Desperately Seeking ET. Yes, But Why so Desperate?

_{Barry Arrington

January 7, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For years we have been deluged with science news stories about how this or that datum might finally be the breakthrough demonstrating that earth is not unique in the universe for harboring life. Why are some scientists so obsessed with ET? I was thinking about this the other day and it occurred to me that this phenomenon is essentially religious in nature.

Suppose you are a scientist with a strong faith commitment in atheistic materialism. Maintaining any faith commitment can sometimes be hard even for true believers. This is especially the case for materialists, who must grit their teeth and hang on to their faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that materialism is false. Consider their origin of life conundrum. No one has the faintest notion how inorganic matter could possibly have spontaneously organized itself into the technologically marvelous nanomachinery and hyper-sophisticated information processing technology that characterizes even the simplest life. Maintaining one’s faith in materialism is really tough in the face of such daunting obstacles. That creates psychological dissonance, which can be very uncomfortable.

But suppose we found organic matter somewhere else in the universe.* That would allow materialists to argue that the spontaneous emergence problem is not as tough as we think it is. If it happened at least twice, there is no reason to believe that life is not common in the universe. That relieves the uncomfortable pressure on the materialist’s faith commitment, which accounts for the frenetic search for organic matter and the endless evidence-free wild speculations we have seen over the years. It is all about keeping the faith.

____________________

Note that the reverse is not true for theists. I know of no doctrine of any religion that denies that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Comments

tjguy, "It is not what the Bible teaches." And why should the effects of the rebellion against God, Who is timeless, Who indeed created time, space, and everything else, be thought to be constrained to only one direction in time? I hold that only a essentially materialistic philosophy would expect such a one way causation in time for rebellion against the One Who created time itself. I hold Theism would expect a 'timeless' effect: A few 'scientific' notes to that 'timeless' effect that we should expect:
“We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori
Here is a recent variation of the Wheeler delayed choice experiment:
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Verse:
Romans 8:18-22 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward. For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Of supplemental note:
A Biblical Case for Old-Earth Creationism http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html
bornagain77_{January 8, 2017
January
01
Jan
8
08
2017
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer @2
“as Ann Druyan [Sagan’s wife] has pointed out an immortal Creator is a cruel god, because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should he do that? If He’s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies… There is a clear imperative in Western religion that humans must remain small and mortal creatures. Why?”
This is perhaps the main problem that creationists have with the ID position. There is no place for the Fall and it's effects on the world. Yes, I'm aware of Dembski's(?) "solution" to the problem of seeing death as a retroactive punishment for what God knew would happen in the future, but that just doesn't make sense to me. It is not what the Bible teaches.tjguy_{January 8, 2017
January
01
Jan
8
08
2017
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

jad : To me this seems to be totally contradictory. As long as the God of traditional religion doesn’t exist the universe is a place of awe and wonder. But then He show up and suddenly those wonderful thoughts and feelings disappear. Materialists are kind of odd especially when they are physicists. Sometime around '81 there was a series I think on PBS, about the origins of the cosmos and the physics that might apply etc. I was working at the UT Austin physics department in an engineering capacity. The morning after one of the episodes I was on an elevator at the building housing the department, and one of the senior faculty got on at a stop and greeted one of the other faculty and the first thing said was something along the line of 'how did you like the treatment of your universe' in reference to the show. I actually got the feeling that on some level these guys think they 'own' the cosmos, much more than you or I because they see themselves as the intellectual masters of it more than the rest of us. I think it is much easier to have that sort of arrogant attitude if you don't see the cosmos as being designed, because after all you can't be superior to the designer, but you can be superior to the average person. Since the materialist physics researcher is highly creative, in their minds there may be a semi-conscious tendency to see themselves as the designers that should get the accolades.groovamos_{January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

In his 1985 Gifford Lecture, which are prestigious lectures on natural theology sponsored by Scottish universities, Carl Sagan had some interesting things to say about science, the universe and religious experience. According to Sagan, “The word ‘religion’ come from the Latin for ‘binding together,’ to connect that which has been sundered apart… And in this sense of seeking the deepest interrelations among things that appear to be sundered to be sundered, the objectives of science and religion, I believe, are identical or very nearly so… By far the best way I know to engage, the religious sensibility, the sense of awe, is to look up on a clear night. I believe that it is very difficult to know who we are until we understand where and when we are. I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky. This is reflected throughout the world in both science and religion. Thomas Carlyle said that wonder is the basis of worship. And Albert Einstein said, ‘I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive in scientific research.'” Sagan then shows, and comments upon, several pictures of astronomical objects that invoke in him a sense of awe and wonder. As an amateur astronomer many of them are very familiar to me. Indeed, as an amateur astronomer I personally share Sagan’s experience of awe and wonder. However, Sagan then ends his lecture in an odd way. After showing us what an awesome and wonderful world we live in he writes: “as Ann Druyan [Sagan’s wife] has pointed out an immortal Creator is a cruel god, because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should he do that? If He’s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies… There is a clear imperative in Western religion that humans must remain small and mortal creatures. Why?” To me this seems to be totally contradictory. As long as the God of traditional religion doesn’t exist the universe is a place of awe and wonder. But then He show up and suddenly those wonderful thoughts and feelings disappear. The cup suddenly goes from more than half full to more than half empty. My question also is why? Why would it, and does it, make any difference? It appears to me that as human being we are “hardwired” to think and believe a certain way. For example, why do people, like Ann Druyan, who do not believe in immortality think about it and ponder it? Why does she get upset with a Creator she does not believe exists? Or, why do atheists, like Sagan, ponder whether or not the universe has some kind of higher meaning or purpose? Are those who seek out E.T. intelligent beings (who may after all be more advanced and therefore wiser than us) just really seeking a God substitute because that is the way they are hard wired? On naturalistic evolution why would we be hardwired this way? Is it all just an accidental fluke?john_a_designer_{January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

“ I know of no doctrine of any religion that denies that life exists elsewhere in the universe.” The notion that other heavenly bodies are inhabited is actually common and normal in belief systems worldwide. But you’d have to look that up on the internet to find out. Yet the claim otherwise is heard frequently among tenured ignoramuses in cosmology, religious studies, etc. Sometimes, the notion gobbles up tax dollars that could be more wisely spent. For example, NASA cares what your religion thinks about ET.News_{January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply