Statements of “faith” in two radically distinct variants.
Those believing in ETs clearly express greater faith, namely that some place in the vast universe flipped a coin millions of times and emerged not with consecutive “heads” but something rational at the end of the flipping.
Anything “rational” would be the down-stream evolved product of Darwinian evolution, and Darwinian evolution is not a chance, coin-flipping-like process. That idea is a common but utterly wrong misconception about how evolution works. There’s no “faith” at all involved in concluding that life has likely also formed on planets elsewhere in our vast, vast universe.
Darwin postulated on micro-evolution. Unless you have specifics, I have never read anything written by Darwin (or Dawkins) on the macro-evolution which would have enabled any of Darwin’s work.
Rational Materialist: “Give me one miracle and I will explain the rest.”
So, again, explain how life formed from no life: the trigger, the physics and the chemistry of it. The biology of it is a mop up exercise after all the pieces have been perfectly arranged. You cannot dry your hands, lop off a billion or so years, and say “Simple”.
“Macro-evolution” is merely lots of bits of “micro-evolution” added up over time. The evidence for it is overwhelming, for example Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True” gives an overview. Abiogenesis, the formation of the first simple self-replicating molecule is indeed not well understood, since molecules don’t fossilise.
Coyne is merely conceding the limits of his field: evolutionary biology.
The chemists are mute on this point of first life/first cell formation, and the physicists are left with theories.
We obviously cannot agree. I hope your worldview helps you lead a good life that respects the rights and freedoms of those who believe they possess consciousness, free will, and value that is intrinsic and not assigned.
Hi Adam, in such a survey, everything comes down to the wordings of the questions. “ETs” could be taken to refer to life forms on unknown planets in utterly distant galaxies (with abiogenesis thought to be a natural process, and given the vast size of the universe, most scientists would regard such as probable), or to the idea of aliens currently visiting Earth (owing to lack of evidence, most scientists would regard that as unlikely). I myself would likely score 9 and 1 for the two different interpretations, so which should I go with? Without clarifying what you’re asking about, the results are pretty much uninterpretable.
I hope your respondents REALLY believed that their answers could not be linked to their identities. Otherwise their responses would likely be inauthentic.
"Christianity opposes such a framework, as humans (alone) are created in the image of God.."
I think you got that one wrong.
"The Church taught nothing definitively then, nor does she teach anything definitively now, about extraterrestrial life. "
This is a fine work, but as an astrobiologist I'll never understand why "belief in ET" is any different than physicists' "belief in supersymmetry" or even better "belief in Higgs's boson before 2012 or so", physical chemists' "belief in metallic hydrogen" (before cca 2011), etc. etc. ETs are consequences of Copernicanism, and there is no supernaturalism involved.
Of course, there is no necessary supernaturalism in belief in God or gods either. I've always admired the thought of Epicurus, who proclaimed that gods are made of atoms like everything else and are constrained by laws of nature -- essentially they are very advanced extraterrestrials.
Interesting topic. I would start with definitions of the two variables and what is meant by “believe in”.
Since I know I was created by my parents , the question - Do you “believe in your mother” - sounds odd (unless I was rooting for her to win in a race…). A proper question is “do you believe your mother” (i.e., trust her), but that is a different line of inquiry.
Similar with ETs. There are not many life forms less suited to surviving on our planet than humans (without technology, fire, clothes, etc), that is as pure biological entities (thus proposed renaming of the past few millennia into Anthropocene, as flawed as it is due to worldwide chronological correlation, should be better termed Technocene).
Just trying to make sure all respondents are clear on the definitions …
Statements of “faith” in two radically distinct variants.
Those believing in ETs clearly express greater faith, namely that some place in the vast universe flipped a coin millions of times and emerged not with consecutive “heads” but something rational at the end of the flipping.
And scientists call the faithful “irrational”.
Fascinating, indeed.
Anything “rational” would be the down-stream evolved product of Darwinian evolution, and Darwinian evolution is not a chance, coin-flipping-like process. That idea is a common but utterly wrong misconception about how evolution works. There’s no “faith” at all involved in concluding that life has likely also formed on planets elsewhere in our vast, vast universe.
Darwin postulated on micro-evolution. Unless you have specifics, I have never read anything written by Darwin (or Dawkins) on the macro-evolution which would have enabled any of Darwin’s work.
Rational Materialist: “Give me one miracle and I will explain the rest.”
So, again, explain how life formed from no life: the trigger, the physics and the chemistry of it. The biology of it is a mop up exercise after all the pieces have been perfectly arranged. You cannot dry your hands, lop off a billion or so years, and say “Simple”.
Explain your faith. Dawkins has never done so.
“Macro-evolution” is merely lots of bits of “micro-evolution” added up over time. The evidence for it is overwhelming, for example Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True” gives an overview. Abiogenesis, the formation of the first simple self-replicating molecule is indeed not well understood, since molecules don’t fossilise.
Coyne is merely conceding the limits of his field: evolutionary biology.
The chemists are mute on this point of first life/first cell formation, and the physicists are left with theories.
We obviously cannot agree. I hope your worldview helps you lead a good life that respects the rights and freedoms of those who believe they possess consciousness, free will, and value that is intrinsic and not assigned.
Good day.
Hi Adam, in such a survey, everything comes down to the wordings of the questions. “ETs” could be taken to refer to life forms on unknown planets in utterly distant galaxies (with abiogenesis thought to be a natural process, and given the vast size of the universe, most scientists would regard such as probable), or to the idea of aliens currently visiting Earth (owing to lack of evidence, most scientists would regard that as unlikely). I myself would likely score 9 and 1 for the two different interpretations, so which should I go with? Without clarifying what you’re asking about, the results are pretty much uninterpretable.
I hope your respondents REALLY believed that their answers could not be linked to their identities. Otherwise their responses would likely be inauthentic.
"Christianity opposes such a framework, as humans (alone) are created in the image of God.."
I think you got that one wrong.
"The Church taught nothing definitively then, nor does she teach anything definitively now, about extraterrestrial life. "
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/what-can-catholic-theology-say-about-extraterrestrials/
Interesting stuff.
This is a fine work, but as an astrobiologist I'll never understand why "belief in ET" is any different than physicists' "belief in supersymmetry" or even better "belief in Higgs's boson before 2012 or so", physical chemists' "belief in metallic hydrogen" (before cca 2011), etc. etc. ETs are consequences of Copernicanism, and there is no supernaturalism involved.
Of course, there is no necessary supernaturalism in belief in God or gods either. I've always admired the thought of Epicurus, who proclaimed that gods are made of atoms like everything else and are constrained by laws of nature -- essentially they are very advanced extraterrestrials.
Nice work
Interesting topic. I would start with definitions of the two variables and what is meant by “believe in”.
Since I know I was created by my parents , the question - Do you “believe in your mother” - sounds odd (unless I was rooting for her to win in a race…). A proper question is “do you believe your mother” (i.e., trust her), but that is a different line of inquiry.
Similar with ETs. There are not many life forms less suited to surviving on our planet than humans (without technology, fire, clothes, etc), that is as pure biological entities (thus proposed renaming of the past few millennia into Anthropocene, as flawed as it is due to worldwide chronological correlation, should be better termed Technocene).
Just trying to make sure all respondents are clear on the definitions …
Really interesting. Good work.