On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:42:55 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
DT>Summary: Is there a "Christian" view on extra-terrestrial
>intelligence?
>
>On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Steven Schimmrich wrote:
>SS: "What is the consensus (if there even is one) among YECs about
>life on other planets?"
DT>Steve Jones responded with comments from Henry Morris (who seems
>to argue for life to exist exclusively on earth), and Walter Remine
>(who seems to believe that extraterrestrial life and
>extraterrestrial intelligence would falsify his Biotic Message
>theory)
>
>Steve added:
SJ>However, not all Creationists agree that life on Mars (if proved)
>would be a problem. Ross, actually predicts it:
DT>Also:
SJ>I personally would not have a problem if extinct (or even living)
>micro-organisms were found on Mars. Such life could have originated
>on Earth and was transported to Mars or it is even possible that life
>originated on Mars and was transported to Earth.
DT>In these latter cases, I think it is important to distinguish
>between the independent origin of life on Mars and the dependent
>origin (by transportation from earth). I wonder if Steve and Hugh
>Ross would be as comfortable with an independent origin of life on
>Mars?
I would not necessarily have a problem if it was proved that there
was an "independent origin of life on Mars". The whole universe
could be teeming with life - I do not know of anything in the Bible
or philosophical theism which would rule it out. But it would be
hard to demonstrate that it *was* "independent", and not the original
source of life on Earth, or the result of migration from Earth. I
suppose if living things were found with a completely different
biochemistry and/or genetic code, then it would suggest independent
origins. That would of course be good evidence for biochemical
predestination but not necessarily good evidence for Darwinism. Of
course finding microfossils would probably not be of any use for
deducing the original organism's biochemistry or genetic code.
DT>The reason for asking is that I have been struck by the diversity
>of reactions Christians have shown to the possibilities of life
>outside the earth. Speaking personally, I would have some
>adjustments to make if single-celled life forms were found on Mars
>and if they were shown to have an origin independent of earth life -
>because it is life out of context. God has gone to some trouble
>preparing this earth to be a fit place for living things - and we
>worship him for it. Looking around the solar system, we find every
>other potential home to be deficient: conditions there are hostile
>to life. This includes Mars - although it is conceivable that some
>extraordinarily specialised life forms could cope. I associate life
>with God's purpose - and, if Martian life were confirmed, would have
>to adjust to the thought that God has purposes for living things
>which are completely outside the terrestrial scene. Nevertheless, I
>hasten to add, the adjustment could be made.
Agreed. The Bible is concerned with this Earth only, and this is
emphasised in Genesis 1:2:
"The Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Attention is immediately directed to
the earth. It is true that the second verse of Genesis does not
represent a continuation of the narrative of verse one, but, as it were,
a new beginning. Grammatically, it is not to be construed with the
preceding, but with what follows. Nevertheless, by its introductory
words, "and the earth", it does take up the thought of the first verse.
It does this, however, by way of exclusion. No longer is our thought
to rest upon the heaven and the earth, the entirety of created
phenomena, but merely upon the earth. The word haaretz stands first
for the sake of emphasis. It is the subject to which attention must be
directed, and it is the grand theme, not merely of the remainder of
the chapter, but of the remainder of the Bible itself. It is this earth on
which we live with which the Scripture has to do and to which it will
direct its thought. Thus, from a contemplation of the entire universe,
or, we may more accurately say, of all created worlds and bodies
besides our own, the Bible turns to a geocentric emphasis, and it
maintains that geocentric emphasis throughout to its last page. This
is not to say that the Bible now entertains an incorrect view of the
relationship of the heavenly bodies, positing the earth as the physical
center of the universe. On that subject the Bible really does not speak.
It is merely that attention is focused upon this world on which we
live, upon which we sinned, and upon which Christ died for our
salvation. If the Bible is to be a truly practical book, it is difficult to
understand how its emphasis could be otherwise." (Young E.J.,
"Studies in Genesis One", Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., Philadelphia PA, 1964, pp30-32)
If life was found on other planets, then it would not conflict with
the Bible, because the Bible is silent on that subject. The theist
would just assume that God created them for a purpose, even though
it might not be immediately apparent what that purpose was.
But "life" is one thing, and *intelligent* life is another. (see
below).
DT>The issue of extraterrestrial intelligence seems to me to be a
>different one. I associate "intelligence" with man being an image-
>bearer of God. Theologically, in my view, only the human race has
>this characteristic. (This is thinking along the same lines as -
>were the Neanderthals Adam's descendants?). So, I would find it a
>major theological problem if extra-terrestrial intelligent life was
>recognised. So, I am happy to be aligned with others who predict
>that this extraterrestrial intelligence will never be found.
Just because man was made in the image of God, expressed in one form
of carbon-based biochemistry, does not mean that an infinite God
could not express His image in other ways on other planets.
I would not rule out that intelligent life could exist on other
planets, but I would assume it would be rare. There could be huge
theological problems if two image-bearing races interacted with each
other.
Also, the Bible has verses which predict that the earth and stars
will be finally "rolled up", eg. Isa 34:4 "All the stars of the
heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all
the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like
shriveled figs from the fig tree"; Eze 32:7 "When I snuff you out, I
will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun
with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light"; Rev 6:13-14 "and
the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree
when shaken by a strong wind. The sky receded like a scroll, rolling
up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place". If
this is to be taken in some sense literally (even after allowing for
the medium of Hebrew apocalyptic language), then the wrapping up of
Earth history would be the wrapping up of theirs too. But it is
possible that God has predestined their culmination to be reached in
synchrony with ours. Or it could be that only that part of the
universe which visible to the naked eye (ie. our galaxy), would be
affected. If intelligent life existed on planets in other galaxies,
then there would be no problems with this.
Paul Davies thinks that ETI would be be a huge problem for
Christianity (I have heard him on the radio say this). For example:
"Milne immediately identifies, however, a serious problem for
Christians if these beings exist. Believing that it is 'of the
essence of Christianity that God intervenes in History', he notes:
`God's most notable intervention in the actual historical process,
according to the Christian outlook, was the Incarnation. Was this a
unique event, or has it been re-enacted on each of a countless number
of planets? The Christian would recoil in horror from such a
conclusion. We cannot imagine the Son of God suffering vicariously
on each of a myriad of planets. The Christian would avoid this
conclusion by the definite supposition that our planet is in fact
unique. What then of the possible denizens of other planets, if the
Incarnation occurred only on our own? We are in deep waters here,
in a sea of great mysteries.' (Milne E.A., "Modern Cosmology and the
Christian Idea of God", 1952)
(Davies P., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the
Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life", Penguin: London, 1995, p30)
Personally I don't "recoil in horror" any more than I do with the
idea of "the Son of God suffering vicariously on" *this* "planet".
I have often heard it said that if I was only one sinner on this
Earth then Christ, in His love, would come and die for me. On this
basis, if there was intelligent life on other planets, and they had
fallen into sin, then I would not have a problem with Christ having
to do what is necessary to save them (including incarnation and
a vicarious atoning death). OTOH, we might be the only fallen
intelligent life among thousands of planets where intelligent life
exists but has passed the test.
DT>Two UK figures have recently said that there is no theological
>problem for Christians to accept the idea of extraterrestrial
>intelligent life. Rev Dr John Polkinghorne said this on a Radio
>interview soon after the Martian meteorite story broke, adding that
>if these beings were in need of redemption, then he would expect
>Christ would have taken their flesh to bring God's grace to them
>also. The other figure is Rev Tony Higton, an evangelical Anglican
>leader, who speculated on becoming a missionary to extra-terrestrial
>races.
I think it would be absurd to be a "missionary to extra-terrestrial
races". We have no authority to do it, and it would mean nothing to
them, especially if they were not human (think of the reverse
situation of them trying to convince us to accept their Saviour).
Indeed it shows a lack of faith that God wouldn't have provided for
their salvation, as He has for us. Davies adds that it was Mascall's
view that the atonement would have to be repeated on other planets if
they fell.
"...E.L. Mascall, a philosopher priest, who, in his 1956 Bampton
Lectures, opined that Milne's theology was defective. 'It is in
sharp contrast with the attitude of the great classical tradition of
Christian thought' concerning the Passion of Christ to suppose that
'the necessary and sufficient condition for it to be effective for
the salvation of God's creatures is that they should know about it.'
Mascall goes on to articulate the mainstream Christian view that the
essence of the Redemption is that 'the Son of God has hypostatically
united to himself the nature of the species that he has come to
redeem'. In other words, the historical event of God-made-man has a
significance restricted to the species Homo sapiens. Regarding alien
beings, Mascall concludes:
`It would be difficult to hold that the assumption by the Son of the
nature of one rational corporeal species involved the restoration of
other rational corporeal species ... Christ, the Son of God made man,
is indeed, by the fact that he has been made man, the Saviour of the
world, if 'world' is taken to mean the world of man and man's
relationships- but does the fact that he has been made man make him
the Saviour of the world of non-human corporeal rational beings as
well? This seems to me to be doubtful...'
Mascall's preferred alternative is that the Incarnation is repeated other
planets too:
The suggestion which I wish to make ... is that there are no
conclusive theological reasons for rejecting the notion that, if there
are, in some other part or parts of the universe, rational corporeal
beings who have sinned and are in need of redemption, for those
beings and for their salvation the Son of God has united (or one day
will unite) to his divine Person their nature, as he has united it to
ours..."
(Davies P., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the
Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life", Penguin: London, 1995, p31)
But to be fair, Davies points out that Christian doctrine does not
necessarily imply multiple incarnations on other worlds:
"I recently raised this problem in discussion with George Coyne's a
Jesuit priest and Director of the Vatican Observatory. Coyne is;
actively involved in the search for extra-solar planets. In his opinion,
salvation does not require God's incarnation. He believes that if alien
beings exist and have sinned, then God is free to choose to save them
in some manner other than by taking on alien flesh. On
this view, Christian doctrine does not imply multiple incarnations."
(Davies P., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the
Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life", Penguin: London, 1995, pp31-32)
But Davies does raise a real problem if contact is made with a more
advanced civilisation:
"Further theological problems arise from the expectation that, if
alien communities exist, many of them will be far in advance of
ours...If life is indeed widespread in the universe, then it will
have arisen in some locations many billions of years before it
started on Earth. Unless there is something unusual about the rate
of evolutionary progress on Earth...we might expect intelligent life
and technological communities to have emerged in the universe
billions of years ago. Given that human society is only a few
thousand years old, and that human technological society is mere
centuries old, the nature of a community with millions or even
billions of years of technological and social progress cannot even be
imagined. It may be that, for us, these super-advanced aliens would
appear as gods. Arthur C. Clarke has remarked that technology even a
modest degree in advance of experience is indistinguishable from
magic. What would we make of the activities of a billion-year-old
technological community?" (Davies P., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical
Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life", Penguin:
London, 1995, p32)
DT>What do others think about this? My concern is to think
>biblically and not to elevate human wisdom to the level of revealed
>truth. But does the Bible provide us with direction here?
The Bible does not say much about the stars so we are forced to use
"human wisdom". However, the Bible says that God made all things
including any extraterrestrial beings:
"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (Col 1:16)
"You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest
heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and
the multitudes of heaven worship you." (Neh 9:6)
DT>Can we make any predictions about life on other planets? How do
>we avoid the impression that our theology is so malleable that
>anything can be accommodated within the "Christian" tradition?
I don't think we can make any "predictions about life on other
planets" that would exclude it altogether. I well remember a
fundamentalist Pastor who had an encyclopaedic knowledge of Bible
verses declare that man would never set foot on the moon because Acts
17:26 (KJV) said that God had "...determined...the bounds of their
(men's) habitation"! The Bible is concerned with this world only.
Christian "theology" is not "malleable" on things that directly
contradict Christian essentials as laid down in the Bible and the
great creeds of Christendom. But extraterrestrial life or
extraterrestrial intelligence is not part of the "Christian"
tradition, apart from angels. Therefore, finding life on Mars could
be "accommodated within the `Christian' tradition" but finding a
grave that contains the body of Jesus of Nazareth cannot.
Contact with aliens would be problematical, and certainly a visit
(Independence Day? <g>), would be catastrophic to Christianity.
I therefore would make the following prediction about any intelligent
life on other planets:
1. God would not permit any extraterrestrial intelligent life that
may exist to interact with human life, because it would cause
insoluble problems for God's plan of salvation on this Earth.
Therefore, I predict that SETI will be unsuccessful.
But there is one issue I must raise. We are told that Antichrist
will come "...displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs
and wonders" (1 Thess 2:9). Jesus said that "...false Christs and
false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to
deceive even the elect--if that were possible." (Mt 24:24). Rev
13:13-14 says "...he performed great and miraculous signs, even
causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of
men....he deceived the inhabitants of the earth.". An
extraterrestrial message could fit this bill. It could be argued
that in the last 50 years the world has been convinced that ETI
exists, even though there is barely a shred of evidence for it. This
has all the hallmarks of a "powerful delusion" (2Thess 2:11). How
would we know that a ETI message was not a "counterfeit...sign" from
Satan?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------