Wednesday, February 25, 2015

E.T.


Another point that young-age creationists would raise is the idea of the universal Fall.  Creationists (like me) believe that human sin altered creation so that now "the whole creation has been groaning" (Rom. 8:22).  That groaning came from the curse placed on creation because of Adam's sin.  So if there is intelligent life on another planet, then that would seem to be part of the creation that is groaning, which means they've also been cursed because of human sin.  That seems unfair.
We could also look at the passages of the New Testament that emphasize that Christ died once for sin (I Pet. 3:18, Heb. 9:28, Rom. 6:10), which is taken to imply that there would be no redemption available to intelligent life on other planets, since Christ died here and not there.  Otherwise, He would have died twice, and that's not what the Bible says.  This flows into the exclusivity claim of Christianity: Christ is the only way to God.  Religious pluralism is false; therefore, there can be no alien Jesus, because that would be a second way to God. 
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2015/02/reader-question-but-what-about.html

This is a very outre debate. I have no stake in the answer. The question is purely speculative. And I have no opinion regarding the existence of other physical lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. If they exist, they too are the product of divine creation. 

The question holds some hypothetical significance because you have Christians who imagine that this scenario would falsify the Christian faith. 

i) In my opinion, the fall directly impacts the human condition and the angelic order. Angels are not alive in the biological sense. Strictly speaking, the "universe" denotes the physical cosmos. Angels are not a part of the universe, although they are able to interface with the universe.  

ii) I think the basic error is hermeneutical: overextending passages whose intended scope concerns life on earth (or fallen angels). I don't think Biblical language speaks to the issue of extraterrestrials one way or the other. It has a terrestrial orientation. Not "universal" in the cosmic sense. 

iii) If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, they didn't fall in Adam. Adam wasn't their progenitor or federal head. 

iv) In principle, I don't think Biblical language precludes the Son from becoming incarnate at more than one time or place to redeem fallen aliens, if such exist. For the intended range of reference concerns the unrepeatability of the Incarnation with respect to God becoming human (more precisely, the Son assuming a human nature) to redeem fallen humans. In context, he died once for all time for human sinners. It's unique in that regard. The status of aliens falls outside the purview of that discussion. 

v) Christ is the only way to God because humans are sinners who require a mediator. A redeemer. Unfallen aliens don't require a mediator or redeemer. 

In an E.T. context, there's still the same God, the same Trinity, the same eternal Son. That is universal, in the cosmic sense–or even a multiverse.

4 comments:

  1. Seems to me that the problems with space travel make it highly unlikely that we would ever know that there is intelligent life elsewhere. I also think the big 0 by SETI says a lot about our p,ace in the universe. Finally, I think viewing the ET phenomenon under the view that it is paranormal is more satisfactory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have thought about this too. I agree the bible does not limit God's plans for other parts of this time-space universe. Writers of scifi do consistently describe a disjointed universe of sentients. CS Lewis was an exception which we are all aware.

    In paragraph iv), I think you meant to use purview rather than preview.

    Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    In theory if there were intelligent (at least human equivalent) life elsewhere in the universe that is non-human, would that imply that they are morally perfect beings that exist within a fallen universe? It seems to me that the possible scenarios in that case would either be that, or perhaps that the entire universe is not fallen or imperfect in the way often conceived of by Christians (I suppose OEC/ Theistic Evolution conception of the universe would have a leg up in that scenario). Do you think the existence of such life would commit Christians to the latter scenario or do you think Christians could maintain the idea of a fallenness in the physical universe? Also it would seem that if such lifeforms existed and were not fallen they would have to in some way worship the one true God and be morally exemplary, perhaps even under some type of covenant of works. Do you suppose such a scenario where you have a fallen civilization under a covenant of grace and a perfect civilization under something like a covenant of works existing in the same universe is possible? In contrast if they are fallen and are on a separate redemptive-historical timescale do you think it would be legitimate for Christians to join with their counterpart religion if it could be identified? For that matter is there any reason in principle why their incarnation and redemption event might not yet be future? I keep running into these sorts of logistical tensions when trying to reconcile intelligent extraterrestrial life with the Christian faith. Michael Heiser has a similar position on the issue, and while I agree that the Bible doesn’t in principle preclude their existence, I wonder if the existence of such lifeforms would not seem at least paradoxical given Christianity. It seems this is an area where Christian thought is very underdeveloped, which seems unwise given that in an evangelical context we will increasingly be dealing with people who take the existence of such lifeforms, rightly or wrongly, as a given. I would be interested in your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In theory if there were intelligent (at least human equivalent) life elsewhere in the universe that is non-human, would that imply that they are morally perfect beings that exist within a fallen universe?"

      I wouldn't cast the issue in terms of a fallen "universe." That's too broad. That we know of, there's fallen humanity, as well as fallen angels.

      The fact that you have fallen earthlings would have no impact on unfallen aliens many light years distant. There's no automatic spillover.

      Fallen angels could potentially impact a society of unfallen aliens. It would be question of whether God made the unfallen alien planet(s) off-limits to fallen angels.

      "It seems to me that the possible scenarios in that case would either be that, or perhaps that the entire universe is not fallen or imperfect in the way often conceived of by Christians…"

      As I said in my original post, I think that's an overgeneralization. Moreover, there's nothing inherently inconsistent between YEC and belief that the fall is a localized (e.g. terrestrial/angelic) phenomenon. That just seems to be popular YEC tradition, and not a necessary implication of YEC.

      "Also it would seem that if such lifeforms existed and were not fallen they would have to in some way worship the one true God and be morally exemplary…"

      True.

      If, for the sake of argument, the Son became Incarnate as an alien, to redeem fallen aliens, both Christians and redeemed aliens would worship the same Son–as well as the same Father and Spirit. An Incarnation is a contingent property; the identity of the Son is a necessary property. The Son is essentially divine. A member of the Trinity. That's transcultural, even on a cosmic scale. What would vary are economic relations.

      "In contrast if they are fallen and are on a separate redemptive-historical timescale do you think it would be legitimate for Christians to join with their counterpart religion if it could be identified?"

      It would be true, but we wouldn't be party to that arrangement. That wouldn't be for human beings.

      Consider various social organizations in the animal kingdom. That's true, but that's different from human society.

      Delete