GMT



"...It's easy to see what will happen if aliens are discovered (from the religious point of view). We only need to look back into history. Some new cults will be formed which will hope and pray to be rescued by the aliens, and Catholics and protestants will send in their astronaut missionaries to bring salvation to them. ..."



I notice that you did not mention Judaism or Islam. Why was that?



James



report post as inappropriate DR. Moldoveanu,"...It's easy to see what will happen if aliens are discovered (from the religious point of view). We only need to look back into history. Some new cults will be formed which will hope and pray to be rescued by the aliens, and Catholics and protestants will send in their astronaut missionaries to bring salvation to them. ..."I notice that you did not mention Judaism or Islam. Why was that?James

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 04:36 GMT



report post as inappropriate I am simply not familiar with them, but I know very well the history of Christianity.

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 05:10 GMT



The eastern Orthodox churches are not united, and they are very silimar with the church around 300-400 AD. There are no big cathedrals in (orthodox) Eastern Europe, and the church is concerned mostly with nationalistic interests, as the church embodies the idea of the tradition and nation. Orthodox churches are disconnected from modern theological debates and their current skeleton in the closet is their collaborationism with the oppressive communist states.



Catholicism is very much entangled with the political struggle across medieval Western Europe. Over time, the Catholic Church lost the battle with the states for political supremacy and with a rich history they have nothing to prove by getting into contemporary debates. Their skeleton in the closet is celibacy and widespread sexual abuse as a result of this.



Protestantism in Europe is mostly a nationalistic stance, but in US they represent the modern vibrant church connected to all relevant topics of the day. Their big fight is with Darwin and science in general. To a European, the argument against evolution in US looks bizarre (a topic closed more than 100 years ago).



There is a big difference in the level of secularism between Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and US. In Eastern Europe, 90% of the population declares themselves christian, but churches are filled only by old people, and practical secularism is very high, about 90-95%. In Western Europe, the active believers are around 20% and dropping, while in US the rate is steady around 60%. In US this is the Quaker’s legacy combined with active competition between so many denominations it is hard to keep track of.



Rooted in nationalism, to an eastern orthodox church, proselytism is a sin and the church does not have any missionaries. Catholic and Protestant churches have a lot of missionaries, but they have a different focus. For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain’s legacy), focusing on church growth and helping the poor, while Protestant missionaries go all over the globe like China, and eastern Europe, and even North Korea focusing on spreading salvation and drawing strength from early church martyrdom.



report post as inappropriate Christianity has basically 3 main branches: Christian orthodox in Eastern Europe, Catholicism in Western Europe, and (the many forms of) Protestantism in Western Europe and North America. Interestingly, the 3 main forms correspond to different time sections of Christianity across two millennia according to historical circumstances.The eastern Orthodox churches are not united, and they are very silimar with the church around 300-400 AD. There are no big cathedrals in (orthodox) Eastern Europe, and the church is concerned mostly with nationalistic interests, as the church embodies the idea of the tradition and nation. Orthodox churches are disconnected from modern theological debates and their current skeleton in the closet is their collaborationism with the oppressive communist states.Catholicism is very much entangled with the political struggle across medieval Western Europe. Over time, the Catholic Church lost the battle with the states for political supremacy and with a rich history they have nothing to prove by getting into contemporary debates. Their skeleton in the closet is celibacy and widespread sexual abuse as a result of this.Protestantism in Europe is mostly a nationalistic stance, but in US they represent the modern vibrant church connected to all relevant topics of the day. Their big fight is with Darwin and science in general. To a European, the argument against evolution in US looks bizarre (a topic closed more than 100 years ago).There is a big difference in the level of secularism between Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and US. In Eastern Europe, 90% of the population declares themselves christian, but churches are filled only by old people, and practical secularism is very high, about 90-95%. In Western Europe, the active believers are around 20% and dropping, while in US the rate is steady around 60%. In US this is the Quaker’s legacy combined with active competition between so many denominations it is hard to keep track of.Rooted in nationalism, to an eastern orthodox church, proselytism is a sin and the church does not have any missionaries. Catholic and Protestant churches have a lot of missionaries, but they have a different focus. For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain’s legacy), focusing on church growth and helping the poor, while Protestant missionaries go all over the globe like China, and eastern Europe, and even North Korea focusing on spreading salvation and drawing strength from early church martyrdom.

show all replies (2 not shown)

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 23:55 GMT



"...For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain's legacy), focusing on church growth and "helping the poor" (my parentheses), ..."



It took reading all the way to the end to find something positive. Is there anything more to say about the Christian religion that furthered intelligent thought and scientific thought? Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Moldoveanu,"...For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain's legacy), focusing on church growth and "helping the poor" (my parentheses), ..."It took reading all the way to the end to find something positive. Is there anything more to say about the Christian religion that furthered intelligent thought and scientific thought? Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing?James

James Putnam replied on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 00:46 GMT



I see that you have an interesting theoretical physics discussion ongoing with Dr. Ray. However, when you have some extra-time available, I would like to hear from you:



I presume that you understand that I do not have a religion. What I do have is an appetite for uncovering; unanswered question, misleadingly answered questions, and, incompletely answered questions. Your message "Christianity has basically 3 main branches..." left out a great deal of the history of Christian religion.



I replied:



Quoting you: "...For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain's legacy), focusing on church growth and 'helping the poor' (my parentheses), ..."



Quoting me: It took reading all the way to the end to find something positive. Is there anything more to say about the Christian religion that furthered intelligent thought and scientific thought? Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing? What I am most interested in is: Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing? I think much is missing. So, I am left wondering: Why is it left missing?



You enterred this jousting contest. Do you have anything more to say or have you left the discussion?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Moldoveanu,I see that you have an interesting theoretical physics discussion ongoing with Dr. Ray. However, when you have some extra-time available, I would like to hear from you:I presume that you understand that I do not have a religion. What I do have is an appetite for uncovering; unanswered question, misleadingly answered questions, and, incompletely answered questions. Your message "Christianity has basically 3 main branches..." left out a great deal of the history of Christian religion.I replied:Quoting you: "...For Catholics, missionaries go mostly in Africa and Latin America (Spain's legacy), focusing on church growth and 'helping the poor' (my parentheses), ..."Quoting me: It took reading all the way to the end to find something positive. Is there anything more to say about the Christian religion that furthered intelligent thought and scientific thought? Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing? What I am most interested in is: Do you know of anything missing here, and, if so, why is it missing? I think much is missing. So, I am left wondering: Why is it left missing?You enterred this jousting contest. Do you have anything more to say or have you left the discussion?James



hide replies It’s easy to see what will happen if aliens are discovered (from the religious point of view). We only need to look back into history. Some new cults will be formed which will hope and pray to be rescued by the aliens, and Catholics and protestants will send in their astronaut missionaries to bring salvation to them.The main thing will be who is more technological advanced? If they are, new cults will spread on Earth like wildfire and the new religions will overwhelm the established ones. If we are, we will try to assimilate them. This is no different from the case where Japan was forced to modernize after contact with the west in the middle of 19th century.Another major factor will be the separation distance and the time it takes to have a message exchange. If the distance is too big for practical communication, then nobody assimilates anybody and there will be a lot of apocalyptic scenarios perpetuated by madman thirsty for power. Now this is a very dangerous scenario in the age of nuclear weapons.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 13:56 GMT





I seriously doubt we will ever come to very close proximity to any ETI. At best we will probably receive their EM or photon signals and they might receive ours. To be honest the mixing of completely different planetary biologies could be a bad idea, and interstellar distances probably make good wall which as it goes "makes for good neighbors" --- assuming we ever make such contact.



LC



report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT



"how long until we die out?",



"How long until the universe dies from heat death?",



"How long until we go extinct?",



"How long until the entropy of the universe turns the whole universe into a great big ball of garbage?"



"How long until this godless miserable universe puts us out of our misery?"



report post as inappropriate I disagree; the real question is: what does it take for a civilization to survive long enough to become advanced technologically (advanced compared to us)? Our greatest mathematical minds do not have what it takes to help our species survive for tens of thousands of years. In fact, the physics community judges everything by how long it will last before it dies (heat death, extinction, average life-time,...). Physicists are far removed from the real tools of long term survival,...passion. If we ever did meet an advanced civilization or an ETI, I'll bet that they figured out how to perfect their religion (relationship with a universal Creator). That gives them the drive and the passion to continue to address real world problems with a love and zeal for life. I expect that they will have created a quality of life that is better than ours. They will ask questions that are better than ours. They will ask, "how can we use our technology to make our civilization even better." Not like our physicists who ask,"how long until we die out?","How long until the universe dies from heat death?","How long until we go extinct?","How long until the entropy of the universe turns the whole universe into a great big ball of garbage?""How long until this godless miserable universe puts us out of our misery?" Sending missionaries out to convert ETI somewhere in the near-local universe might be a bit like trying to convert dolphins or brainier species of octopi or cephalopods to some religious belief. Even if this intelligent life form is capable of producing mathematical structures we can decipher from their signals, they might regard what we call religion as something unfathomable. We might imagine from our perspective if they have some state of consciousness we can't neurologically experience, that they encode into what might be comparable to our sense of what gives being or meaning. Even if we communicate with such beings it is likely that such communications will go little beyond what each side could decipher as mathematics and maybe physics.I seriously doubt we will ever come to very close proximity to any ETI. At best we will probably receive their EM or photon signals and they might receive ours. To be honest the mixing of completely different planetary biologies could be a bad idea, and interstellar distances probably make good wall which as it goes "makes for good neighbors" --- assuming we ever make such contact.LC

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 20:43 GMT





Here is a general physics-metaphysics or philosophy of things. The foundations of the universe involve enormous symmetry systems, and I think underlying what we think lies the Fischer-Griess group, or the monster. Yet as one goes to such depths you also have less and less --- indeed a vacuum. Symmetry in its most basic form establishes how the vacuum remains a “void.” But this symmetry is broken on certain scales, and as we get to these larger length scales there is the appearance of mass and classical information. So as symmetry is reduced on these larger scales there is the occurrence of more complexity. In an infinite spatial universe the range of diversity for complex systems is enormous --- maybe infinite.



Life is probably a fairly common thing in the universe, and on a few planets (few 1000 per galaxy for instance) life evolves into the exuberant level of complexity and diversity we have on Earth. Yet on these other planets where this happens life is likely to be radically different from here, and this probably extends down to the molecular machinery. So there might be an even lower density of intelligent life scattered about here and there, but they may have completely different ways they experience things. An Earthly example might be seen with cats, which have no taste receptors for sugars. The most expensive confectionary is to a cat a tasteless blob of goo. They perceive things differently, and when it comes to intelligent life in the universe I suspect this analogously extends to how different mind-types which can possibly exist perceive the world and have a sense of “self.”



To presume that our religions extend to other intelligent life forms is a matter of extending our parochial experience of things into some universal principle. I think this is not at all likely the case.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 22:50 GMT



"...Here is a general physics-metaphysics or philosophy of things. The foundations of the universe involve enormous symmetry systems, and I think underlying what we think lies the Fischer-Griess group, or the monster. Yet as one goes to such depths you also have less and less --- indeed a vacuum. Symmetry in its most basic form establishes how the vacuum remains a "void." But...



view entire post Dr. Crowell,"...Here is a general physics-metaphysics or philosophy of things. The foundations of the universe involve enormous symmetry systems, and I think underlying what we think lies the Fischer-Griess group, or the monster. Yet as one goes to such depths you also have less and less --- indeed a vacuum. Symmetry in its most basic form establishes how the vacuum remains a "void." But...



"...Here is a general physics-metaphysics or philosophy of things. The foundations of the universe involve enormous symmetry systems, and I think underlying what we think lies the Fischer-Griess group, or the monster. Yet as one goes to such depths you also have less and less --- indeed a vacuum. Symmetry in its most basic form establishes how the vacuum remains a "void." But this symmetry is broken on certain scales, and as we get to these larger length scales there is the appearance of mass and classical information. So as symmetry is reduced on these larger scales there is the occurrence of more complexity. In an infinite spatial universe the range of diversity for complex systems is enormous --- maybe infinite. ..."



This may be 'a general physics... or philosophy of things, but, I see no metaphysics here. Metaphysics is the study of fundamental truths. Theoretical physics is the study of the invention of imaginary mechanical causes for motion. Philosophy of things is personal. Science began to lossen its grip on reality when it began to move away from metaphysics. Now we no longer strive to uncover fundamental truths. If we can solve mechanical type problems with mathematics and our imaginations, then some feel scientifically fulfilled. I do not. The origin of intelligence remains unexplained.



"...Yet on these other planets where this happens life is likely to be radically different from here, and this probably extends down to the molecular machinery. ..."



Possible maybe, but, how do you define 'likely'? I assume it means something akin to "probably"? Is there work to support this conclusion?



"...To presume that our religions extend to other intelligent life forms is a matter of extending our parochial experience of things into some universal principle. I think this is not at all likely the case. ..."



I agree that this can be expected to be the case. There is, of course, the possibility that there is a true religion already known here on Earth. I think that physics has nothing to say about this possibility one way or the other. It cannot be used to disprove religion; because, it is limited to matters of non-intelligence. It doesn't explain. It mimmicks the patterns of changes of velocities of matter. It imagines what might be responsible for those patterns, so long as that which it imagines is not in anyway intelligent.



Finally, symmetry is something to be observed after the physicist has defined and used their original ideas in mathematical equations. Those symmetries are the result of the initial assumptions that went into forming the original equations to describe effects. Whatever occurs afterwards is defined by the initial assumptions. So, if symmetries are found necessary, then something very important and fundamental is missing in those original equations.



Either theoretical physics can establish a step by step development, without artificial means such as transform equations, up from the fundamentals or it is forced to invent new ideas along the way. Those fundamentals must depend fully upon empirical evidence. That evidence always consists solely of measurements of changes of distance with respect to time. Everything, mechanical, invented beyond distance and time are inventions of the mind. It is true that at least one cause is necessary for effects; however, we do not know what cause is.



James



view post as summary Dr. Crowell,"...Here is a general physics-metaphysics or philosophy of things. The foundations of the universe involve enormous symmetry systems, and I think underlying what we think lies the Fischer-Griess group, or the monster. Yet as one goes to such depths you also have less and less --- indeed a vacuum. Symmetry in its most basic form establishes how the vacuum remains a "void." But this symmetry is broken on certain scales, and as we get to these larger length scales there is the appearance of mass and classical information. So as symmetry is reduced on these larger scales there is the occurrence of more complexity. In an infinite spatial universe the range of diversity for complex systems is enormous --- maybe infinite. ..."This may be 'a general physics... or philosophy of things, but, I see no metaphysics here. Metaphysics is the study of fundamental truths. Theoretical physics is the study of the invention of imaginary mechanical causes for motion. Philosophy of things is personal. Science began to lossen its grip on reality when it began to move away from metaphysics. Now we no longer strive to uncover fundamental truths. If we can solve mechanical type problems with mathematics and our imaginations, then some feel scientifically fulfilled. I do not. The origin of intelligence remains unexplained."...Yet on these other planets where this happens life is likely to be radically different from here, and this probably extends down to the molecular machinery. ..."Possible maybe, but, how do you define 'likely'? I assume it means something akin to "probably"? Is there work to support this conclusion?"...To presume that our religions extend to other intelligent life forms is a matter of extending our parochial experience of things into some universal principle. I think this is not at all likely the case. ..."I agree that this can be expected to be the case. There is, of course, the possibility that there is a true religion already known here on Earth. I think that physics has nothing to say about this possibility one way or the other. It cannot be used to disprove religion; because, it is limited to matters of non-intelligence. It doesn't explain. It mimmicks the patterns of changes of velocities of matter. It imagines what might be responsible for those patterns, so long as that which it imagines is not in anyway intelligent.Finally, symmetry is something to be observed after the physicist has defined and used their original ideas in mathematical equations. Those symmetries are the result of the initial assumptions that went into forming the original equations to describe effects. Whatever occurs afterwards is defined by the initial assumptions. So, if symmetries are found necessary, then something very important and fundamental is missing in those original equations.Either theoretical physics can establish a step by step development, without artificial means such as transform equations, up from the fundamentals or it is forced to invent new ideas along the way. Those fundamentals must depend fully upon empirical evidence. That evidence always consists solely of measurements of changes of distance with respect to time. Everything, mechanical, invented beyond distance and time are inventions of the mind. It is true that at least one cause is necessary for effects; however, we do not know what cause is.James



report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 23:30 GMT



You said, "Those fundamentals must depend fully upon empirical evidence. That evidence always consists solely of measurements of changes of distance with respect to time. Everything, mechanical, invented beyond distance and time are inventions of the mind." At first, I thought you were trying to demarcate a line, within which is physics, beyond which is 'other stuff'. Certainly, there are peculiar organizing qualities within biology that continue to stump to science community; thus, the process of organization will fall outside of the line. But you have revealed an important distinction. There are real sciences with something tangible to study (mechanical systems, chemistry, biology, etc...) and there are also theoretical sciences (string theory, FTL propulsion, ...) and their speculative satellites (paranormal, etc...). I would argue that creations of the mind, the imagination, and extrapolations of established sciences (hard sciences) are valid and useful endeavors. More specifically, such endeavors should be given an appropriate name. Speculative sciences? Theoretical sciences? I believe there is benefit to creating a category of such theoretical sciences as both a learning tool and a theoretical playground. There are benefits to this.



First, those who fall below the threshold of scientific methodology will have some framework within which to speculate. Anybody with a crazy idea will be expected to explain how it fits with established physics.



Second, those with ideas that are somehow related to established sciences (FTL propulsion, etc...) know that they need something to observe.



Third, it provides a playground for creativity that is no longer reformed to scornfully as: those crazies with their weird ideas. At least those who do have weird ideas are encouraged to clean them up and make them more presentable.



Forth, a casual perusal by theoretical physicists (scientists) might prove to be a rich source of ideas or new approaches.



Fifth, professors can now tell the more creative students that they should speak with professor X down the hall who deals with the speculative sciences.



report post as inappropriate James,You said, "Those fundamentals must depend fully upon empirical evidence. That evidence always consists solely of measurements of changes of distance with respect to time. Everything, mechanical, invented beyond distance and time are inventions of the mind." At first, I thought you were trying to demarcate a line, within which is physics, beyond which is 'other stuff'. Certainly, there are peculiar organizing qualities within biology that continue to stump to science community; thus, the process of organization will fall outside of the line. But you have revealed an important distinction. There are real sciences with something tangible to study (mechanical systems, chemistry, biology, etc...) and there are also theoretical sciences (string theory, FTL propulsion, ...) and their speculative satellites (paranormal, etc...). I would argue that creations of the mind, the imagination, and extrapolations of established sciences (hard sciences) are valid and useful endeavors. More specifically, such endeavors should be given an appropriate name. Speculative sciences? Theoretical sciences? I believe there is benefit to creating a category of such theoretical sciences as both a learning tool and a theoretical playground. There are benefits to this.First, those who fall below the threshold of scientific methodology will have some framework within which to speculate. Anybody with a crazy idea will be expected to explain how it fits with established physics.Second, those with ideas that are somehow related to established sciences (FTL propulsion, etc...) know that they need something to observe.Third, it provides a playground for creativity that is no longer reformed to scornfully as: those crazies with their weird ideas. At least those who do have weird ideas are encouraged to clean them up and make them more presentable.Forth, a casual perusal by theoretical physicists (scientists) might prove to be a rich source of ideas or new approaches.Fifth, professors can now tell the more creative students that they should speak with professor X down the hall who deals with the speculative sciences.

James Putnam replied on Jan. 30, 2010 @ 00:03 GMT



"...I would argue that creations of the mind, the imagination, and extrapolations of established sciences (hard sciences) are valid and useful endeavors. More specifically, such endeavors should be given an appropriate name. Speculative sciences? Theoretical sciences? I believe there is benefit to creating a category of such theoretical sciences as both a learning tool and a theoretical playground. There are benefits to this. ..."



I would agree. The benefit, I see, is that we can proceed toward achieving useful results without knowing the reason why. We can predict the outcomes of mechanical type activities without knowing why. We simply substitute ideas for the unknown causes.



The difficulty, as I see it, is that the artificial 'whys' are insisted upon as being real. This act interjects artificiality into scientific learning. I think scientific learning requires that we understand both that which we know and that which we do not know.



James



report post as inappropriate Dear Jason,"...I would argue that creations of the mind, the imagination, and extrapolations of established sciences (hard sciences) are valid and useful endeavors. More specifically, s