UFO Religions

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

Intelligent Design Usurped by Alien Astronaut Theory?

As many of you will know, I think the intelligent design approach ot origins has merit, since it attempts to bring to light the weaknesses of an undirected, random Darwinism. You may also know that I’ve been saying for years how easy it will be for those who promote the theory of ancient alien astronauts being the creators of life on earth to usurp the arguments and approach of the intelligent design effort. Now (thankfully) a mainstream scientist who is a Christian has expressed the same concern — and even made it funny!

I recommend that you all read the short article at this link, and then watch the video at its end. Well worth the read and the view. For those who just want the video, it’s embedded below.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: evolution, ExoTheology, extraterrestrials, intelligent design

Science and Religion

We often get into the science vs. religion issue when talking about extraterrestrials and religion. Check out this written and video interview with Alister McGrath, who described himself as (formerly) a “rottweiler sort of atheist.” McGrath has PhDs in both the natural sciences (molecular biophysics) and theology (both from Oxford).

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Christianity, creation, Darwinism, evolution, extraterrestrials, McGrath, theology