If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

Byron · 2004-03-24 05:58:45

Now that scientists are seriously considering the possibilities of past or even present life on Mars...I've become curious over what would happen here on Earth if they found indisputable proof of past / present life...would this spark the public's interest in space exploration like never before, or would it cause a religious-based backlash against this kind of exploration, as people might view the discovery of extra-terrestrial life contrary to their single-world view of life?

My guess that it would be a mixture of both...you'd have hoards of people shouting, let's get our butts to Mars, now!, while others would be doing their best to discredit the scientists' findings and calling for an end to this kind of exploration. I would hope that the "right" crowd would win out in the end, with reason prevailing over antiquated belief systems. Who knows...if life really was discovered on Mars or elsewhere, that may very well signal the beginning of the end of organized religion here on Earth, although that might be a bit much to hope for at this point....

Any thoughts?

B

Palomar · 2004-03-24 07:34:35

*Hi Byron: I think a lot of it would depend on the lifeform (fossilized or otherwise), i.e. how developed is it (microbes versus intelligent bipeds), etc.

I don't pretend to know how most religious people think, but science did finally persuade most folks that the Earth -isn't- flat.

I know of some religionists who don't want to know, and their response to space exploration and etc. is "We don't need to know that, because God already does." However, I think the more open-minded and tolerant religions (at least here in the West) would embrace the findings as further proof of the greatness of their Deity...after all, their holy scriptures don't mention electricity or radio waves, right?

Except for the more blockheaded ignorami fanatical religionists (who, thankfully, are the -minority-), I doubt there would be a huge backlash and an outcry to stop the exploration and science.

There seems, IMO, to be more hedonistic apathetic types who, by their disinterest, are just as much an impairment to efforts to discover and explore as their fanatical religionist counterparts.

If there are any "miracles," IMO it's that we've come this far in science and etc.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I like Arthur C. Clarke's treatment of the question at the beginning of his novel _Childhood's End_. I think he likely "pegged" pretty well what the world's overall reaction would be (no nuclear Armageddon, acceptance, a few crazy reactionaries, and a general movement to an Eastern philosophy-like outlook).

rgcarnes · 2004-03-24 09:20:44

Well balanced reply, Cindy.

Byron, I understand your disdain for religion. After all, according to the documentation, even Jesus Christ was most critical of the religious authorities and many of the things they were trying to make their people accept.

However there are 'religious' or 'faith' aspects to some of the opinions which NASA presents as fact before they provide the data to back them up.

In my opinion, (you asked for thoughts) and according to my reading, there is more to support the position that there is life over and above that on Earth in the Bible than in the subset of science which denies the existance of an intelligence greater than those most prominent in that science. There is also, as far as I can tell, no prohibition to seeking it out as long as its for the benefit of humanity and not for its harm.

There also seems to be a more vehement evangelism amoung those who refuse to believe in a force smarter, stronger, and functioning adroitly in more dimensions than we do, than amoung most of those who seem to agree with me in these areas, perhaps to my shame. I've come to this conclusion partly by reading the posts within the New Mars forum.

Anyway, the best to you all. Lets try to keep our heads out of the sand and go to the next place where we might answer some more of the questions about life.

ERRORIST · 2004-03-24 20:15:51

To me it proves the bible is correct even though I don't think it needs to be proven, since I do believe in God.

GENSIS 2.0
"THUS THE HEAVANS AND THE EARTH WERE FINISHED AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM". This explains it all to me. life is teaming out there.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-24 23:50:31

Excellent question Byron!
In the beginning I would suspect that there would be an incredible wave of skepticism, from, ironically, the religious right.
Dependant on the kind of evidence I'd say, if it were in microbial form, there would be all kinds of naysayers no matter what technology was brought to bare. It could have begun on Earth, after all.
If it were in fossil form, again there would be doubts and rationalizations of reinterpretation of scriptures the world over, a sort of collective revisionism of interpretation of scriptures in every culture.
If we found a tiny alien animal or insect, someone would say it was orchestrated by some mad geneticist in South America and imported to the then existant Mars colony.
If we were visited by an actual alien intelligence, the religious communities most likely would unanimously agree that they were hostile Satanic minions and should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

Or they would revise their personal interpretations of scripture ...

Or an enthusiastic group of missionaries would request to be taken to their homeworld where they would begin the business of conversion, pronto! :;):

...or we'd be eaten. And we wouldn't have to worry about such things.

However there are 'religious' or 'faith' aspects to some of the opinions which NASA presents as fact before they provide the data to back them up.

I can't help myself.. May the powers that be, at New Mars, forgive me for what I'm about to say. I can't help myself.

RG, I apologize in advance for I must really take issue with your choice of words here. There is a popular tendency amoung the religiously inclined to mix drinks when discussing science and religion. I don't want to offend or pretend take your right to belief away from you, but, spirituality and scientific investigation are, by definition and practice, diametrically opposed. It is important to the integrity of science that this is so - science cannot exist otherwise. Faith in holy doctrine and spiritual belief are not the same as a scientist's axioms which originated from the examination of hard factual evidence through scientific questioning and the seeking of reason leading progressively to the knowledge we humans have so determinedly struggled for since the very beginnings of mans evolution.
Faith in religious doctrine and 'assumption' based on empirical evidence are two very different forms of 'spirit'.
A Nasa scientist can hardly be accused of 'having faith', in the religious context your implying, for an educated speculation based on a tested hypothesis.

There also seems to be a more vehement evangelism amoung those who refuse to believe in a force smarter, stronger, and functioning adroitly in more dimensions than we do, than amoung most of those who seem to agree with me in these areas, perhaps to my shame. I've come to this conclusion partly by reading the posts within the New Mars forum.

Again your using religious terminology to describe those who's efforts are not definable within a religious context.
To be honest, I have to admit that I do not know, one way or the other, of a supreme being (in the religious sense and not the 'advanced alien being' sense). I'm quite convinced there are forces smarter, stronger, and perhaps even functioning in multidimensions... but I think that entity(s) such as these will be explainable and examinable, quantifiable, and understandable. But likely we may mistaken them for godliness, who knows? Call me a blockheaded fanatical skeptical rationalist if you want.(Thanks for that one ecrasez.) I can't help myself.

But one thing, RG, there must never be 'shame' no matter what our persuasions. We are united in our humanity and in love despite our systems of belief. There is no contradiction in this.

I do believe that overall, as we progress throughout the solar system and the stars, that many of the religiously dominant cultures on our planet will be introspectively re-examining their most cherished beliefs. Some will move on, others will dig in their heels. But I suspect that the big 4 - Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism - will be with us for centuries to come, but most likely in a form unrecognizable to us now. And who knows? Perhaps there will be an alien religion brought to Earth which will convert us all with its power...

...but I suspect that's unlikely.

Palomar · 2004-03-25 07:50:02

GENSIS 2.0
"THUS THE HEAVANS

*Actually, the correct spellings are "Genesis" and "heavens".

In my opinion it behooves persons to spell correctly words pertaining to their belief system; at the very least it lends a bit more credibility to one's stance.

--Cindy

Julius Caeser · 2004-03-25 08:01:44

Finding evidence of life on mars will only be irritating for those close minded religious fanatics IMHO.It certainly wont downgrade the importance of God..to the contrary,it will enhance the beauty of his creation!

rgcarnes · 2004-03-25 10:26:32

Marinaris Sauce,

Your comments indicate you're still accepting by faith (within the english language meaning of the word) what NASA says without any backup except their implied position that they are telling the truth; something that neither you nor I probably have the scientifically verifiable means to determine unless given the unbiased data.

I don't mean that they are always wrong. From my point of view they are right most of the time, but perhaps wrong sometimes.

I'll also point out that Isaac Newton, who laid the foundations of Optics, Gravitation, Calculus, Orbital Mechanics, and significant portions of Observational Astronomy did not seem to see that much of a separation between his faith and his science, so maybe there is something to emulated here.

Again, the best to you!

GraemeSkinner · 2004-03-25 10:39:16

I know of some religionists who don't want to know, and their response to space exploration and etc. is "We don't need to know that, because God already does."

It seems a strange point of view to me at least, its like saying we don't need to know how to cure cancer as god already knows how. Religion has held science back in the past I hope it does not do so again in the future.

Bill White · 2004-03-25 13:11:37

I merely offer up some quotes:

"Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful" --Seneca (the Roman not the Indian tribe)

and of course St. Carl (Carl Sagan):

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said; grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed”? A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth the reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
CARL SAGAN,
Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1994

Julius Caeser · 2004-03-25 17:27:57

Correct me if i'm wrong..but i believe it was Arthur C Clarke himself who during a live teleconference from his home in Sri Lanka who said that the american orbiters had found evidence of vegetation on the surface of Mars and where theres vegitation,there must be something nibbling on it! Any thoughts about this statement?

~Eternal~ · 2004-03-25 17:52:38

I bet you alot of religion and YEC theology would die out.

dickbill · 2004-03-25 21:27:53

Is there any mention of Mars in the bible ?
I mean not just the "heavens" but Mars specifically.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 03:51:49

Hi RG,

Your comments indicate you're still accepting by faith

I'm glad you didn't perceive me as bashing you. It's not personal. But, to continue, I'm not clear on your definition of faith.
To me 'having faith' is equivalent to 'acceptance without question'. Inquiry implys questioning. Inquiry also implys examination, thought, and reason - explanation. Inquiry implys also an impetus to seek out knowledge; the active distrust of, or compulsion to go beyond, traditional assumptions of reality and knowledge. To know the unknown. To turn darkness into light, as it were. There are clearly different usages and meanings that are applicable to faith dependant upon context;
1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
2) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc.
3) Institution to express belief in a divine power.
4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person.

These definitions are weak, but hopefully that covers the word generally.

...you're still accepting by faith (within the english language meaning of the word) what NASA says without any backup except their implied position that they are telling the truth...

Implied position they are truthful? My education confirms it. (Which admittedly wasn't the greatest)
My life experience backs up my education. (with the exception of world politics and english literature)
I have reason - understanding - a foundation which bolsters my confidence in science and it's results.
Of course, if I were to test every hypothesis and theory, for myself, that has ever been postulated in the history of science - and that would be true to my convictions of questioning everything, I would not have enough life left to enjoy my personally verified findings. (This is a great way to understand science but at some point one must delegate the task!)There is a very real chain of reasoning and verification which has been worked hard for over the centuries. Probability is, that if what little of that admittedly huge edifice of knowledge I have absorbed through schooling has made any sense to me, then I am going to hazard a bet that the resulting logical chain of evidence to support the rest of the 'structure' is worthy of my trust.

...their implied position that they are telling the truth; something that neither you nor I probably have the scientifically verifiable means to determine unless given the unbiased data...

Why would they not be telling the truth? If you mean they speculate, and then could be proven wrong, well, yes. That's the scientific method. That's what happens. We test and validate and test again. If our results tell us we are wrong, we rewrite our textbooks. In science being wrong is a part of the process. Without that failure and error, questioning and testing, verifying and evaluating, we would not be practicing science, the search for fact and truth. If Nasa is bias, they will be rudely awakened for their stubborness by the scientific method itself and our human propensity for accepting nothing but the truth; what is actual - not wished or hoped, or assumed to be true...
Make no mistake, Nasa and all other scientific organizations have been wrong MOST of the time, during their process of investigations. Their success a mere pittance as compared to the vast list of their misguided, though innocent, failures. Just like MOST humans, throughout evolutionary history and time, were NOT selected for by nature; only a few were fruitful and multiplied, by analogy.

As for Isaac Newton, I don't know much about his personal life (with the exception that I've heard he was a merciless and nasty so n' so later in life, but that's just rumor.)
There are many scientists out there today who have no problem 'compartmentalizing', somehow, their religious faith. (though I suspect they are in a very small minority) I personally do not understand this. There's something scary about it and I'm highly skeptical of their depth of understanding, or perhaps purposeful ignorance, of what they practice, both professionally, in their scientific milieu and their personal religious lives. There's something suspiciously schizophrenic about the whole thing... I can't comment really because I just cannot comprehend the two notions 'living together' compatibly within the same brain. Very strange. I'm not a dualist, so I find it difficult to reconcile duality (a supernatural other-world, outside of what is understood or understandable... in the knowable universe we inhabit, which for me is all.) but then, ofcourse, we don't know eveything yet, do we? :;):

dickbill · 2004-03-26 07:29:51

My very personnal opnion about religion, specifically the miracles attributed to Jesus or others, is that there is not two worlds, one with physical laws for humans and another one with diferent physical laws that allow to walk on the water or multiplying breads for example.
The most anti-physical miracle, IMO again, is ressucitation.
You realize that if you accept the theory of evolution, life on earth has appeared ONCE (well, maybe after different attemps, but say 100 millions years after the first genesis ) so ressucitation is like a second genesis. Once your dead you're dead, you are not different from a stone, making a stone alive is impossible.
So either these miracles are "symbolistics" stories of a more modest reallity (or jsut big lies), or, since their is ONE universe with physical laws followed by everybody on earth from Britney Spear to Jesus Christ, that means these physical laws are either incomplete or are still approximating the real physical laws, laws that allow miracles.
stupid ? not quite. Think about the recently discovered quantic and thermodynamic laws. There are a little bit counterintuitive, it is often said. For example, the modern interpretation of Ice is that ice is a crystal of water molecules. That means the molecules are positioned in a crytalline network and vibrate sligtly in their position, but don't "move randomly" like in liquid water or in a steam.
Now the notion of "moving randomly" is a thermodynamic statistical interpretation of a macroscopic system. In quantic dynamic, at the scale of the atome or single molecule, it is not possible to have both the exact position and the exact speed of a given atom.
If you put a pot full of water on the fire, the molecular agitation and speed of the water molecules will increase, until the water starts to boil. Until the water boils : that's what you expect. However, if one day it happens that this water actually transforms into ice, you would say it is IMPOSSIBLE, or it is a lie, unless Jesus Christ did it, in such a case you would then say it is a miracle. But actually it is not impossible, it is just UNLIKELY, as the mecules of water are randomly moving, there is still a chance, very little, but different of zero, that all the molecules of water in that pot on the fire, would move in a position like an ice crystal, and move synchroneously for a fraction of second, so that the water in the pot on the fire, instantaneously, would freeze. The more you heat the pot, the more it is unlikely that the water freezes. For practical matters, we would say it is impossible, but in theory it is not, only the odds are lower and lower.
Now the "miracle" takes another interpretation : it is just something very unlikely, but not impossible. No physical laws are broken anymore and there is no need for two worlds with different physical laws.
Maybe miracles are just that, manipulation of probability instead of forces. If you could control the entropic content of physical system without touching the temperature and volume of the system, that means you could control the probabilities associated with the description of that system. We don't know how to do that of course, but maybe Jesus Christ knew.

Julius Caeser · 2004-03-26 13:36:16

Personally i dont see why resurrection and miracles should be discussed in the context of finding life on Mars!Jesus of Nazareth story is a political..historical one that belongs to earth...now whether one believes in a divine dimension to this event is something that depends on each individuals beliefs.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 14:57:43

Thanks for that one Julius Caesar!!!
...perhaps you could find out for us what Herod had to say 'bout all this?! :;):

But seriously, the original question was the concern of religious perception or backlash with regard to finding life on Mars. The digressions come from an insistance to rationalize the compatibility of religion to scientific findings as a result of my focusing on a choice of words used by RG concerning the supposed 'faith of scientists' which I believe is a missapplication when used from within a religious context. This is a very simple, little, some think harmless, misrepresentation of the science community, as commonly refered to as... 'light hearted humour' is used to gloss over something that makes folks feel discomfort... after all, its annoying that a significant, factual detail should intrude on the comfy feelings of a feeling group of harmless, well-intentioned faithful. But this doesn't diminish, in my view anyway, the importance of it.
The innate tendency to ignore or brush off, or misinterpret, evidence and the methods used to obtain it by the religious because of the discomfort it creates within the 'spiritual' mind-set is palpable. The logical, rational part of that mind-set is forced to deal with actual results and forms of proof which counter the faith impulse to trust in traditional thought and ideas. "Don't question," they say,"Have faith in God! Jesus...(or whoever) will reveal the answers..."

There a number of states in the U.S. that feel the teaching of evolution, or the teaching of it without creationism as a 'balance', is unfair. Apparently the two subjects are considered on equal par. Either 'could' equally be true. I find this disturbing, especially if the creationist agenda is taught as if it were true. If that's the case then remove biology, geology, chemistry...any and all the sciences and lets go back to a predominately religious education system. Hell, while were at it, why not dissolve the separation of church and state?

Hi Dickbill,
What about Occam's Razor? The simplist explanation?

Maybe miracles are just that, manipulation of probability instead of forces. If you could control the entropic content of physical system without touching the temperature and volume of the system, that means you could control the probabilities associated with the description of that system. We don't know how to do that of course, but maybe Jesus Christ knew.

...or maybe they were metaphors used to comfort a superstitious population that desperately needed other-worldly comfort in a time which admittedly must have been torturous. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, but it's just that - a great story. They didn't have special effects in those days, so miracles of fiction had to suffice.

Pheww!!.. Now, having said all that. This whole diatribe was intended only as a point I wanted to make with regard to RG's innocent enough comment and word usage. I apologize for rocking the boat here. I felt a need to express something and I did, that's what forums are for after all. It's still a free country where religion and science can live, at least with civility, if not in marriage.

If life is found on Mars, and its proven to be Martian in origin, things are gonna change... gradually, over time...

Thanks for your patience.

dickbill · 2004-03-26 15:37:39

Hi Dickbill,
What about Occam's Razor? The simplist explanation?
Maybe miracles are just that, manipulation of probability instead of forces. If you could control the entropic content of physical system without touching the temperature and volume of the system, that means you could control the probabilities associated with the description of that system. We don't know how to do that of course, but maybe Jesus Christ knew.
...or maybe they were metaphors used to comfort a superstitious population that desperately needed other-worldly comfort in a time which admittedly must have been torturous. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, but it's just that - a great story. They didn't have special effects in those days, so miracles of fiction had to suffice.

Hi Marineris !
sure, it might just be that, symbolistic stories. However, that's a dangerous position, If everything is symbolistic in the bible then...what is true finally ?
Look, the whole point of christianity is simple and holds in a single point: Jesus Christ ressucitation. If it's symbolistic, then well, the whole edifice collapses. You are still free to declare yourself christian or not by the way, and the pope can still stays in place, even after this collapse. It's not what you say that matters but what you do.
But the problem is that ressucitation is "predicted" by the physical laws as being impossible. At that point you are trapped if you also believe, based on a philosophical considerations, that even those who "ressucitate" follow the physical laws. So 1) either those who pretend they ressucitated actually didn't... or 2) the physical laws incompletely describe the continum of "what is possible" in the universe.

It's a fake argument to say 'it don't matter your faith, it's allright to be a scientist and choose whatever fits your belief at your convenience because science study the laws of science and God has its own laws that don't matter for us'. It's a fundamental and very deep problem of philosophy and science. I very deeply believe that Jesus Christ was submitted to the same gravitational law of attraction than you and me and so, he could not possibly walk on the water, etc. But I still believe he did, without special physical laws (otherwise called magie). So ?

Dook · 2004-03-26 16:04:02

Just looking at any of the Hubble deep field pictures is enough to prove to me that intelligent life is likely very plentiful throughout the universe, otherwise, what's the point? All of this cannot be just for us. Through history we have consistantly and incorrectly thought that we (humans) are the most superior beings in the universe and the only creation of God. Earth centric solar system, man not evolved from common form with apes... And all of that wrong, wrong, wrong. We need to humble ourselves and realize that science is simply discovering the clues left by God when He created everything. Why wouldn't God start things off with a bang or make life plentiful everwhere? Just look at all the life on this planet alone. If we do find life elsewhere then those who's religion cannot accept alien life forms simply need to change their religion. Religion should not dictate how God can create a universe and have intelligent life form in it. God dictates, religion is forced to understand and accept it. Period.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 17:21:37

Geeze whiz!
I really opened up a great and Holy can o' worms here, eh?:D
...that's what I get for opening my big mouth...
Hey Dickbill,

..that's a dangerous position, If everything is symbolistic in the bible then...what is true finally?

What is truth? Now there's a loaded question. Without getting to deeply into a theological arguement, suffice to say that I think truth is what is verifiable and actual. Truth is a tough word to define in any case. I'd hope that the bible was not the only guide post or tool a person had for truth. Symbols and metaphors are devices used in literature to reveal the various forms of philosophic and moral truths pertaining to their protagonist's circumstances. The moral truth of a man who was believed to have sacrificed himself for the sake of others is a powerful one - it doesn't require any science to verify that.
People being ressurrected from the dead, born of virgin birth, walking on water, etc, if taken seriously and literally must come face to face with what knowledge and experience has proven as possible or impossible. Works of fiction, whether based on real people that actually existed in history or not, can still 'move mountains', as it were. It's called inspiration and it's an awesome motivator, but science and factual knowledge can inspire and motivate too, profoundly! I'm not saying get rid of the stories. I'm saying lets put them into clear perspective. Love still exists. Sacrifice for the greater good still exists. The religions of this world do not have a monopoly on Morality, and neither does a single book of poignant stories. I do not and will never discount the emotional, moral, and philosophic power of any type of historic literature. It is indeed vitally important and has its own right to exist, after all, we owe some degree of gratitude to it's attempt to bring civilization and the trauma of everyday life to a manageable, bearable level. In my opinion we needed it to reassure ourselves when dealing with the 'unknown' and to deal with our mortality. But today, the situation is substantially different. Science is clearing a path through the unknown in ways the stone age peoples of years past would consider godlike. We have grown up considerably since those desperate times and are continueing to grow every day. There is no need to throw away morality or discount it. Indeed, if we lose our humility, I suspect we will perish as a species, and the universe will go on, unaffected by its loss.

If it's symbolistic, then well, the whole edifice collapses... It's not what you say that matters but what you do.

Great point. You learned that message well. If it were proven that Jesus did not exist, irrefutably, why should that fact change your faith toward humanity? You now have the gift of understanding an important lesson of life! Should his existence make any difference? The hero, in fiction has not suffered in vain IF, the reader has appreciated and embraced respectfully that character's burden. No writer writes from a blank slate! Where does all the great written material come from? It is copied from, life! We should relish that awesome, creative gift of imagination to get across an important point to any who will listen. We don't have to jump off a cliff to know what will happen in reality. We don't have to nail ourselves to a cross to understand the passion. Jesus doesn't have to be made real, in the flesh, physically, for his message to be meaningful or any less real, any more than he would have to be born of virgin or walk on water. You, will take care of the real stuff, the meaningful, humanistic stuff, in the here and now, because you care and you are actually here. Why have a crutch?

It's a fake argument to say 'it don't matter your faith, it's allright to be a scientist and choose whatever fits your belief at your convenience because science study the laws of science and God has its own laws that don't matter for us'. It's a fundamental and very deep problem of philosophy and science. I very deeply believe that Jesus Christ was submitted to the same gravitational law of attraction than you and me and so, he could not possibly walk on the water, etc. But I still believe he did, without special physical laws (otherwise called magie). So ?

It is important. Your absolutely right, dickbill. What do you say? Do you think that if we go on discussing this long enough, that we will build a bridge of understanding between religion and science? :;): Some of what I said above pertains to what you said here. When all is said and done it is ultimately your personal choice how you want to live your life and think about life. I don't have a solution for you or an answer. I've done my best only to examine more closely some problems inherent in the Faith versus Skeptical Inquiry debate. I can only say with certainty that we as humans do what we must to get through this life. Everyone is different and is entitled to their way of life and opinion of what it means and is. I can do no more.

dickbill · 2004-03-26 18:52:59

Do you think that if we go on discussing this long enough, that we will build a bridge of understanding between religion and science? :;):

We've got a long way from life on Mars but here you point to a question that is crucial : the gap between science and religion.
I think the gap is smaller than it was 200 years ago, still a lot of questions are unanswered, but at least, we can foresight, maybe, some begining of answer for the far future. Think about the quantum theory, cosmology, the anthropic principle etc. None of these explain any religious "mysteries" but they are less hostile to the concept of God.
I want to come back to a point I made before. It's funny that the christian religion is based on a "fact" (provided It was a fact) the ressurection, which cumulates the most forbiddden events of all the physical laws in science. This event implies biogenesis (life created for the second time after 3.8 billions years on Earth, without an evolutionary path and natural selection and arrives, straight, to an human being), transmutation of elements (degraded molecules of a dead body transmutted into new atomes and molecules), violation of entropic considerations (the dead body content in negentropy, or information has disapeared, the DNA has been degraded, the neurones degraded, Mr Christ after resurrection is not like a clone of himself since his DNA information has been lost, what is he then, where the information comes from ?). This last violation is the worst. And despite all what I say, I still believe in some rationality.
Does it explain something if I say "locally, the laws of physic can fluctuate as long as globally they stay constant in average". That sounds like a bad metaphysical pseudo scientific essay, sorry.

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-26 20:48:45

That sounds like a bad metaphysical pseudo scientific essay, sorry.

Hey DB,
It sounds like you've worked very long and hard to reconcile your beliefs with science, and vice versa. I suspect many would agree with you on the pseudo-scientific point. I can't comment on your personal ideas here as you seem to dearly want to believe them in spite of what the scientific community might judge of them.
Carl Sagan wrote an excellent book called the 'Demon Haunted World'. In it he describes a Baloney Detection Kit which ironically enough states that: "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")." There may be something missing from this though...and that is the rest of what constitutes valid scientific arguement, the points of which are listed here: [http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html]BDK While your pet-theory seems to take this single idea literally, stripped of its other complimentary points, it is a mistake to assume there is no collective, validated body of empirical knowledge which cannot be relied upon and should be treated with distrust. Sure, we are just beginning to learn about Quantum phenomena, and there's so much that we are discovering daily which appears, at first glance, to turn science on its ear. Yet every new discovery has the potential to, and has, turned science on its ear, for the moment. Eventually, though, and consistantly as with all new ground-breaking discoveries, with diligence and patience, reason has triumphed, and a whole new chapter of knowledge has been opened for everyone to benefit from.
To be more upfront with you; you seem to want to reject scientific knowledge for a more personal compatible version.
This is entirely up to you. I can only hope that you can at least see the possibility that this idea is antithetical to both the scientific understanding and religion itself. You may find you are just mentally tying yourself up in knots. Ultimately, your idea here is not consistant with the universe as we know it.

Dook · 2004-03-27 08:56:00

Conscience lies with the soul, not the brain. Your soul is that little voice inside of your head that you've been talking to your whole life.

The body is capable of regenerating every cell and actually living forever. It only dies when the soul departs. When we seem to die but somehow 'wake' up it just that the soul remained with the body during that time until the body could recover.

There is no gap between science and true religion. They are one in the same.

Julius Caeser · 2004-03-27 11:47:24

Thanks for that one Julius Caesar!!!
..erhaps you couldto .psay 'bout all this?! :;): find out for us what Herod had
But seriously, the original question was the concern of religious perception or backlash with regard to finding life on Mars. The digressions come from an insistance to rationalize the compatibility of religion to scientific findings as a result of my focusing on a choice of words used by RG concerning the supposed 'faith of scientists' which I believe is a missapplication when used from within a religious context. This is a very simple, little, some think harmless, misrepresentation of the science community, as commonly refered to as... 'light hearted humour' is used to gloss over something that makes folks feel discomfort... after all, its annoying that a significant, factual detail should intrude on the comfy feelings of a feeling group of harmless, well-intentioned faithful. But this doesn't diminish, in my view anyway, the importance of it.
The innate tendency to ignore or brush off, or misinterpret, evidence and the methods used to obtain it by the religious because of the discomfort it creates within the 'spiritual' mind-set is palpable. The logical, rational part of that mind-set is forced to deal with actual results and forms of proof which counter the faith impulse to trust in traditional thought and ideas. "Don't question," they say,"Have faith in God! Jesus...(or whoever) will reveal the answers..."
There a number of states in the U.S. that feel the teaching of evolution, or the teaching of it without creationism as a 'balance', is unfair. Apparently the two subjects are considered on equal par. Either 'could' equally be true. I find this disturbing, especially if the creationist agenda is taught as if it were true. If that's the case then remove biology, geology, chemistry...any and all the sciences and lets go back to a predominately religious education system. Hell, while were at it, why not dissolve the separation of church and state?
Hi Dickbill,
What about Occam's Razor? The simplist explanation?
Maybe miracles are just that, manipulation of probability instead of forces. If you could control the entropic content of physical system without touching the temperature and volume of the system, that means you could control the probabilities associated with the description of that system. We don't know how to do that of course, but maybe Jesus Christ knew.
...or maybe they were metaphors used to comfort a superstitious population that desperately needed other-worldly comfort in a time which admittedly must have been torturous. Don't get me wrong, it's a great story, but it's just that - a great story. They didn't have special effects in those days, so miracles of fiction had to suffice.
Pheww!!.. Now, having said all that. This whole diatribe was intended only as a point I wanted to make with regard to RG's innocent enough comment and word usage. I apologize for rocking the boat here. I felt a need to express something and I did, that's what forums are for after all. It's still a free country where religion and science can live, at least with civility, if not in marriage.
If life is found on Mars, and its proven to be Martian in origin, things are gonna change... gradually, over time...
Thanks for your patience.

My answer to Marineris regarding what Herod said or acted at the time is clear from the Bible itself.The New Testament scripts also make it evident that politics played a big role to what happened to Jesus of Nazareth.I'm wondering what all this has to do with finding life on Mars but since you mentioned that i'll elaborate on the subject.It seems that King Herod was afraid that Jesus would be a future King of Jews since he was related to King David :according to the Bible thru Joseph ,,his father.Some other sources not from the Bible suggest Mary was related to King David thru many generations going back about a 1000 years previous to the time of Jesus!So Jesus seems to have been a rightful King by inheritance!Some sources even speculate that Mary was married to King Herod and had children..Herod wanted his elder son to become King and NOT Jesus who was the son from a second marriage of Mary.The latter is what could have been the history of the real Jesus of Nazareth we dont read about in the Bible!Ok it's still speculation coz none of this has been proven(suggest u read The Marian Conspiracy by Graham Phillips)

Marineris Sauce · 2004-03-28 01:22:43

Hey JC,
I was joking. I burst out laughing when I read your name. That's all. ???

(I like that alternate theory... )

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-24 05:58:45

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#2 2004-03-24 07:34:35

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#3 2004-03-24 09:20:44

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#4 2004-03-24 20:15:51

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#5 2004-03-24 23:50:31

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#6 2004-03-25 07:50:02

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#7 2004-03-25 08:01:44

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#8 2004-03-25 10:26:32

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#9 2004-03-25 10:39:16

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#10 2004-03-25 13:11:37

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#11 2004-03-25 17:27:57

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#12 2004-03-25 17:52:38

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#13 2004-03-25 21:27:53

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#14 2004-03-26 03:51:49

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#15 2004-03-26 07:29:51

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#16 2004-03-26 13:36:16

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#17 2004-03-26 14:57:43

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#18 2004-03-26 15:37:39

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#19 2004-03-26 16:04:02

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#20 2004-03-26 17:21:37

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#21 2004-03-26 18:52:59

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#22 2004-03-26 20:48:45

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#23 2004-03-27 08:56:00

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#24 2004-03-27 11:47:24

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

#25 2004-03-28 01:22:43

Re: If life really was discovered on Mars - how would people react?

Board footer