I am less sure that they are little green men, although I don't dismiss the possibility.In the interest of being transparent, I have to confess that I have absolutely no insider knowledge whatsoever that can shed any light on the matter in question. I do know a fair bit about what the UFO-believing community has come to a consensus on, but alien religion is not something that gets addressed very often. There is certainly no consensus on the issue.
But if we were to assume for argument's sake that they are aliens from Planet X, that would present some interesting theological questions for those who are religiously inclined. You and I have discussed this before over a game of Halo. If we are to believe the descriptions given by those who have claimed to see them, they do not appear to have been created in God's image. Do they worship Jesus? When the Second Coming happens what will that mean for them?
As far as aliens not being created in God's image, I'm not so sure. The probability of any two sentient species, within contact range, both evolving into humanoid forms is so infinitesimally small as to be functionally impossible. There would almost have to be an underlying driving force pushing both species to converge on highly similar, but not identical appearances. If that force is God, what does that imply?
One possible conclusion is that God may not look as much like us as Mormons tend to believe. I should note that mainstream (creedal) Christians believe that God is some unknowable, omnipresent cloud, and that we were only created in his 'spiritual' image (whatever that means). So the "in God's image" bit isn't really an issue for most religions. It does beg the question for anyone who believes that God created the entire universe as we know it, why did God pick such similar forms, but not the same form? If he did create us (and them) in his own image, then is it possible that he only pushed evolution toward humanoid forms, but left the final details up to purely random natural processes? If that's the case, might God actually look somewhat different than either species, but he chooses to appear to us (and likely them) in a form more consistent with our own appearance? I don't know, but the humanoid connection demands an explanation.
As far as the second coming, that's a whole different can of worms. We might assume that whatever the aliens' differences, they are probably subject to a Christian-like theology, complete with an eschatological redemption at the end of days. Again, I find that this assumption is unwarranted. While our own existence is a form of test, or spiritual evolution (according to virtually every religion, not just Christianity), that may not be the case for them. There are clear exceptions within (human) Christendom to the concept that we are being tested. Most Christians (even Catholics these days) believe that children who die are automatically given all of the glory of heaven. This is clearly not 'earned', nor have they accepted Christ (too young to even understand the concept). Some people only come to earth to get a body and move on - nothing more. So the idea of mortal life being a test is not universal. If that paradigm doesn't apply to a great many humans, it may not apply to entire species created by God.
Ultimately, the presence of aliens on earth creates plenty of questions and provides no answers. I am interested to know what other theories or conclusions other people come up with.
That's probably as good an answer as could be hoped for. I don't really expect anyone to know what aliens think or believe.
ReplyDeleteI do find it interesting that you were willing to accept the logical conclusion that God may not be human, a position I think many Mormons may find heretical.
There is actually some disagreement over the likelihood of intelligent alien life evolving into anthropomorphic forms. Evolutionary biologists believe that some physical characteristics, like eyes, have evolved many times separately because there are only a few basic forms that work.
I am willing to accept that God's physical form may be different, in aesthetic details, than humans. For me, the heretical 'bridge too far' would be the idea that our spirits/souls are different species. While human souls are not Gods, I believe like most Mormons, that our souls are the 'tadpole' versions of Gods - different in both quantity and quality of celestial glory, but capable of becoming the same. On that point, I'm as conservative as the next Mormon.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of biological anatomy having more likely outcomes (due to efficiency of design), I am not convinced at all that the humanoid form is an evolutionary imperative. The key ingredients in a highly intelligent species like our own are: 1. big brain, 2. high-dexterity environmental manipulators (some type of hand), and 3. communication mechanisms. Sure, we'd also need some type of sensory organs, eyes, ears, skin, etc. And we'd likely need some type of locomotion due to the predator/big brain connection. However, not much else about human anatomy seems 'necessary'.
From a purely Darwinian perspective, I look at octupi and squid as being prime candidates for evolving into sentient species. They're predators, predisposing (and enabling) larger brain size, and they have very capable tentacles, equal or superior to our hands in most respects. While auditory language may be difficult underwater (whales manage though), they already have skin color-changing signalling systems that could readily be adapted for language purposes. So why aren't UFOs piloted by water-breathing super-octupi or super-squid? (where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him?)
I'll also point out that things like eyes, feet, flippers and wings have taken on so many different forms that we don't always readily recognize them for what they are. The reports of alien anatomy compared to human anatomy, by comparison, are nearly identical on the surface. Aliens are supposedly bipedal, with binocular vision and single pairs of ocular, auditory and olfactory sensors in the same locations as our own. While evolution might demand that aliens have eyes, ears and noses, I have a hard time swallowing that they would naturally all wind up in the exact same arrangement as us, in terms of numbers and location.
Oh, I forgot. I should have mentioned this in the original post, but Judaism also claims an anthropomorphic God that created us in his physical image. In fact, some Judaic texts talk about the angels confusing Adam for God in the Garden of Eden.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to find out if there are any open-minded Judaic scholars who have addressed the alien question, and what their take might be.
My special forces comment was made as a half-jest. I think the aliens are operating with a more complete playbook, whatever their ultimate goal is. Clearly their technology is superior and yet, what do they do with it? Observe and occasionally meddle.Someone is calling the shots at a very high level of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that anthropomorphic forms are an evolutionary imperative (or perhaps one of a small set viable options) boils down to the proof being in the pudding. That is, humans are the only species on Earth to ever achieve higher intelligence and that is unlikely to be by chance. Therefore, given an Earth-like physical environment we should not expect a radically different result anywhere else. One biologist I read even described the likelihood of any intelligent alien life we meet having an anthropomorphic body as a near certainty. On paper octopuses may look like they have all the tools necessary to build a civilization, but maybe having to live underwater because your body has no bones is more of a hindrance than we realize.
ReplyDeleteNow, as I said earlier this is a controversial position and probably isn't even the most widely held view among those who postulate on such things. It also does implicitly dismiss the possibility that the only reason other species have not achieved a similar level of intelligence as we have is because The Man (God) is holding them down.
As for what God looks like, being anthropomorphic and being of a non-human species are not mutually exclusive. I thought you were on board with that possibility, but your last post seems to suggest not.
Bloody hell. I pulled a Stephanie and left out a whole entire word in my comment. I too will never be a writer. Sad face.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteHmmmm . . . I'm not convinced that we can infer anything based on a sample size of one. From a purely statistical perspective, that's the ultimate no-no. We'd need at least a few dozen examples of highly intelligent life to draw concrete inferences. I don't think that the lack of other (native) highly intelligent life forms on earth helps the argument much. Both arguments rely on the same assumption that lacks any quantifiable reliability. However, I will grant that we seemingly have at least two species to draw inferences from, and not one. And from those two species, the humanoid imperative theory is supported.
About God's species, I think we may be talking past each other. Assuming the Mormon perspective that "As man is, God once was - as God is, man may become", I AM agnostic about God's original species, and anything related to his current and objectively true physical form. I would assume that he is humanoid in his true PHYSICAL form, but that form may vary significanlty from human norms. My views are only specific in regard to the nature of souls. I believe that sentient souls are invariant across species - meaning I think we, the aliens, and God all have the same type of soul, even if our physical bodies are species-separated. So ultimately, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not? Thoughts?
Jason:
I would tend to think that the aliens are operating out of a complete playbook, but the diversity of alien interaction experiences seems to indicate that the only thing they agree on in relation to us is to avoid widespread disclosure. Why? I don't know.
My guess is that they are interested in some sort of resource exploitation, and they're being nice enough to not wipe out the natives while they're about their business. Is that some sort of Star Trek-esque 'Prime Directive'? Again I don't know.
If even half the reports are true, the American military has been waging a quasi-war with the aliens for 60 years now, downing alien craft whenever possible and frequently losing our own personnel and equipment in the effort. The fact that the aliens haven't wiped us all out after this much violence indicates that they are not simply indifferent to us. A substantial level of tolerant benevolence is indicated.
And Mike - being a good writer is all about revising. Blogs and posted responses are almost by definition first drafts. The rules of professional copy editing don't apply.
ReplyDelete*Happy face*
ReplyDeleteI understand now where you're coming from on the subject of God's physical form. I think you are agreeing with me, and I think that may make you a heretic. I am under the impression that Mormons believe Jesus was the literal physical Son of God. Maybe he just takes after his mother's side? Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God the Father. Could his appearance been an illusion of sorts?
As for the likelihood of anthropomorphic aliens arising from natural selection, from the perspective of those advocating a higher probability the sample set is actually all of the complex life forms that have lived on the Earth in its history, of which only one has achieved higher intellect. Therefore the sample size would be in the many millions.
Yeah, I may be a heretic, but a pretty inoffensive one. What I truly am is agnostic on the issue. It just doesn't matter to me one way or another if God really looks like I imagine him. It's not a fundamental concept related to my faith. I think it would be hilarious to get to heaven and find out God was a black guy. It would be so ironic in light of the standard Christian aesthetics about the color white and purity. Wouldn't bug me a bit though. If he's green, purple, or polka-dotted, it's all fine by me.
ReplyDeleteNow, about the sample size issue. This is the only part of the conversation that I can claim (any) expertise in, but you really can't include other earth species in the sample size. The problem is something called a "confound". There could be a billion different reasons why we are the only highly intelligent native species on earth right now. There is no way to statistically control for those other reasons. For instance, most biologists would probably argue that the reason we are the only highly intelligent species is simply because it takes several billion years of evolution to crank out an advanced species, and we just happen to be the first. Thus, in a couple hundred million years, the planet could be teeming with sentient species. We can't know either way. So we need other forms of data. We can't just assume that there is an imperative.
In physics they call that the anthropic principle - that the universe's highly improbable properties are what they are simply because those are the properties that gave rise to a species of life that could observe said principles. But no sane physicist would argue that the universe MUST have evolved those properties, because those are the ones that gave rise to us.
The only statistically sound approach is to collect a sample of species who HAVE evolved high intelligence, and then compare their anatomy. If they are all humanoid in form, then the imperative is probable. But no single species' form could be considered an imperative merely by comparing it to other lifeforms on its home planet. By that reasoning, there could be a race of super-octupi, a race of super-worms, and a race of super-canaries out there, all on separate planets. And each race could have concluded, in isolation, that their own anatomical form was an evolutionary imperative because it was the only one on the planet that produced a highly intelligent species. See what I mean?
Oh, I forgot to address the "illusion of sorts" comment. Yeah, I think it could have been. The scriptures also tell us that no mortal man can look upon God without being killed by the brilliance of his glory. By definition then, any mortal who has ever seen God has either seen God in some altered form, or they have been transformed themselves to be able to see God. Through either process it would be entirely possible for presented forms to be altered in order to more closely match expectations. I am not claiming in any way that this is the way it really is. But it's possible.
ReplyDeleteI do see what you mean. There is probably an answer for that, but I have exhausted my memory of what I read about it, and may have even distorted their actual position somewhat. I tried to find the article I read on the subject but my Google-foo has failed me. I did discover that Richard Dawkins is in the they-would-probably-look-like-us camp, but he wasn't the guy I originally read about.
ReplyDelete