What Effect

[chrisgel]

If any would the discovery of intelligent life on another planet in our Solar System have on religion on this planet?

[Khandro]

chrisgel; //and then disappears for an hour or two.// or even more, - unlike some, I do have a life beyond Answerbank.

[jomifl]

Khandro, Read what I wrote re. inhabitants. I think it is safe to assume that the inhabitants of another planet would not be human, therefore to compare like with like we would have to compare the total inhabitants on the hypothetical planet with the total inhabitants of Earth. It may have escaped your narrow view but most of the inhabitants of Earth are not human and many of them are intelligent, though most show no sign of intelligence at all.

[naomi24]

Khandro, Jim said…..//If God is unknowable then why do so many theists waste time trying? Also, if he's unknowable, then he'd leave no sign in this world (since any sign would be knowable), so he doesn't matter anyway.//

You called that ‘illogical nonsense’.

I added…..//If God is unknowable, you wouldn’t recognise any sign he might leave. If you did, he would then to some extent become ‘knowable’.//

The question is ‘why is that illogical nonsense?’ Explain please.

[emmie]

that many would see this as another part of God's plan. Or whichever deity takes your fancy

[jd_1984]

People with a true faith will find some form of rationalisation in their holy book.
True beleivers refute all scientific studies suggesting the true age of earth, despite compelling evidence.
I used to seek comfort in knowing that there is more than just our life on earth but with age and wisdom comes the realisation that it is literally to "mind blowing" to conceive (mind you the big bang theory does tend to blow ones mind too).. I have the upmost respect for those who do follow a faith and beleive that God created earth etc....

[Khandro]

jomifl; I accept what you are saying, pace my 'narrow view'. Though I think it fair to say that anyone using 'inhabitants' of the earth, particularly in the context of the OP would assume you were talking of humanity. If you were referring to all creatures great and small, the term 'sentient beings', which is used within the Buddhist canon, would be more apt methinks.

[jim360]

I don't see the flaw in my logic, no:

-- If the cup had a creator, we could know this, or not. If we knew it, then we could know something about that creator, even if it's not a particularly profound knowledge: "God, or the creator, is skilled enough to make this cup." So to an extent God would be knowable, and therefore not unknowable.

-- If the cup had a creator, but we could not perceive this, that would mean that we had conceived of a plausible alternative to the idea that the cup was made (or alternatively, that we weren't paying attention -- but we are paying more attention to the Universe than ever before, so...). So there exists a possible history of the cup that does not need a creator, that it just was. In such a history there is no way to distinguish between the cup being made, and the cup just appearing, so that to all intents and purposes the creator is irrelevant -- because you don't need him.

I do not say which of these is true, but: If God is unknowable, he is irrelevant; and if God is knowable, he is testable -- and, indeed, can be shown not to exist.

[naomi24]

Jim, Khandro is ignoring us. Can't think why - but the words 'failure', 'money', and mouth' spring to mind. ;o)

[Octavius]

jim, in assuming you mean man must know either all or nothing then your point is relatively defunct isn't it? Since we as humans don't know everything there is to know, and I'm not sure when we will know that we know that, which is in itself unknowing.

[jim360]

We don't know everything, no -- and never will. But as we learn more, the need for God is less, and I expect this trend to continue. But it's about perception too, isn't it? If you can look at the world and see God, you can know him. I was only ever attacking Khandro's description of God as "unknowable". At least, this time.

[naomi24]

Octavius, //Jim, in assuming you mean man must know either all or nothing then your point is relatively defunct isn't it? //

As far as I understand it, your assumption is incorrect. All or nothing doesn’t come into it.

Khandro claimed that God is 'unknowable'. Jim’s point was that if that’s true, then any sign that God might provide would go unrecognised – hence God would remain ‘unknowable’ – therefore why search for him?

[Khandro]

The problem I have with your reasoning jim is that you see yourself in an old fashioned light as an observer of the universe rather than a participant, it's as if you stand in a position of neutrality full of, or capable of, complete comprehension.
In reality you don't know anything much about the origins of the universe in which you exist; you don't know what caused the big bang, (or even if there was one), if there was, you don't know what happened in that 'important' nano-second after it, you certainly don't know what was before it, and you don't even know what banged, and maybe no one ever shall. To quote Martin Rees, The Astronomer Royal; "We should be amazed that our brains, which evolved to cope with the life of our remote ancestors, living on the African Savannah, have been able to get so far in understanding the counter-intuitive world of the quantum and things in the universe."
Given that this position is our status quo every bit of observable phenomena surrounding you is without pedigree.
To return to my statement earlier, it is therefor illogical (as you do not know from where anything originates) to state that you are cognisant of it's creation (or creator).

[naomi24]

Khandro, // it is therefor illogical (as you do not know from where anything originates) to state that you are cognisant of it's creation (or creator). //

Jim doesn't do that - but you, along with all the other religious people, do - and yet you're the one who states that God is unknowable. That sounds pretty confused to me.

[jim360]

No, I suppose I don't know those things (although I fancy I have a far better idea of what went on afterwards than you do). But then, it's equally absurd to say that you effectively do know what happened, by saying "The creator did it".

[jomifl]

Khandro, I think jim's understanding of humanity's place in the universe is the result of an honest attempt to separate fact from fiction. I am sure that jim if questioned would attempt to explain every step in the reasoning that has helped him to his current views. Could or would you do the same? I doubt it as you rarely answer a question.
In science the best measure of someones understanding of a topic is their ability to explain it in writing, perhaps you should try that, it might clarify your thinking.

[Khandro]

jim; As your post is addressed to me //it's equally absurd to say that you effectively do know what happened, by saying "The creator did it".//
By your use of 'you' instead of 'one' and placing "The creator did it." in quotation marks you imply that I have said such a thing, - I have not, and I would like you to make that clear please.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Back behind sofa. Raises head above it with pea-shooter. Just loving this one: the contradiction at the heart of Theism, that the Deity is ineffable, but yet we’re made in His image.

[jim360]

Clarity granted, although I don't see how this isn't a fair reflection of your views.

Thanks jomifl :). Should add that I haven't come to this view lightly and, as Naomi will surely agree, have spent the better part of my time in R&S trying desperately to maintain a sort of middle ground that probably doesn't exist. So in coming to this position I've tested every link both myself and in discussing with others, and I think -- think -- the chain is sound.

[Khandro]

^ //the Deity is ineffable, but yet we’re made in His image.// Don't shoot me daddy, I didn't say that either.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Your kind help and guidance is, as ever, appreciated.