Religion in Science-Fiction?

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Pleas quote where they say: "There are no logically understandable rules biehind X"

Because I still think it is: "We don't know the rule behind X, so all we can say is a propability/approximation - wich does not means there is no Rule behind X."

 

Nice straw man. No one ever said "There are no logically understandable rules behind X."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

Schrodinger's Palindromedary

 

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

No one ever said "There are no logically understandable rules behind X."

In my understandign that is exaclty what dmjalund said all this time about quantum physics.

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

In my understandign that is exaclty what dmjalund said all this time about quantum physics.

 

To the best of my understanding, what you have been saying is that there are hidden variables unknown to science which, if known, would demonstrate that the universe is absolutely deterministic at all scales - that the total gestalt state, so to speak, of the universe, at any given moment, is the only possible state, and that if a hypothetical being could grasp that totality at a given moment, it would be possible to logically derive all previous and subsequent states.

 

What dmjalund - and Niels Bohr, John Bell (reluctantly, only after experiments designed to prove the position you have staked out convinced him otherwise) and lots of other people with doctorates and some with Nobels - has been saying is that a non-deterministic, that is, a "random" or probabilistic factor, is fundamental to the universe. So when a physicist says that a given atom of a given isotope has a 50% chance of decaying in a given time, that does not mean "If I knew more, I could give a definite answer." According to quantum theory as understood by most practicing physicists, there is nothing TO know that would change that probability to a certainty; a probability is what it fundamentally IS.

 

That conclusion may not be palatable to you - Einstein certainly did not like it, although I understand that late in life he said he had been wasting his time in struggling against it - but it is not the same as saying

 

"There are no logically understandable rules biehind X"

 

Although it's also true that Richard Feynman said "Nobody understands quantum mechanics" and Werner Heisenberg said "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think."

 

However, a rule that says "An atom of element X has a 50% chance of decaying in Y time" IS a logically understandable rule. I'm not especially gifted in the natural and mathematical sciences and I think I understand it. It also happens to not be a totally deterministic rule.

 

Because I still think it is: "We don't know the rule behind X' date=' so all we can say is a propability/approximation - wich does not means there [b']is[/b] no Rule behind X."

 

Feel free to think that, or think anything else you like. You will also find that there are indeed physicists who agree, and there is more than one theoretical interpretation out there. But as I understand it, the "mainstream" quantum theory - called the Copenhagen Interpretation - is the one you seem to dislike.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

When you click on the spoiler, you collapse a wave function. The palindromedary was only 50% present until you observed it.

 

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Feel free to think that, or think anything else you like. You will also find that there are indeed physicists who agree, and there is more than one theoretical interpretation out there. But as I understand it, the "mainstream" quantum theory - called the Copenhagen Interpretation - is the one you seem to dislike.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

When you click on the spoiler, you collapse a wave function. It was 50% present until you observed it.

 

I clicked the spoiler. Did I kill a Palindromedary?

 

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

To the best of my understanding' date=' what you have been saying is that there are hidden variables unknown to science which, if known, would demonstrate that the universe is absolutely deterministic at all scales - that the total gestalt state, so to speak, of the universe, at any given moment, is the only possible state, and that if a hypothetical being could grasp that totality at a given moment, it would be possible to logically derive all previous and subsequent states.[/quote']

I said:

[...]Our understanding of quantum physics (inlcuding nuclear decay) is probabilistic, because we cannot oberserve them.

 

That is why it says "complete state", wich includes the quantum states (and whatever will be determining them).

Yes, I believe that this I a likely possibility.

I also belive that, as with a new film, we have no way of finding out in advance where it leads, so we might as well get some popcorn and watch the show

 

What dmjalund - and Niels Bohr' date=' John Bell (reluctantly, only after experiments designed to prove the position you have staked out convinced him otherwise) and lots of other people with doctorates and some with Nobels - has been saying is that a non-deterministic, that is, a "random" or probabilistic factor, is fundamental to the universe. So when a physicist says that a given atom of a given isotope has a 50% chance of decaying in a given time, that does not mean "If I knew more, I could give a definite answer." According to quantum theory as understood by most practicing physicists, there is nothing TO know that would change that probability to a certainty; a probability is what it fundamentally IS.[/quote']

No, they only said "we can't measure it because of Heisenberg's Uncerctinity Principle and with our current understanding we will never be able to".

Our hypotethical "all knowing being" certainly needs a way to measure qunatums without affecting them, or he could not even measure the exact postion and velocity of a single quantums!

And he needs to know all of them and whatever effects/next smaller parts determine them. So an interpreatation based on our current abilities, says nothign about the possibilities.

 

Feel free to think that' date=' or think anything else you like. You will also find that there are indeed physicists who agree, and there is more than one theoretical interpretation out there. But as I understand it, the "mainstream" quantum theory - called the Copenhagen Interpretation - is the one you seem to dislike.[/quote']

As the name suggest, Coppenhangen Interpretation is just an interpretation of the obeserved effects. It is not a "these are the rules". Its a "these are the rules as far as we can observe them".

As with any interpretation, it might be overthrown by new insights made in the first minute following this post. Let's hope it is by some intelligent life on this planet.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

If you're going to argue about quantum physics, you'd sound more credible if you knew what the word "quantum" meant.

 

Also, you've thrown angry rhetoric around, but what you HAVEN'T done is . . .

 

Cite a source.

 

You're presenting your opinion as fact, you seem to be getting angry that people are suggesting the opposite viewpoint, but you're not doing anything to support your position except to restate it in stronger terms. I'm sure that if you step back and take a dispassionate look at the situation, you can see that this is no way to persuade anyone, even if your position IS correct.

 

Mainstream science didn't cheerfully abandon the idea of the deterministic universe because they didn't like it and had just been waiting for an excuse (see Einstein). Scientists reluctantly moved to the idea of a probabilistic universe only after experiments showed it to be the case. If you're going to argue a point that disagrees with mainstream science, the burden of proof is on you.

 

We're all friends here and there's nothing at stake. Relax, take time to collect your evidence, and enjoy the debate!

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Christopher, when I tell you what physicists have said on the subject, it accomplishes nothing to sit there and say "No, they didn't say that." You're not changing what they said. Feel free to say they were wrong, I suppose.

 

If you'd like to argue it further, I suggest you look up your local physics department and take it up with them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A palindromedary tagline is inevitable, but the specific wording is not predetermined

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

If you're going to argue about quantum physics' date=' you'd sound more credible if you knew what the word "quantum" meant.[/quote']

 

If you'd like to argue it further' date=' I suggest you look up your local physics department and take it up with them.[/quote']

 

How about the coppenhagen interpretation that you yourself cited?

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, representing the state of the system.

2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of an event related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it. (The Born rule, after Max Born)

3. It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

4. Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

For me it cleary states that the universe is governed by clear rules and variables. (1)

It also cleary states that for every variable we do not with certinity, we must give/use propabilty values instead. (2)

It further states that we can not know all these variales at the same time, so we always have to use some propabilities in our models. (3)

Oberservation of one and the same wave funtion can give you totally different results. And both are totally right. As both are totally wrong. Only all possible results taken into account toghter give us a full view.(4)

 

1 and 2 are like the Weather Forecast that says "20% chance of rain". We know that weather is as determinsitic as falling speed, E=mc² and gravitiy (if it exists). But we don't know all the variables involved with sufficient resolution, so the best our Weather Science can do is give us propabilities.

That doesn't makes Weather probabilistic. It means our weather models are probabilistic at best.

 

3 Is just the good old "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle". Something we can't overcome right now and that prevents us from understanding QP as well as we like to.

 

4 Is not that different to digitizing audio, video or any other analog signal via sampling. The difference is that our quantum physics models aren't okay with rough approximations of reality. At least not as much as are our eyes and ears (we can't even take 25/pictures per second and real movement appart)

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Christopher,

 

when you bring weatherman into the equation, you enter another realm of science.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I said:

 

Yes, I believe that this I a likely possibility.

I also belive that, as with a new film, we have no way of finding out in advance where it leads, so we might as well get some popcorn and watch the show

 

 

No, they only said "we can't measure it because of Heisenberg's Uncerctinity Principle and with our current understanding we will never be able to".

Our hypotethical "all knowing being" certainly needs a way to measure qunatums without affecting them, or he could not even measure the exact postion and velocity of a single quantums!

And he needs to know all of them and whatever effects/next smaller parts determine them. So an interpreatation based on our current abilities, says nothign about the possibilities.

 

 

As the name suggest, Coppenhangen Interpretation is just an interpretation of the obeserved effects. It is not a "these are the rules". Its a "these are the rules as far as we can observe them".

As with any interpretation, it might be overthrown by new insights made in the first minute following this post. Let's hope it is by some intelligent life on this planet.

 

When Bohr presented the Coppenhagen Interpretation of the quantum theory he stated that it was a "complete theory" and thus did not need to be and in fact could not be, further defined. Bohr went to the extreme, when arguing with Einstien, to claim that on the quantum level there was no observer independant reality. In other words, he claimed that, for example, since we could only observe an electron's position or momentum that any given electron didn't have either until the experiment caused the phenomenon. The conflict between Bohr and Einstein hinged on Einstien insisting on the notion of something existing being independant of the observer just like it is on the macroscopic level. For example, having both location and momentum even if we could only measure one or the other. His catch phrase of "God doesn't play dice" had less to do with disliking probability in physics than his dislike of the notion that something didn't have definite states of being just because we couldn't observe them. Even Einstien accepted that there were not "hidden variables" as both mathmatic equations (the matrix math that calculated as particles and the wave-function math that calculated as wave, yet both got the same result) were complete.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Sorry if I didn't state that very clearly. This book is worth checking out for anyone interested in the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Einstein-Debate-Nature-Reality/dp/0393339882/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322294028&sr=8-1

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Christopher, I don't care if you want to believe in a deterministic universe. As I understand it that's a position Albert Einstein maintained and defended fiercely, which puts you in honorable company. Einstein's debates with Neils Bohr on this and related topics are famous.

 

But as far as I know, Einstein never claimed that Bohr said anything other than what he said. You've done that sort of thing twice, and that does bother me.

 

First, your statement about "There is no logically understandable rule behind X." And it is your statement, I believe; I did not notice anyone but you saying it. Just because you don't like a rule or its implications does not mean it is "not logically understandable." I can think of rules I passionately despise but understand perfectly, but this isn't a political thread.

 

And then you post a summary of the Copenhagen Interpretation and go on as if it supports your position. It doesn't.

 

So as I say, if you want to maintain a deterministic universe, you're in agreement with some people much smarter than I am. You're also in disagreement with some very smart people includng Niels Bohr who won the Nobel Prize, John Bell who would have had a Nobel if he'd lived, and the average early 21st century PhD in physics. If you want to claim that your position is in accord with modern mainstream quantum theory, you are saying something that is flatly false. Even if you are correct about the fundamental nature of reality, maintaining something that is demonstrably untrue doesn't do anything to persuade anyone. You'd be better off looking up the minority positions like Superdeterminism or the Many Worlds Hypothesis. As I understand it, your position is still respectable among physicists. It's just that you seem to want to claim it's universal, and it's not even a majority.

 

I think I'm done now. If the last word is important to you, feel free to post again, or twenty more times. But I suggest you look up a physicist instead. Preferably one that agrees with you, because they would probably also point out to you that most of their colleagues don't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

 

 

[wrestlinggeek]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

---snip---I think the biggest challenge to contemporary-style religion in a sci-fi setting would simply be the existence of other sapient species in the universe' date=' since that would throw the current thinking of most religions for a major loop.[/quote']

 

Why? Speaking as a Christian, I fail to understand how the existence of alien races elsewhere in the universe conflicts, in any way, with my religion. Yes, I believe there are other races out there. Yes, I believe God created them as well as us. Yes, I believe they are also created in His image. Does that mean they physically resemble us? Not necessarily. I belive being in God's image means we are thinking, feeling, loving, cerebral, emotional beings. I do not understand, and never have understood, this theory in science fiction, that first contact with an alien race would cause such devastating problems for religion. Can someone explain this to me?

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why? Speaking as a Christian' date=' I fail to understand how the existence of alien races elsewhere in the universe conflicts, in any way, with my religion. Yes, I believe there are other races out there. Yes, I believe God created them as well as us. Yes, I believe they are also created in His image. Does that mean they physically resemble us? Not necessarily. I belive being in God's image means we are thinking, feeling, loving, cerebral, emotional beings. I do not understand, and never have understood, this theory in science fiction, that first contact with an alien race would cause such devastating problems for religion. Can someone explain this to me?[/quote']Theres this impression, trope even, that all religions are primitive, supertitious and stupid.

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why? Speaking as a Christian' date=' I fail to understand how the existence of alien races elsewhere in the universe conflicts, in any way, with my religion. Yes, I believe there are other races out there. Yes, I believe God created them as well as us. Yes, I believe they are also created in His image. Does that mean they physically resemble us? Not necessarily. I belive being in God's image means we are thinking, feeling, loving, cerebral, emotional beings. I do not understand, and never have understood, this theory in science fiction, that first contact with an alien race would cause such devastating problems for religion. Can someone explain this to me?[/quote']Well if your god sent his ONLY son to Earth to save humanity, who saved the aliens? The OT never mentioned aliens and the only sentient non-humans he supposedly created were angels. Aliens present a problem in that they are something your god did not create exists. I remember reading about a monk who was executed for thinking aliens existed.

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Theres this impression' date=' trope even, that all religions are primitive, supertitious and stupid.[/quote']Well the major religions of today were created thousands of years ago when people knew little about the way the world worked. So you have "primitive". Religions are "superstitious" pretty much by definition. And I can't touch the last one without violating TOS.

[Orion]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why? Speaking as a Christian' date=' I fail to understand how the existence of alien races elsewhere in the universe conflicts, in any way, with my religion. Yes, I believe there are other races out there. Yes, I believe God created them as well as us. Yes, I believe they are also created in His image. Does that mean they physically resemble us? Not necessarily. I belive being in God's image means we are thinking, feeling, loving, cerebral, emotional beings. I do not understand, and never have understood, this theory in science fiction, that first contact with an alien race would cause such devastating problems for religion. Can someone explain this to me?[/quote']

 

I personally know Christians that would strongly disagree with you. Among other things they have told me, they believe there were never dinosours, because they weren't mentioned in their Bible. Likewise, because aliens and other worlds were never mentioned, they cannot exist. If they do exist, or if any evidence is found indicating they once existed, it can only be because Satan put them there to mess with us. It was once believed that the universe revolved around the earth, and some still cannot accept that the universe and the meaning of life does not revolve around humans and their personal belief system.

 

Say we do meet aliens. If they do have a very similar set of beliefs to Christians, it means something wasn't revealed in the Bible, and some cannot handle this. Did the aliens have a Jesus figure as well? Who had the better Jesus? Did he teach the exactly same lessons to both? If not, do we have to accept each others teachings? If they do not have a Christian religion, why not? Has God chosen to deny heaven to them? Do we have to go "save" all them now, or are they not worthy of the honor? What if all the aliens seem to be Hindu, or Jewish? If they have anything similar to one of our religions, I think this would greatly help that religion, and greatly hurt the rest.

 

What if the aliens are technologically, mentally, or philosophically advanced of us? The universe and all in it was supposedly made for Christians, so why are we not in charge? Christians have been able to lord it over the natives of several continents for some time. They tend to have a superiority complex, and feel the need to bring civilization and learning to the "less advantaged". If it turns out we are one of the less advantaged in the universe, that will seriously upset the thinking of many people. How could our god do this to us? Some will immediately accept the alien's religion on the grounds they are more advanced, and thus know a better way.

 

To atheists like myself, and those that believe all religions are but incomplete pieces of the truth, aliens will not upset our views on religion. But for many, it will, because they cannot handle the questions it will raise.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

If they have anything similar to one of our religions' date=' I think this would greatly help that religion, and greatly hurt the rest.[/quote']

 

"Then Alien Jesus turned water into gasoline." (The E-Mails of Bud, circa 2012)

[wrestlinggeek]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Well if your god sent his ONLY son to Earth to save humanity' date=' who saved the aliens? The OT never mentioned aliens and the only sentient non-humans he supposedly created were angels. Aliens present a problem in that they are something your god did not create exists. I remember reading about a monk who was executed for thinking aliens existed.[/quote']

 

Executed or excommunicated? If the former, then it has to be an urban legend, because there's no way that would happen in any era where the idea of aliens would even come up. As for the rest, and the other responses I've gotten, it's true that the Bible does not directly mention aliens. Nor does it say that they DON'T exist, either. And science has discovered several things not in the Bible (dinosaurs, nuclear power, other planets) that aren't mentioned in the Bible without destroying Abrahamic religion. As for the idiots who deny the existence of such things, they are a fringe group, not mainstream Christianity. And just because Jesus is God's only Son doesn't mean Earth is the only world where He manifested. Every planet with sentient life may have had it's own Jesus (please realize here that I am working off the idea that my religion is the correct one. if you disagree, that's OK, but you're not going to convice me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong. so let's not argue.), or it could be humanity's mission to spread the Word throughout the Universe. I don't know, and I probably never will during my lifetime. Still, it doesn't expalin why so much science fiction just assumes that religions that have endured thousands of years will die out in the next couple of hundred. Or won't be able to weather the next few scintific discoveries as they have so many before.

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Executed or excommunicated? If the former' date=' then it has to be an urban legend, because there's no way that would happen in any era where the idea of aliens would even come up. As for the rest, and the other responses I've gotten, it's true that the Bible does not directly mention aliens. Nor does it say that they DON'T exist, either. And science has discovered several things not in the Bible (dinosaurs, nuclear power, other planets) that aren't mentioned in the Bible without destroying Abrahamic religion. As for the idiots who deny the existence of such things, they are a fringe group, not mainstream Christianity. And just because Jesus is God's only Son doesn't mean Earth is the only world where He manifested. Every planet with sentient life may have had it's own Jesus (please realize here that I am working off the idea that my religion is the correct one. if you disagree, that's OK, but you're not going to convice me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong. so let's not argue.), or it could be humanity's mission to spread the Word throughout the Universe. I don't know, and I probably never will during my lifetime. Still, it doesn't expalin why so much science fiction just assumes that religions that have endured thousands of years will die out in the next couple of hundred. Or won't be able to weather the next few scintific discoveries as they have so many before.[/quote']

 

Giordano Bruno was NOT an urban myth. He was a real person who was executed, as in burned at the stake, for suggesting the sun was a star like others and that other stars could harbor life-bearing planets as ours does. Look it up!

 

As for what "mainstream" Christianity denies, for starters you have evolution which the majority of Christians in the US denies which include all the GOP candidates for President. That's a bit more than a fringe group. It's not mentioned in their Bible yet it has been proven true.

 

Part of why SF assumes that religions will die out is looking at current trends. In the past few hundred years scientific discoveries have hacked away at the authority and claims of the church. For example science has shown the universe does not need a creator and was not created as described in holy books. In most civilized parts of the world, the influence of religion has been decreasing as more people either don't take it as literally or even leave it all together. With science, people have come to expect more proof than a collection of books selected by a committee can provide. As the demand for solid evidence increases those who cannot provide it will wane in influence and size. SF also looks at past trends. The religions of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians also endured thousands of years but they have died out as well only to be replaced. Why should today's faiths be exempt from that pattern? So I guess a better question should be, why do you assume today's religion would continue to endure when so many others have faded away?

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

In my opinion (a deflationary truth statement), the basic notion of God ("The Capitalized") is an antique.

 

God "exists" in contrast to the human soul.

 

The closest thing to a medieval (pre-enlightenment) God in SF is Cthulhu.

 

Well if your god sent his ONLY son to Earth to save humanity' date=' who saved the aliens? The OT never mentioned aliens and the only sentient non-humans he supposedly created were angels. Aliens present a problem in that they are something your god did not create exists. I remember reading about a monk who was executed for thinking aliens existed.[/quote']

 

The monk was a heretic.

 

Executed or excommunicated?

 

Heresy can be a serious offense punishable by death. It has happened more than once in recorded history.

 

Here's a poem called "What He Thought" by Heather McHugh:

 

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/180964

 

"His crime was his belief

the universe does not revolve around

the human being: God is no

fixed point or central government, but rather is

poured in waves through all things. All things

move. "If God is not the soul itself, He is

the soul of the soul of the world." Such was

his heresy." (the good part)

 

If the former' date=' then it has to be an urban legend, because there's no way that would happen in any era where the idea of aliens would even come up.[/quote']

 

I know what you are talking about, but it doesn't make sense.

 

If the subject of 'aliens' can get you killed, some notion of what an alien is is required. Otherwise, why would anybody get upset about it?

 

Aristotle called aliens (of ancient Greece) "barbarians" because he thought they sounded like sheep. But these aliens were not extraterrestrial.

 

However (according to legend) Aristotle died in exile (which is historically true), underwater searching the seas for new forms of life. Make of that what you will. It's fun to just think about.

 

Aren't humans awful (i.e., awesome)? A collation of Kirk's monologues on humanity would make a great video.

 

As for the rest' date=' and the other responses I've gotten, it's true that the Bible does not directly mention aliens. Nor does it say that they DON'T exist, either.[/quote']

 

Well, that's one narrative. Here's another:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

 

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

The above is King James' version of Genesis 6:4, supposedly composed by Moses.

 

Literally, in the past (way before Moses... which blows this whole account of Moses's out of the figurative historical water, as one can only generate one's own history, not that of others), some of God's male offspring (giant extraterrestrial humanoids) procreated with terrestrial human females.

 

So these nephilim fathers were technically the same species as humans... but they were not "of humanity". That is explicit.

 

Taxonomically, that means the distinction between nephilim & humanity is on an order beyond mere 'species' & more like the distinction between cyborgs & robots... which are not very different.

 

And science has discovered several things not in the Bible (dinosaurs' date=' nuclear power, other planets) that aren't mentioned in the Bible without destroying Abrahamic religion. As for the idiots who deny the existence of such things, they are a fringe group, not mainstream Christianity. And just because Jesus is God's only Son doesn't mean Earth is the only world where He manifested. Every planet with sentient life may have had it's own Jesus [b'](please realize here that I am working off the idea that my religion is the correct one. if you disagree, that's OK, but you're not going to convice me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong. so let's not argue.)[/b], or it could be humanity's mission to spread the Word throughout the Universe. I don't know, and I probably never will during my lifetime. Still, it doesn't expalin why so much science fiction just assumes that religions that have endured thousands of years will die out in the next couple of hundred. Or won't be able to weather the next few scintific discoveries as they have so many before.

 

That is all very cool.

 

The fact that you seemed to be participating in the discussion fooled me into believing that you actually were.

 

"The devil can site scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek." (Merchant Of Venice)

 

Interestingly enough, the above Merchant quote (supposedly composed by Shakespeare) is a reference to the logic battle between Jesus (who need no introduction) & the Devil, the "original" alien.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Giordano Bruno was NOT an urban myth. He was a real person who was executed' date=' as in burned at the stake, for suggesting the sun was a star like others and that other stars could harbor life-bearing planets as ours does. Look it up![/quote']

 

Great minds think alike, and so do ours, obviously.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I suspect UUs would adjust to the existence of aliens without really needing any major revision of doctrine(such doctrine as exists for UUs, anyway).

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Executed or excommunicated? If the former' date=' then it has to be an urban legend, because there's no way that would happen in any era where the idea of aliens would even come up. [/quote']

I like your world better than the one I live in.

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[1] He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

[Manic Typist]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

As for what "mainstream" Christianity denies, for starters you have evolution which the majority of Christians in the US denies which include all the GOP candidates for President. That's a bit more than a fringe group. It's not mentioned in their Bible yet it has been proven true.

 

Um, I feel like you're just making a claim here because it helps you. Because I sincerely doubt the majority of US Christians flatly denies evolution (believing in Intelligent Design, however....). Also, the candidates are definitionally a fringe group catering to fringe tastes in order to secure additional votes.

 

Also, perhaps you shouldn't state so emphatically to someone (after seeming to be offended by their question) to "Look it up!" You provided a vague anecdote, the onus is on you to cite it.

 

 

*Remembers a movie with a bunch of kids who were in this fairy land, but were captured by evil creatures and pretended to drink a drink that made them evil too so they were let out and thus they escaped.*