Slashdot: Scientists Study Trajectories of Life-Bearing Earth Meteorites

[Predicto]

Considering the numbers, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that our planet is the only planet with life on it in the Universe.[COLOR="Gold"]

I can't say that I agree with you, because I have no idea how life began. The numbers of other suns and planets may be ridiculously large, but perhaps the odds of life beginning are even ridiculously unlikely.

We just don't know right now.


edit - as I read the rest of the thread it looks like I was beaten on this point. oh well

[PeterMP]

There is also the issue of how easily planets formed closer to the Big Bang. In general, it took some time for heavier elements to form, so a planet like ours, with an iron-nickle core was less likely to form earlier in the universe's history.

We're only now starting to find planets that are much older than our solar system: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46910290.../#.T4hja-1x56s

And their gas giants.

If there is a bias against slow cooling elemental rich planets occuring earlier in the Universe's history, then it isn't at all hard to imagine that intelligent life is "easy" (given Earth like conditions) and there aren't a lot of civilizations that have been throwing radio waves into the ether for long periods of time to detect.

[alexey]

I don't quite agree with this, because completely rejecting the supernatural is an assumption as well. I would say that we have evidence of something occurring but whether it is natural or supernatural is unknown. The evidence itself is agnostic unless you make an assumption either that supernatural forces exist or do not exist.

Well I guess it's 50/50 that supernatural exists then, right?

When you do history, you simply do not deal with the supernatural. When you go there, you are no longer doing history, you are doing theology. It is a misuse of language to say that there can be historical evidence for a supernatural event. At best, history can say that there is historical evidence for people coming to believe that a supernatural event took place. That type of a historical fact is extremely common in all cultures.

I think you have stated this well. I disagree with your use of the word "pretend," here, but I would say that my faith is based on a historical event. Whether that event actually occurred or not is a matter of historical evidence, but I would agree that my trust in a certain interpretation of that evidence is aided by a self-reinforcing faith and some personal biases. I can understand how people can reach the opposite conclusion, and sympathize strongly with an agnostic view.

I actually see no problems with a statement that your faith is based on a historical event. Just don't claim it to be a supernatural historical event - those are not possible.

Concerns that I am raising have to do with presenting theological conclusions as historical conclusions.

...and nobody's claiming visions of Trayvon Martin. You at least have to agree that it's more likely that Jesus was resurrected than that Trayvon Martin was resurrected.

This would be like saying, surely I think it is more likely that Mohammed actually talked to angel Gabriel compared to a contemporary person who is having hallucinations of talking to angel Gabriel. I'm pretty sure that the brain activity of people seeing resurrected Jesus would be very similar to the brain activity of conteporary persons having hallucinations of their loved ones while grieving.

These things look very different to somebody who has some understanding of neurobiology and does not have an assumption of the supernatural.

As for specific visions of Travyon... I am not sure whether visions were reported in this particular case. However, it is known that hallucinations during grieving are extremely common:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...ons-illusions/
Mourning seems to be a time when hallucinations are particularly common, to the point where feeling the presence of the deceased is the norm rather than the exception.

To try to bring this back to the topic of the thread, it has always been my belief that modern science is wholly compatible with the supernatural. With our current understanding of the probabilistic nature of quantum physics and the rejection of a clockwork universe theory, we seem to live in a world that we can describe pretty well with mathematical rules but where many things remain unexplained and unpredictable, and of course science explains some of the "how" and "what," but not the "why." It seems like we may never be able to clearly distinguish between certain things that could be supernatural or, as you say, natural but unknown.

Natural sciences can only study the natural world. Now, claiming that a particular observation is due to supernatural forces means that you are at a point where you are stopping your science and starting your theology. This is very different from saying that something is natural but unknown.

Initially, humanity started with pretty much all theology and no science. As we gained knowledge of the natural world, theology gave way to science... not without resistance, of course. And as you know very well, religion is still a big obstacle to science education around the world and here in the USA. The theoretical compatibility of religion and science that you speak of, it unfortunately does not seem prevalent in practice.

Neither do I see religion adding much value to any important philosophical questions... although examining human religions is certainly good for our self-reflection as a species.

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, there was resistance by people who thought that lightning was a way for God to punish the sinners. That was their answer to the "Why is there lightning?" questions. Not impressive at all. Religion's positions on other "why" questions tend to get better as they get closer to those produced by secular philosophies. Serve and fear God? Not impressive. Love each other, try to live in harmony, peace, try to reduce suffering, etc - now we are getting somewhere.

[DjTj]

Well I guess it's 50/50 that supernatural exists then, right?

It's only 50/50 if your choice is based on a coin flip.

When you do history, you simply do not deal with the supernatural. When you go there, you are no longer doing history, you are doing theology. It is a misuse of language to say that there can be historical evidence for a supernatural event. At best, history can say that there is historical evidence for people coming to believe that a supernatural event took place. That type of a historical fact is extremely common in all cultures.

I actually see no problems with a statement that your faith is based on a historical event. Just don't claim it to be a supernatural historical event - those are not possible.

Concerns that I am raising have to do with presenting theological conclusions as historical conclusions.

Now we're just arguing semantics. If your definition of "history" is secular history, then you're right. But I don't think that historians need to swear an oath saying that they won't study the supernatural. Divinity schools have historians, and history departments study religious history. I don't think there is an Establishment Clause that strictly separates the two.

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, there was resistance by people who thought that lightning was a way for God to punish the sinners. That was their answer to the "Why is there lightning?" questions. Not impressive at all. Religion's positions on other "why" questions tend to get better as they get closer to those produced by secular philosophies. Serve and fear God? Not impressive. Love each other, try to live in harmony, peace, try to reduce suffering, etc - now we are getting somewhere.

All you're doing is picking the secular philosophies that you like. There are also nihilist, utilitarian, and social darwinist philosophies that can lead people down destructive paths. I could easily say that the positions of secular philosophy tend to get better as they get closer to those produced by Christian theology. I personally find myself more confident in my liberal political beliefs because they have a basis in Christianity, although I know that many who call themselves Christians don't feel the same way. Religious thought has evolved over time just as secular philosophy and science have, and all are making progress but are also limited by human flaws.

...I'm trying to think of a way to talk about aliens at the end of this post, but I don't think I have anything more to add on that topic right now. If we want to continue this discussion, we may want to take it to PMs.

[alexey]

I can't say that I agree with you, because I have no idea how life began. The numbers of other suns and planets may be ridiculously large, but perhaps the odds of life beginning are even ridiculously unlikely.

We just don't know right now.


edit - as I read the rest of the thread it looks like I was beaten on this point. oh well

Well, I did make sure to write "it seems" rather than "it is"

Having a general idea of the size of the Universe, I think it would be hubris for us to think that the rest of the thing is lifeless and we are unique. That seems to be a very tempting, very human, and very flawed way of thinking.

Don't get me wrong - I do think that we are cool and all, very special, etc. I simply think that the kind of thing that happened on this planet (what we call life, what we call intelligence) will necessarily happen on other planets which have similar conditions.

[alexey]

Now we're just arguing semantics. If your definition of "history" is secular history, then you're right. But I don't think that historians need to swear an oath saying that they won't study the supernatural. Divinity schools have historians, and history departments study religious history. I don't think there is an Establishment Clause that strictly separates the two.

Makes sense. In my view the qualifier is necessary in case of religious history, but not necessary in case of secular history. If you are going to do history with an assumption of the supernatural, then I think you need to explicitely specify that. My limited exposure to the subject matter left me with an impression that for people who do history there is indeed a wall of separation between these two, albeit not legal one

All you're doing is picking the secular philosophies that you like. There are also nihilist, utilitarian, and social darwinist philosophies that can lead people down destructive paths. I could easily say that the positions of secular philosophy tend to get better as they get closer to those produced by Christian theology. I personally find myself more confident in my liberal political beliefs because they have a basis in Christianity, although I know that many who call themselves Christians don't feel the same way. Religious thought has evolved over time just as secular philosophy and science have, and all are making progress but are also limited by human flaws.

Agree. I do not see secularism as the answer, but simply as a necessary condition to have the discussion. Secularism is a place where we can all meet and figure things out.

It is hard to mix discovered knowledge with revealed knowledge. It is hard to discuss proper behavior with people who believe themselves ordered by God to act in certain ways, etc.

...I'm trying to think of a way to talk about aliens at the end of this post, but I don't think I have anything more to add on that topic right now. If we want to continue this discussion, we may want to take it to PMs.

Sounds like we have reached some kind of an agreement here. I would love to discuss these topics further, but I am not sure where else this particular exchange can go. Thank you for taking the time! I find this stuff quite stirring but unfortunately I do not get to talk much about it.

[Predicto]

Well, I did make sure to write "it seems" rather than "it is"

Having a general idea of the size of the Universe, I think it would be hubris for us to think that the rest of the thing is lifeless and we are unique. That seems to be a very tempting, very human, and very flawed way of thinking.

Don't get me wrong - I do think that we are cool and all, very special, etc. I simply think that the kind of thing that happened on this planet (what we call life, what we call intelligence) will necessarily happen on other planets which have similar conditions.

If I knew how it worked originally (creating life from no life) I would agree with you. But I don't.

I am an agnostic's agnostic in this area.

[alexey]

If I knew how it worked originally (creating life from no life) I would agree with you. But I don't.

I am an agnostic's agnostic in this area.

I think we have to go against our wishful thinking here and assume that we are not special. After all, the Bible says that nothing is new under the sun

Agnosticism in this area strikes me as reluctance to accept an uncomfortable proposition.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't know,, how does one call one's self an "astrobiologist" when there is next to no proof that any life exists anywhere else?

It's like a degree in Santa Claus studies at this point.

~Bang

wait, what are you saying?

[Larry]

Have to add (as Larry will know) that more than a few cool science fiction stories has addressed how organized religion might handle the appearance of an advanced alien civilization with either the same/similar God mythos, or a way different one, or none, or (of course a common theme in the genre) that the aliens are "God" in terms of being responsible for life on earth and how that new found knowledge then impacts our world.

BTW, I've been meaning to respond to the easy pitch that you offered up, here. Apologies for the delay.

IMO, the best book ever written was Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End, which opened with Man being contacted by an ET race, and with religion's reaction to it. (And there's an even more religious tie-in, later.)

It's a bit dated. (The opening scene takes place on a Pacific Atoll, where a team of scientists are racing to launch America's first rocket, hopefully beating the Russians into space.) But then, after that opening scene, the book jumps forward like 50 years, so it's not like you're constantly tripping over anachronisms.

I think it's a really good book.

[PeterMP]

I think we have to go against our wishful thinking here and assume that we are not special. After all, the Bible says that nothing is new under the sun

Agnosticism in this area strikes me as reluctance to accept an uncomfortable proposition.

Why?

One data point is never very useful in terms of drawing a strong conclusion.

Drawing a conclusion from one data point as an incorrect thing to do.

[alexey]

Why?

One data point is never very useful in terms of drawing a strong conclusion.

Drawing a conclusion from one data point as an incorrect thing to do.

You are right. However, this is not a conclusion but an assumption.

In the absence of evidence that we are indeed unique, I think the default assumption should be that we are not.

(obviously our history of achieving "intelligence" and "sentience" is likely to be more unique than the mere fact of doing so)

[Renegade7]

We know that life doesn't need much once it is up going at some sort of substantial level. We have no idea what it really takes to start life. We really have no idea how many times on this planet there was some sort of "life" that went "extinct" without progressing to the level that it doesn't need much.

That's another reason why I find the Europa situation so fascinating. At minimum we're talking about 10 milesof ice encasing a completely isolated liquid water ocean (the thin ice theory sounds to thin to me) . If there is life down there, then's Europa's life spark would be completely separate from whatever sparked life on Earth. In theory.

Right now we can't even "prove" that there's life anywhere else in the universe except here. What would really be disappointing to me is if we did find extraterrestrial life, and then this "how did it start" argument comes back to this article of earth matter getting flung out into space in every direction.

[PeterMP]

You are right. However, this is not a conclusion but an assumption.

In the absence of evidence that we are indeed unique, I think the default assumption should be that we are not.

(obviously our history of achieving "intelligence" and "sentience" is likely to be more unique than the mere fact of doing so)

Saying something is EXTREMELY unlikely doesn't sound like an assumption to me.

I don't see a reason why we have to make an assumption in either direction.

---------- Post added April-13th-2012 at 11:13 PM ----------

That's another reason why I find the Europa situation so fascinating. At minimum we're talking about 10 milesof ice encasing a completely isolated liquid water ocean (the thin ice theory sounds to thin to me) . If there is life down there, then's Europa's life spark would be completely separate from whatever sparked life on Earth. In theory.

Right now we can't even "prove" that there's life anywhere else in the universe except here. What would really be disappointing to me is if we did find extraterrestrial life, and then this "how did it start" argument comes back to this article of earth matter getting flung out into space in every direction.

If there is life on Europa that is different than Earth' there is a good chance we'll be able to tell from the biochemistry.

It is unlikely that would even have even the same DNA/RNA bases.

[alexey]

Saying something is EXTREMELY unlikely doesn't sound like an assumption to me.

I don't see a reason why we have to make an assumption in either direction..

Because advancement of knowledge depends on being open to the right set of possibilities.