The movie Contact..

[Christopher]

And that's exactly why I wonder what their religions are like--if they have something analogous. Human religions are created by human minds. How about alien minds?

That's kinda my point. "Human minds" are not a single, monolithic thing. There are many human cultures whose approach to religion and spirituality is profoundly "alien" to what you'd be taught in a Christian church or Sunday school. Human psychology and behavior are a bell curve, not a single point. Alien psychologies would be bell curves too, and there would probably be areas where the curves overlap. A human Catholic and a Zuugelite from Tau Ceti f might not be able to understand each other's religions, but a human Shintoist and a Tau Cetian Reform Gruunifian might be able to find analogies in their mutual beliefs. You cannot reduce an entire species to a single psychology, no matter how much Star Trek and other sci-fi pretend that you can.

I think it's partly that. But, I think a larger part is the primal fear of death. No one (almost) wants to cease existing.

That's just one of the many things religion is used for. I wouldn't call it the larger part, since it's just one application of the cognitive process I'm describing. There are the basic building blocks of behavior and cognition, and there are the things we do with them. You're talking about the latter, while I'm talking about the former, the underlying neurology that produces the potential for spiritual and religious thought in the first place.

After all, the goal is to determine whether it's likely that aliens would have analogous belief systems. We can't presume to know how aliens would think or see the world, or assume it would automatically correspond to ours. For instance, a species with a collective identity or hive mind and little sense of individuality might not have a fear of personal death. So what I'm trying to do is identify traits that would logically be found in other spacefaring civilizations we might encounter. The fact that they have technology and science, the ability to create and plan and innovate, requires them to have a capacity for imagination, extrapolation, and abstraction akin to ours, and insofar as religious beliefs are an outgrowth of those capacities, it follows that any such species has a good chance of having something recognizable as religious belief.

Just as a thought experiment, I was wondering what a intelligent species but without creativity would be like. More of a logical species. I think they'd do OK technology-wise. They might not make leaps like we do sometimes. But, they could certainly make observations, extrapolate, and trial and error.

I think that's a contradictory statement. Creativity is extrapolation. It's the ability to imagine something that isn't already extant or observable, to construct a cognitive model of something that could exist rather than something that overtly does exist. Even the most elementary tool use is impossible without that capability, the ability to realize that a stick or a rock might become something more than a stick or a rock.

Besides, I'm not sure intelligence without creativity is even possible. The theory I've seen is that consciousness is an "attention schema" -- the brain's model of its own activity, allowing it to observe where its attention is focused and to decide whether it needs to shift its focus elsewhere. That very process -- imagining a change of attention that hasn't happened yet, modeling the possible outcomes of different shifts of attention to decide which one is more beneficial -- is an act of imagination in its most basic sense. It's asking "What will happen if I do this?" and conceiving of an answer. And that's the underlying mechanism of creativity.

For that matter, logic is something that has to be created. One has to be able to observe how the world works and how people think and create a set of rules for thinking and problem-solving that improve one's chance of arriving at the right answers. Logical reasoning requires imagining the outcome if a certain rule and condition apply, or imagining the rule and condition that might have produced an observed outcome.

I'd imagine that there's a vast array of different types of intelligences. We like to think think, learn, and make decisions logically. But, research shows that's not the case. Emotion plays a huge role in all of that. That may not be true for some ETs.

I don't think intelligence without some form of emotion is possible either. After all, emotion means motivation. Without some form of emotion, there's no motivation to favor one choice over another, or to act at all. Besides, no organism would just start out fully intelligent; it would've evolved from more basic forms, animals with inbuilt drives and urges and instincts. That's what emotions are, the primal inbuilt responses we inherited from our animal forebears, such as need, fear, aggression, lust, communal bonding, and so on.

Then we'd better hope we fit somewhere in their world-view. Otherwise they'll see us as "heretics", "blasphemers", or "abominations", and react accordingly.

Again, there are countless different ways to practice religion even among humans. Some religions are intolerant of heretics, but many are not. Different practitioners of the same religion can have different levels of tolerance. Catholicism was behind the Crusades and the Inquisition and other acts of violent intolerance, but I've had Catholic friends who were open-minded and accepting of all people regardless of faith or lack thereof. Most Hindus have historically been perfectly accepting of all other faiths -- that's how it ended up as a religion with something like 3 million different gods, because it started out as a bunch of different local religions that crossed paths and decided "Okay, sure, your gods are as valid as mine" and just sorta blended their faiths together -- but there have been some Hindu extremists who've committed massacres of those they considered to have the "wrong" faith. Religion is not the cause of intolerance and persecution. It's just one of the more popular excuses used by people whose natural inclination is to hate. It's a conceptual and social tool, and like any tool, it's as beneficial or harmful as the intent and responsibility of the wielder makes it.

 

[Silvercrest]

Of course! I am a Christian and I don't believe in that sort of extremism. I'm just choosing to be cynical about the aliens' religion.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I thought it was 18 hours of static that Ellie recorded.

 

[Mr Awe]

That's kinda my point. "Human minds" are not a single, monolithic thing.

Yep, we're talking about the same thing and in similar terms, so no surprise there is agreement.

There are many human cultures whose approach to religion and spirituality is profoundly "alien" to what you'd be taught in a Christian church or Sunday school.

Again, definitely agree. I've traveled to India extensively and I think Hindu is a cool religion. Very different from say Christianity. However, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it alien. But, that line is a blurry, subject division.

Human psychology and behavior are a bell curve, not a single point. Alien psychologies would be bell curves too, and there would probably be areas where the curves overlap.

I'm a statistician and so I'm quite familiar with the bell curve, other distributions, and the issue of point estimates versus intervals. At no point was I reducing aliens (or humans) down to a single point. When I said I am curious about ET's believes, I meant as thoroughly as possible. Collect as much data as possible--again, as a statistician, I want a large sample size. Sadly, the number of data points is likely to remain at zero during our lifetimes unless something very surprising happens.

That's just one of the many things religion is used for. I wouldn't call it the larger part, since it's just one application of the cognitive process I'm describing. There are the basic building blocks of behavior and cognition, and there are the things we do with them. You're talking about the latter, while I'm talking about the former, the underlying neurology that produces the potential for spiritual and religious thought in the first place.

I think we agree in general but disagree on the relative importance. That's not quantifiable for now it's a matter of opinion.

In my mind, the "oh shit, me and all my loved ones will die" combined with "crap, there's so much uncertainty that can kill and maim me," is the much larger, emotional reason. Religion helps with the emotional kicks in the ass of uncertainty, unfairness, and death.

After all, the goal is to determine whether it's likely that aliens would have analogous belief systems. We can't presume to know how aliens would think or see the world, or assume it would automatically correspond to ours.

Agreed. And, that's why I'm so interested in it. If I thought they were going to be just like human religions, that's not nearly as interesting. So, no, I didn't think they'd "automatically correspond to ours."

I think that's a contradictory statement. Creativity is extrapolation. It's the ability to imagine something that isn't already extant or observable, to construct a cognitive model of something that could exist rather than something that overtly does exist. Even the most elementary tool use is impossible without that capability, the ability to realize that a stick or a rock might become something more than a stick or a rock.

That's factually not true. It's possible to extrapolate mathematically from what you've observed to conditions that you have not observed. I use statistical models to make predictions all of the time that have a quantifiable amount of precision. I'll take those predictions over someone's creative guess many times. After all, extrapolation is a mathematical term. What if an alien species was basically hardwired to create mathematical models of the universe? They'd be extrapolating without creativity all of the time.

Besides, I'm not sure intelligence without creativity is even possible. The theory I've seen is that consciousness is an "attention schema" -- the brain's model of its own activity, allowing it to observe where its attention is focused and to decide whether it needs to shift its focus elsewhere. That very process -- imagining a change of attention that hasn't happened yet, modeling the possible outcomes of different shifts of attention to decide which one is more beneficial -- is an act of imagination in its most basic sense. It's asking "What will happen if I do this?" and conceiving of an answer. And that's the underlying mechanism of creativity.

That's a great way to describe human consciousness. I suspect that ET's consciousness will be very different. Or, more accurately, some will be very different and some will be similar. A range. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn that our little corner of it is very different than the rest. Astronomers thought our solar system was fairly typical--until they started detecting exoplanets. Those are stranger and more diverse in types than anyone imagined. I suspect alien intelligence will follow the same pattern.

I don't think intelligence without some form of emotion is possible either. After all, emotion means motivation. Without some form of emotion, there's no motivation to favor one choice over another, or to act at all.

Again, I agree in terms of human intelligence and probably the other intelligent species on Earth. But, the same caveat as above. It's true for Earth intelligence but not necessarily elsewhere.

 

[Christopher]

I think we agree in general but disagree on the relative importance. That's not quantifiable for now it's a matter of opinion.

In my mind, the "oh shit, me and all my loved ones will die" combined with "crap, there's so much uncertainty that can kill and maim me," is the much larger, emotional reason. Religion helps with the emotional kicks in the ass of uncertainty, unfairness, and death.

Yes, but that's a human way of thinking, by definition, since it's your own way of thinking. The whole point here, the whole reason it's even a question, is that we can't assume aliens think like humans. So we have to divorce the analysis completely from our own personal feelings or reactions or opinions. Those merely get in the way of trying to contemplate the alien. What we need is something completely impersonal, something that arises from first principles. We can't just assume aliens would think like us, but we can deduce some commonalities that might arise from similar evolution and needs. If two species evolving separately on different planets both live in the water, we can deduce that they would be likely to evolve similar forms of streamlining, and that would constrain their shape. If they're both obligate carnivores, that would impose constraints on their digestive systems and behavior. And so on. We can't know how they might be different, but in certain contexts, we can deduce ways in which they're likely to be similar.

In this case, if we and an alien species are both technological, starfaring civilizations, then we can assume that, no matter what other differences we might have, we would at least both have the capacity to imagine things that don't already exist. Technology can't be invented, plans can't be made, without that capacity. And that capacity is a key part of what leads to religious thought. So we can deduce from that, independent of our own personal opinions or beliefs but based strictly on objective deduction, that an alien civilization could reasonably be expected to possess religion in some form.

What if an alien species was basically hardwired to create mathematical models of the universe? They'd be extrapolating without creativity all of the time.

I think you're using a more narrow and subjective definition of "creativity" than I am. I define creativity as any cognitive mechanism that allows conceiving of things beyond what can be directly observed. I do not accept the premise that creativity and extrapolation/modeling are mutually exclusive. I think they're just different labels for the same thing.

After all, I'm approaching this functionally, in terms of parallel evolution. Two independently evolved flying species may arrive at different mechanisms for creating lift -- e.g. insect wings vs. bird wings vs. bat wings -- but they serve the equivalent function. What matters is the result. And in this case, the result is the ability to model things beyond what is observed.

That's a great way to describe human consciousness. I suspect that ET's consciousness will be very different. Or, more accurately, some will be very different and some will be similar.

That's just handwaving. Again, I'm trying to get a more practical handle on it by a functional approach. Yes, axiomatically, aliens could be very different. Merely asserting that doesn't get us anywhere. The question is, can we deduce specific instances where similarity is likely as the result of convergent evolution? If we're talking about all aliens that might exist in any environment, then there are no constraints. But it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, we've been talking specifically about alien civilizations, technological cultures that might travel to Earth and interact with us. And that parameter creates certain constraints on their likely psychology and behavior, and that gives us something useful to work with.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

But what was the first major religion on Earth, was it Christianity or Islam? Which came first?

What if alien religion by some odd occurrence is almost the same as Earth religion? Not likely, but it would freak people out.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

But what was the first major religion on Earth, was it Christianity or Islam? Which came first?

Christianity, Islam is an offshoot as Jesus PBUH is the prophet immediately prior to the final prophet Mohammed PBUH.

What if alien religion by some odd occurrence is almost the same as Earth religion? Not likely, but it would freak people out.

Wasn't that the case with the Aztecs and Spanish and the perceived similarities between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Christianity, Islam is an offshoot as Jesus PBUH is the prophet immediately prior to the final prophet Mohammed PBUH.

Wasn't that the case with the Aztecs and Spanish and the perceived similarities between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl?

You could say that.. Except for the human sacrifices..

But imagine the situation if ET turns out to be Christian or something very similar? What's pbuh?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

You could say that.. Except for the human sacrifices..

One myth of Quetzalcoatl has him opposed to such sacrifices and has him sacrificed instead. Another myth has him born of a virgin. Some in the LDS believed Jesus was reincarnated as Quetzalcoatl.

But imagine the situation if ET turns out to be Christian or something very similar? What's pbuh?

Peace be upon him.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

One myth of Quetzalcoatl has him opposed to such sacrifices and has him sacrificed instead. Another myth has him born of a virgin. Some in the LDS believed Jesus was reincarnated as Quetzalcoatl.

Peace be upon him.

Oh cool.

I have often posited that question, did jesus appear on other worlds as well as Earth?

 

[Christopher]

But what was the first major religion on Earth, was it Christianity or Islam? Which came first?

How do you define "major"? As religions go, those are both latecomers, less than 2000 years old. Confucianism and Buddhism are close to 2500 years old. Judaism and Hinduism are both well over 3000 years old. The earliest forms of Ancient Greek and Egyptian religions are well over 4000 years old.

Wasn't that the case with the Aztecs and Spanish and the perceived similarities between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl?

Rather, the Aztec ruler Motecuhzoma reportedly believed that Hernan Cortes might be Quetzalcoatl, but this is probably a myth invented after the fact.

Still, it's not uncommon for religions to be syncretic, to identify deities from one religion with those of another. Cross-cultural conversions usually happen in this way, by the converts finding things in the new faith that they consider analogous to their existing beliefs and folding its ideas into their traditions, rather than simply tossing out all their old beliefs in favor of the new. I actually did my thesis paper in my "Frontiers in World History" course on that process.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

How do you define "major"? As religions go, those are both latecomers, less than 2000 years old. Confucianism and Buddhism are close to 2500 years old. Judaism and Hinduism are both well over 3000 years old. The earliest forms of Ancient Greek and Egyptian religions are well over 4000 years old.

Sorry I'm probably speaking from a purely Western POV. Those two are the ones I am most familiar with.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Sorry I'm probably speaking from a purely Western POV. Those two are the ones I am most familiar with.

Yeah, Hinduism is much older and still going strong as is Buddhism with many adherents. Mithraism and Graeco-Roman pantheism were surplanted by Christianity; Egyptian pantheism by Christianity and then by Islam. Judaism was never "major" as it was somewhat limited to being tribal, apart from it being adoted by some Khazar tribes, supposedly.

Oh cool.

I have often posited that question, did jesus appear on other worlds as well as Earth?

A question raised in a Martian Chronicles story by Ray Bradbury. As @Christopher states, syncretic identifications are likely because of our inherrent pattern-matching behaviour and it makes conversion easier for those that seek to do that.

 

[publiusr]

Here is a frightening thought. We finally make contact with an alien group--but there is a twist.

In each of these alien cultures, there was a loss of diversity. The Nazi's in each culture won out. They go bored with no diversity--and search each other out. No visits are allowed--and while trade can be had, no colonies are ever mixed.

They visit Earth, and are puzzled.

So instead of a more culturally advanced group--we wind up facing a horror. How would humanity deal with that?

 

[Christopher]

^I find that scenario unlikely, simply because diversity is usually a more successful survival strategy. A diverse, inclusive culture has more ideas and more dynamism, and is thus better able to innovate. Indeed, it's when different cultures intermix that the most innovation and progress takes place. And fascist or dictatorial regimes tend to suppress science and intellectual culture, since people who can think and discern between truths and untruths are the enemy of any such regime. So I don't believe any civilization completely under the thrall of such a regime could ever make it out into space, or that such a regime could ever succeed in conquering its world completely and irreversibly in the first place.

And let's face it, groups like the Nazis are inherently losers. They're weak, inept, generally rather dimwitted people who compensate for their insecurity and lack of ability by blaming outsiders for their own failures. (A recent study of gamers revealed that the "Gamergate"-type men who engage in the most vicious misogynistic harassment and abuse of female gamers online are generally rather low-scoring players. Players who are actually good at video games don't feel threatened by other players. I think that's probably a microcosm for all such groups.) So the odds of a Nazi-like social order being run by people competent enough to make it successful in the long term are minuscule.

 

[Destructor]

if not most, agnostics, would say that the term "implicit atheist" describes them, but that many of those same people shy away from the term "atheist" due to the particular social unpopularity of "strong/positive/hard atheism".​

Interestingly, even Christopher Dawkins, the poster-boy for atheism, in the introduction to 'The God Delusion', says that on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents absolute certainty there is no God, he himself is only a 4, where he has seen no evidence of a God and has no reason to believe there is one, but doesn't rule it out entirely as he admits he cannot know everything (appropriately enough, given the question at hand). This is roughly my position also- I think it takes an arrogance at least on the level of being religious (particularly because a big part of some religions, Catholicism and Judaism certainly, incorporate doubt into their schema) to say you know the nature of the universe when, basically, your perspective is, galactically speaking, not much higher than an ants.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

It it were a scale of 1 to 5 I"m a 3.....

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

@Destructor - I think you mean Richard Dawkins, not Christopher Dawkins. You're probably thinking of Christopher Hitchens. For myself, I find it more easy to believe in a teleological omega deity that requires us for its existance than an eternal creator alpha deity that would be responsible for so much horror and general nastiness.

 

[Mysterion]

And what if the aliens are religious?

Would we recognize an alien religion right-away? And if we did would we even begin to understand it, much less understand the way aliens think about stuff and/or perceive the world around them? I would expect aliens to be alien despite what years of Trek and other television and movies have taught us. Yeah we'll toss basic math back and forth and eventually develop some sort of conversational communication, but it may be that we never completely understand an alien culture/mindset completely, or they ours.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Interestingly, even [Richard] Dawkins, the poster-boy for atheism, in the introduction to 'The God Delusion', says that on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents absolute certainty there is no God, he himself is only a 4, where he has seen no evidence of a God and has no reason to believe there is one, but doesn't rule it out entirely as he admits he cannot know everything (appropriately enough, given the question at hand).

Pedantry moment here. The Dawkins Scale is a 7-point scale, not a 5-point scale. I'd put myself somewhere between 6 and 7. If I had to go with an integer value, I'd go with a 6. It's not that I think that 7 is invalid, but because my view is a lot like Dawkins -- I'm confident that there isn't a deity (and if there is, it's not the Abrahamic god worshiped, albeit in different fashions and with different understandings, by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons), but if evidence is presented that's convincing I'll change my mind.

I do think that with the human religions practiced today and in the past, it is possible to be certain that their gods are human inventions, and that the proofs are matters of history and literature rather than hard science. I can say and have said that I'm a Ajehovist at a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, just I'd say that I'm a Awodenist or a Avishnuist on the same scale. My personal view is that if there is a deity, it's an inhumane, distant being that bears no relation to human mythologies, past or present and is cold and indifferent to our existence. Is such a being really worthy of being called a "god"? On this matter, I side with Epicurus.[/url]