When you think about it, Scientists have just replaced the Bibles supernaturalism and “angel beings” with scientific cool sounding beings on other planets. Of course Freud would say they have a problem with their mothers, but really the reason is the longing to have the significance they were created by God for. After all, what Sagan and others are looking for is intelligent life, not some slime dumbbell.
Is it because they recognise they have to account for man being different to the rest of the earth’s creatures? He has intelligence, he reasons, a big part supposedly of what scientists do. And if there’s no God then all that’s left is that somehow this extraterrestrial life arrived here on earth a bit earlier and left a bit here on earth in the form of ‘man’.
Even so, extraterrestrial beings, since they are part of the created cosmos don’t account for the human trait of reasons and intelligence. The Biblical God as the Creation account in Genesis 1 & 2 make clear, is that God created the Universe [ and all imaginary universes and parallel universes ]. He alone is Creator and separate from what He created. Pantheism isn’t right!
Rather You are significant because you are made in God’s image!
For some related ideas read Chuck Colson's review on the film avatar.
till later,
Gary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Carl Sagan passed away over ten years ago, and I don't think he was ever a "lonely" man. As a matter of fact, he enjoyed one of the most beautiful love stories known. His wife's being pusations were recorded and are on the disk which Voyager now takes beyond the solar system. Besides that, his scientific knowledge empowered him to see the universe as it is, which is an amazing experience. I don't ever hear of any scientist presenting "cool sounding beings" on other planets. Maybe you are referring to science fiction, very far away from real science. Seems to me that scientist are correct. If we look at the size of the cosmos and the little speck of dust we are, it follows that there are opportunities for life elsewhere. This inmature view that we must be the center of the universe, or that life cannot evolve anywhere else is rubbish. I for one, feel that this is an amazing universe that allows beings as complicated as we are to evolve. I don't need to attach a "God father" figure to that notion when there is absolutely no proof that a God even exists, except maybe for the childish desires we keep inside to have a "father" figure "follow us, and look after us". I feel sorry that people like you miss the bigger picture. And... please leave Carl Sagan's name alone, if you'd like to debate with someone, pick a scientist that is alive and can respond to your twisted view of the world.
Patricia,
your comments seem to miss my point. Making such a big deal out of evolution - from inanimate life to rational, caring loving thinking life is a problem not overcome. And so, many scientists who deal with the origins of life on this planet posit an intelligent lifeform out there in space, but that doesn't answer the big questions of life such as Why do I think? and Why do I love another person? Pantheism won't answer those questions nor account for them.
I wasn't suggesting Freud was right in his assessment either. It was an attempt, perhaps a poor one at reversing the often pointed barb against Christians, which on Freud's account can just as easily be made against some Scientists.
Don't you find it puzzling however that people who believe that man arose out of inanimate slime can and do love even though they cannot on their worldview account for that love?
regards,
Gary
Post a Comment