UFO Religions

Extraterrestrials in the Quran, Part 2

I recently came across a description of how the Quran might justify or accommodate an ET reality that is more detailed than one I posted earlier.  Click on this link and scroll down a bit.  This one isn’t focused on the Jinn.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: aliens, ET Life, extraterrestrials, Islam, Koran, Muslims, Quran, religion

Atheism as UFO Religion, Part 2

I’ve found a second atheist’s commentary on “belief” in UFOs.

Atheist:  The belief in God(s) is purely and simply based in faith, no matter what religion you come from. Faith is defined simply as belief in something without evidence or proof.

MSH: This is actually an uninformed understanding of faith, but he’s at least clear. Faith is often made out to mean “irrationality” when this is not the case at all. REAL faith actually needs the rational. Faith analyzes a claim or claims, then the pros and cons for those claims in the light of data. Faith is then a judgment decision based upon a presumed likelihood — in the absence of omniscience.  It’s sort of like a jury deciding X based upon something being beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury BELIEVES it is making the best decision, given what it is possible to know.  Their faith fills the gap between what they know and what was literal, factual reality. Real faith is both an effort to understand correctly, and then a decision to choose one option over another (as opposed to giving up or being non-committal). It’s quite far from the absence of reason. If readers would like to be better informed on this than our atheist friend, I’d recommend a little book written by philosopher Ronald Nash (and given the evidence that philosophers are trained in rational thinking, I don’t have enough faith to conclude that philosophers can’t believe in God; a truckload of them do — precisely because belief in God IS rational).¹

Atheist: Lets face it, we are not born believing in a God, those beliefs are instilled into us through religion.

MSH: Logic check. We aren’t believing in anything, so does that make everything we eventually believe in irrational? Sometimes critiquing thinking like this is just too easy.

Atheist: People just didn’t suddenly start believing in UFO’s either, however, unlike religious belief, people started believing because they believe they had tangible evidence.

MSH: Yes, there is tangible evidence that people are seeing *something*; it would be foolish to think they’re all lying or in error about seeing something. But is it rational to conclude that since they’ve seen something unidentified that thing is therefore extraterrestrial? Certainly not (if we still care about logic).

Atheist: We have all heard the stories from eye witnesses and whether they are telling the truth, or they simply think they are, a UFO is something that can at least be falsified, so I do not believe that belief in God(s) and belief in UFO’s are technically in the same category.

MSH: Agreed.

Atheist: Many pictures and videos have surfaced over the years and proven to be frauds. Now I cannot lie and say that I personally have researched all the pictures, stories and evidence out there, but from what I know, there is not one story that can be proven to definitively be extraterrestrial UFO’s.

Now though personally I do not believe that there is one legitimate extraterrestrial UFO story out there, that does not mean that there aren’t other people who do have legitimate reasons for believing.

MSH: Well, if they had hard evidence of ET life in connection with what they saw, you’d be right. Otherwise it *is* illegitimate to draw this conclusion.

Atheist: Who’s to really say if an eyewitness really did witness something real. I guess you could say that although I am an atheist when it comes to God(s), I am an agnostic when it comes to UFO’s, but for a good reason. The reason is not because I buy any of the stories of UFO’s, but simply because the prospect of intelligent life out in the universe is actually possible. Although this is in the realm of science fiction, it is at least possible considering that we are here and the thousands of planets in the known universe, that there is at least one other planet like ours that supports life and has life on it that our technology cannot reach yet.

MSH: Agreed; ET life is possible. I’m so glad he/she didn’t say it was “probable” or “certain” as some others do, largely on the basis of speculative (and perhaps spurious) math.

Atheist: For this reason, I do not think that belief in UFO’s is totally irrational or illogical.

MSH: What does “belief” mean here? Sure, I *believe* that people see unidentified flying objects. That is perfectly reasonable since we have piles of data for that.  But if “believe” here means “belief that UFOs are extraterrestrial,” that is *not* rational, since there is no hard scientific data for ET life.  This is apples and oranges thinking, but it is quite common. It just goes to show that atheism and UFO religion are compatible.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: atheism, ExoTheology, faith, God, UFO Religions, UFOs

Atheism and Belief in Intelligent ET: Trusting in The Blessed Equation

Over the course of the last couple of days we’ve been treated once again to the parade of astronomers and astrobiologists pontificating on the likelihood that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In the wake of a couple of decades of failure on the part of the SETI program, the new credo is that “aliens could be staring us right in the face,” but we’re too dim-witted to recognize them. In an effort to renew enthusiasm for the search for extraterrestrial life, Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society and astronomer to the queen (wonder why she needs one of those) recently directed a conference entitled, The Detection of Extra-terrestrial Life and the Consequences for Science and Society. The purpose of the conference was to ask whether the discovery of aliens would cause terror or delight on earth. Rees and other astronomers have been making the news rounds telling anyone who will listen that improved telescopes made the chance of finding extra-terrestrial life “better than ever.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that astronomers are atheists. I personally know some PhDs in this field who are firm Christians. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t make any investment in trying to detect intelligent ET life. I share the enthusiasm of Lord Rees, at least to some extent.  I don’t, however, share his optimism.  I also think the recent news is a prime opportunity for showing how many scientists who do espouse atheism allow their wish to find an ET somewhere to blind their rationality. I would suggest that the optimism of Rees and his fellows is not based on better technology–it’s really based on faith. In this case, faith in an equation. The trouble is, this equation is basically worthless.

I begin with a simple question: WHY is Lord Rees and so many others so optimistic about the likelihood of intelligent ET life being out there? The answer is they believe that mathematical probability argues in favor of likelihood.

But does it?

This idea—that there is an overwhelming mathematical probability that there are intelligent aliens somewhere else in the universe has risen to the status of a creed in the UFO community. It derives from something called the Drake Equation.

The Drake equation was created in 1961 by astronomer Frank Drake. Its iconic status is seen in that it has been referenced in Star Trek: Voyager (“Future’s End”), Michael Crichton’s Sphere, and the Jodie Foster sci-fi film, Contact.

The Drake Equation is a mathematical postulate that states:

N = R* x   fp x   ne x   fe x   fi x   fc x   L

Okay . . . what does all that mean?

In 1961, the values that were inserted into the equation yielded and answer of 10—ten postulated civilizations were out there in the universe somewhere waiting to be discovered. I know it’s hard to fathom, but this is the basis for the supreme confidence of a host of astronomers and physicists who promote SETI (The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). It gets worse.

Current data suggests the answer to the equation is really 2.31. It gets worse still.

Let me share what one lauded scientist, T. J. Nelson, thinks of the strength of the Drake Equation. It sort of affirms the obvious, but I think people might respond to it better from this credentialed scientist (emphasis is mine):

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

The famous science fiction author and medical doctor, Michael Crichton, echoed those sentiments:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses . . . Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless.

In other words, the Drake Equation is simply guesswork dressed up to look like data. This is what produces all the optimism.  This is why atheists, like our friend in my earlier post, say that have faith in knowledge, not myth. The Drake equation is not knowledge; it is a slice of faith grounded in no actual data that has now become a dogma. It’s part of the ET Hypothesis catechism.

Granted, I’d love for this emperor to have some clothes. The genuine discovery of ET life (that isn’t hostile or evil) is on my short list of “ridiculously improbable things I’d like to see or experience before I die.” But the next time someone brings up the statistical odds of ET being out there, I’m liable to test their faith. It’s time someone asked them to do the math.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: aliens, drake equation, ET, extraterrestrials, religion, SETI

This Has the Smell of Fraud

News is circulating to about the alleged discovery of prehistoric cave paintings that show a remarkably clear UFO type craft and an alien.  I saw the news via the UFO Mystics blog. The description has the stink of hoax about it. Here are some oddities that would *not* be omitted information if this was a real archaeological project and find.

1.  The story is purportedly published in the “Rajasthan Times”.  I guess Google’s never heard of it. There *is* a place called Rajasthan about which some stories in the Times of India can be found by Googling. Ooops. Feels reputable already.

2. “Team of archaeologists” – From where? What university? What project group? Why is this team not identified in any way? Real digs don’t fear identification. In fact they’d want it (can you say “funding”?).

3. Why is there only one photograph, and that completely lacking any visual context?

4. Given the “amazing” skill of the primitive artists, I wonder why they were incapable of drawing the items to scale? The “alien” is so much larger than the “UFO.”  Why not draw a big UFO withe several smaller aliens so that they could fit in it? Oh, maybe they were so overwhelmed by the experience they couldn’t manage this.

5. The item at the top is described as a wormhole.  Uh, they’re in deep space and aren’t visible to the human eye. Oh, I know — the aliens told the primitives what they looked like. Too bad that wormholes are nothing but MATH. We *give* them such a shape because of the way they are theoretically and mathematically *thought* to be structured. In fact, they’d be so huge that they couldn’t be seen by anyone’s eye. Maybe the cave also has the vestiges of the equations the aliens taught them.

6. Oh, and the prehistoric people even drew us a tractor beam designed to suck something toward the craft. Or maybe its a vapor trail. I love both possibilities. You of course could not see a tractor beam, as it’s gravity modification, and gravity is invisible (even to enlightened primitive people). And the vapor trail would mean the craft *isn’t* powered by gravity modification (the only way interstellar space travel is possible because of the speed of light, wormholes or not). There’s that wonderful internal combustion engine powering aliens through space again! Love it.

7. And let’s not forget the “local archaeologist” who has seen the pictures himself. He’s the only thing that fits. No degree, no professional affiliation, no credentials of any kind. Google his name — strange how it only shows up in other reports of the same story.

Yeah, this stinks to high heaven . . . or maybe the nearest wormhole. And people make fun of Christianity for “lack of historical evidence.” Good grief. I don’t have enough faith for this sort of twaddle. This, as so many stories that have preceded it, will wind up in the dustbin of ancient astronaut chicanery.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: alien, Ancient Astronauts, caves, India, spaceship, UFO, wormhole

Atheism as UFO Religion

I thought it might be an interesting idea to take a look at self-declared atheists and their own faith responses to UFOs as ET craft.  I’ll be pulling these from the web without names. My goal is *not* to poke fun at atheism. Rather, I want to show how religious their thinking is on this issue — how it is not grounded in science or even logical coherence (at times), but on faith/belief.

Here’s the first one. My comments are at MSH.

>>

I am an atheist. I believe in UFO’s.

Do these two statements seem contradictory to you? Why? Just because I am a person that does not believe in a supreme being, or a higher power, does that make me unable to accept the possibility of intelligent life existing outside of our own planet?

MSH: Of course it doesn’t, so this is perfectly coherent. Belief in a supreme deity and alien life are not mutually exclusive, and neither is denial of a supreme deity and belief in alien life.

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, then you are wrong. Now, I can’t speak for all the atheists, only for me. So let me let you in on my beliefs. I have faith. I know that may come as a shocker, but its true. I have faith, but not in any higher power, or supreme being. I have faith in knowledge.

MSH: He had me at “I have faith” – that’s an honest admission from an atheist (or anyone, really).  But faith in “knowledge”?  I know what he/she means, but as we proceed, you’ll see that he/she doesn’t actually have faith in knowledge, since no one *knows* that UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial (i.e., their existence and sightings only prove … well, that they exist and people see them; that t doesn’t prove at all what their nature is).  So he/she really doesn’t have faith in knowledge; rather he/she has faith in his/her own faith as to what these things are.

Religion, since the dawn of man, since the time of cave paintings, before the firsts cities were ever conceived, has been a way to explain the unexplainable. Why does the sun rise each morning and set each evening? Does the sun god ride his chariot across the sky every day, and rest every night as the ancient Greeks believed? No, the Earth rotates on its axis as it orbits the sun, thus creating day and night, the year and even the seasons. The ancient Greeks didn’t know that then, but we know that now.

So, how does this explain UFO’s? Simply put, in my opinion, we have had too many sightings that have been recorded to say that we have no knowledge of UFO’s existing.

MSH: Agreed, and coherent — people are indeed seeing SOMETHING.

Well, what about Moses, and the parting of the Red Sea, you ask? There is only one source that says that event actually happened. The Bible, and I think the writer was a little biased on that one. If it had just been one hillbilly from Tennessee that was screaming about how these grayish guys with huge eyes took them aboard their flying saucer, OK, I wouldn’t readily believe him. But its not. There have been videos from all over the world showing flying craft that defy the laws of our flight. Recorded by people in the streets, from the windows of their homes, even from gun cameras on military jets.

MSH: An odd sort of analogy on his/her part. It assumes that frequency of observation = reality.  What if we had only had one astronaut go to the moon and report seeing something unusual that couldn’t be captured on film (“I swear, the rocks there glowed green”). I would suggest people *would* believe the astronaut because it was an extraordinary experience. But by the writer’s logic, we shouldn’t.  Frankly, and less hypothetical, we have examples of incidents in ancient history whose truth is accepted on the basis of only one text or even just part of a text (e.g., the letter between the Hyksos king and the Nubian king intercepted by Kamose, prompting him to attack the Hyksos).  It’s taken as fact.  Numerical references actually have nothing to do with whether something might be true or not. And so the millions of sightings are *not* sufficient proof for what he/she “believes” — that what is being seen is extraterrestrial. They *are* sufficient to show that something is being seen, but that’s it. And bias interpretation of evidence?  See below.

They exist. I see no other reasonable explanation.

MSH: Therein lies the reason why this logic doesn’t work for all he/she wants it to work for. It “works” only in that he/she *wants* to believe these things are alien. There is no actual hard evidence that they are — only for the fact that things are seen.  Additionally, there are scientists who’d disagree, and who posit our lone existence. For example, the book Rare Earth.

Logic would be that in the trillions upon trillions of stars in just our galaxy alone, there has to be at least one other planet that has life on it.

MSH: Actually, logic does *not* dictate anything of the sort.  This is about math and statistical ODDS.  Logic deals with factuals and counter-factuals; necessary and sufficient argumentation; etc.  All logic needs is one example of astronomical (pardon the pun) odds being wrong to coherently argue that astronomical odds do *not* dictate an outcome.

The odds that we are the only planet with life is so infinitesimally small. And the odds that one of those other planets is home to a species that has evolved the knowledge of interstellar travel before us are very good. More than one probably.

MSH: This is a real weakness in the chain. Interstellar travel is one of the huge arguments against ET life out there; it requires *assumptions* about things like wormholes (assumptions aren’t facts). Astronomer Hugh Ross had a great chapter on the problems of interstellar space travel (in plain language)  in his book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men.

The belief that we are the only planet that has any life on it, let alone intelligent life, is so egotistical, that I would have figured only people who believe in god would assume that. I mean, he only created us, right? Atheists may be skeptical, but it is only about religion that we are skeptical. We embrace science and logic, not myth.

MSH: As readers of this blog know, this logic and conclusion are very naive (about God not creating aliens).  I won’t retread that ground here.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: aliens, atheism, belief, extraterrestrials, faith, ufo religion