Would the existence of aliens "discredit" Christianity?

In my last post, I discussed how the existence or non-existence of a so-called "multiverse" does not call into question the existence of the God of the Bible. Today we will look at a bit more complicated topic, extraterrestrial life. 

Full disclosure: I am an independent Baptist who is a young-earth creationist, in the sense of "thousands not millions" but not in the sense of "just barely over 6,000 years," a suggestion that actually cannot be proved by the biblical data, as aptly demonstrated by fellow fundamentalist Mark Snoeberger here. I also reject the so-called "conflict thesis," which cannot stand with an honest reading of the primary sources. The Scientific Method was developed and nurtured by theists, not atheists (for further discussion, see the excellent book Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren [John Hopkins University Press, 2002], especially the first chapter by Colin A. Russell; also worth reading is J. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformation, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Princeton University Press, 2003]).

Before we get too far into the discussion, I need to point out an obvious fact that is often neglected in the conversation. Christians, indeed the entire Judeo-Christian tradition (with a few exceptions, like the Sadducees), already believe in extraterrestrial life, if extraterrestrial life is defined as "(a.) sentient beings who (b.) do not live on earth." They're called "angels," duh! And no, they are not properly "supernatural" (and thus irrelevant to the discussion), since, (a.) they are created beings (Psalm 148:5) just a little bit above humans (Psalm 8:5), and (b.) they have limitations (Daniel 10:12–13), implying that they obey some sort of physical, governing laws (I use "physical" in the broad sense, to cover all of matter and energy in the created universe, and the laws that govern them). That they can fly and do other things that humans can't is irrelevant. They are still part of the physical universe. So, in a sense, Christians already believe in intelligent life outside of earth.

Nonetheless, what most people mean by "extra-terrestrial life" is not the sort of life mentioned in the Bible. Sometimes (though not always) agnostics or atheists assume that the discovery of that life (say, intelligent radio signals from a star 50 light years away) would invalidate Christianity because it is incompatible with the Bible. Conversely, sometimes young-earth creationists like myself seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that there might be microbes on Mars (or elsewhere), as if somehow that is synonymous with an evolutionary worldview. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. I take as the starting point for my very existence and operational worldview that (a.) there is a loving, yet just, triune God who created the universe, and (b.) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for my sins and (physically and literally) was raised again the third day, and that (c.) I have eternal salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Absolutely nothing that can happen in the scientific realm or elsewhere can shake my faith. That is not to say that I can always explain everything, nor that my faith is always perfect; as one preacher years ago articulated, there are times in our lives where we cry out "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). But that is my starting point, the reason for my existence, and I can go nowhere else (John 6:68).

2. Whatever is discovered "out there," God created it. This means, then, that I am free from any "fear" of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. God is the Creator, period, end of story. If there are living microbes on Mars, or were there in the past, God created them. Which means that I, personally, feel no need to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility. I will disagree with any "billions of years" description, but simply because a secular scientist discovers something does not necessarily make it a vast, evil conspiracy, nor is he or she necessarily wrong.

3. Christians have, in the past, speculated (either in non-fiction or fiction) about sentient extra-terrestrial life that was not angels. C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is the classic example, and, at a minimum, Lewis could be quite critical of evolution (see the discussion by Samuel D. James here). But there are other examples predating him.

4. If, hypothetically (and this is a big "if"), intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, the standard evangelical Christian reaction would not be "oh no, my faith is shaken!" but rather, "Do they know God? Are they fallen or un-fallen?; Do we need to send missionaries?" In my opinion, the only truly difficult theological question Christians would need to grapple with is whether or not Christ's death on the cross is meant to apply to all non-angelic sentient beings, or whether (if an alien race is fallen), they simply express faith in a Creator for salvation. (Salvation is always by faith, regardless; that's a universal principle). I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the idea of "interstellar evangelism," though atheist sci-fi writers in the past have maligned the idea (I think it was Harry Harrison, though I could be mistaken, that once wrote a short story where a well-intentioned Roman Catholic priest actually causes the aliens' fall from innocence, rather than redemption. Of course, such a short story only "preaches to the [atheistic or agnostic] choir," and hardly contributes to the discussion).

5. Both atheists and Christians would quickly fit the discovery, or non-discovery, of extra-terrestrial life into their paradigm. There are today agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that we are alone in the universe (and thus we are really "lucky" to be here), but there are also agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that the universe has quite a bit of life, which we just haven't discovered yet. One's presuppositions regarding the likelihood of the existence or non-existence of a Creator really does not matter one way or the other for the possibility of non-angelic life outside of earth. The existence or non-existence of life outside of earth does not "prove" or "disprove" either Christianity or atheism. The point of disagreement between Christians and atheists would not be the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but its origin.

6. Finally, evangelical Christians do not avoid the topic of the possibility of alien life. Its possibility is not an embarrassment. Both scholarly and more accessible discussions of the topic do exist, with C. S. Lewis being a prime example. The interested reader should also note the fascinating article by Rob Cook, "Would the Discovery of Alien Life Prove Theologically Embarrassing? A Response to Paul Davies," Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2012): 139–154 (I say that it is worth reading, without endorsing everything in his conclusion).

My Apologies to L. E. Modesitt (the dangers of equating a character's viewpoints with those of the author)

In a previous post, I interacted with L. E. Modesitt, Jr.'s book entitled The Ethos Effect (Tor: 2004). In my post, I unfairly treated the viewpoints of the protagonist as those of Mr. Modesitt himself. This was both careless, unfair, and wrong of me, as Mr. Modesitt recently pointed out to me. I apologize to Mr. Modesitt and any readers of the original blog. Misrepresentation of an author is the 2nd greatest sin of writing (the first, obviously, being plagerism) The original post has been modified to clarify that it is the viewpoints of the characters, not necessarily those of Mr. Modesitt himself, that are being critiqued. The following is the statement from Mr. Modesitt (e-mail correspondance dated Friday, May 6th, 2011). This is posted with his permission (e-mail correspondance, May 7th, 2011), and he has graciously accepted my apology.

[beginning of correspondance]

"Dear Mr. Himes:

I have to say that I was somewhat surprised and greatly disappointed about your blog which discussed the philosophical points raised by my book -- The Ethos Effect. 

You certainly have the right, and in view of your beliefs, the duty to dispute ethical points at variance with your viewpoint.  And I have no problem with your dispute of the "beliefs" expressed in The Ethos Effect [although there are many parts of your argument I would dispute]. What you do not have the ethical right to do, however, is to assume that, out of the nearly sixty books I have published, the views expressed through characters in a single book represent or encapsulate my beliefs or views, especially since characters in other books express viewpoints which are in contradiction to those expressed in The Ethos Effect.  While I would not go quite so far as other authors who have noted that readers who assume that the beliefs of an author's characters are those of the writer are idiots, I do believe your blog goes far beyond the acceptable in claiming the beliefs expressed in the book represent my viewpoint on religion and ethics.. 

You will find different ethical viewpoints expressed many of my other novels, particularly in the current series, The Imager Portfolio, but also in Adiamante, Gravity Dreams, Empress of Eternity, Haze, and The Octagonal Raven, among others.

As a side note, I would also point out that no religion can exist without a component of humanism, since all religion on this planet exists, at least theoretically, to provide a better way of life for its believers, who are indeed human, and all doctrines, codes, revelations, from or about the divine are filtered through human perception and interpretation."

L. E. Modesitt, Jr.

[end of correspondance]

He is, of course, absolutely correct to rebuke me, and I will endeavor to be more careful in future interactions with books of fiction. For the record, Mr. Modesitt is an excellent and surprisingly deep writer (last Christmas I gave the first two books of his Corean chronicles to my best friend, a fantasy aficionado). 

Regarding the last paragraph of his statement, I can concede the point to a certain extent, though I certainly can't speak for all religions. My definition of "humanism" and "humanistic," however, refers to the viewpoint that sees the good of humanity as the telos, the primary and end goal, of existence. (see, for example, The Humanist Manifesto II, online at http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II  [accessed 5/7/2011]; note especially the fourth paragraph in the essay proper, after the preface; the interested reader should also note that Isaac Asimov was one of the signers of the document; despite this, I still consider Asimov to be a great sci-fi writer, in his non-fiction as well as fiction)

To a certain degree Christianity and other religions do try to look out for the welfare of their adherents. Yet Christ showed compassion on all men, not just his followers (e.g. Luke 17:11-19), and Christians who fail to show compassion to those outside the faith in addition to those inside the faith have absolutely failed as Christians (e.g. Galatians 6:10, 1 Thessalonians 3:12).

Also, the point of Christianity is that we exist to the glory of God (the "supreme being," if you will), as 1 Corinthians 10:31 notes, and that anybody who joins a church or claims conversion simply on the basis of what it can do for them has missed the big picture. One does not follow Christ simply to escape judgement or for a "pie-in-the-sky" future, but rather because of Who and What he is. Furthermore, as an ideology, Christianity does not benefit from becoming closely tied to the state. One of the worst things that happened to Christianity, in my opinion, was Emperor Constantine and the eventual nationalization of Christianity. Furthermore, any Christians who attempt to force their views on others, either through the state or at the personal level, are not acting like Christians.

Mr. Modesitt is absolutely correct in the last line of his e-mail concerning "human perception and interpretation," and Christians should indeed recognize that we may be (indeed, often are) fallible in our interpretations. I would suggest, however, that this does not necessarily invalidate the concept of divine revelation itself. My own views are those of an inerrantist in regards to Scripture (in the original languages, of course), though I recognize a diversity of views regarding revelation in Christianity.

I thank Mr. Modesitt for his interaction, apologize for misrepresenting him, and look forward to reading more of his work in the future.

Ethics, WMDs, and the Ultimate Basis of Morality: A Discussion of L. E. Modesitt Jr.'s novel The Ethos Effect

Note: this post has been modified from the original posting since I unfairly equated L. E. Modesitt's viewpoints with those of the protagonists in The Ethos Effect. I apologize to Mr. Modesitt and to the readers of the original post. My critique, then, should be viewed as interacting with the views and actions of the characters in The Ethos Effect rather than those of Mr. Modesitt himself.

This week’s post consists of a Christian interaction and critique of a piece of literature. I believe a Christian may enjoy culture to the extent that it represents the character of God; when it does not, it is the Christian’s duty to critique it from a biblical perspective. For those completely bored by science fiction but still interested in the ethical discussion, please skip to the discussion proper (marked with bold font)

         Credit where credit is due: although I do not cite him in this essay, much of my own thinking on this topic was stimulated from having read Mark D. Leiderbach, “The Gospel and War,” Faith and Mission vol. 22 (Fall 2004)

       I’ll have to confess that I’m something of a science fiction nut, and greatly value a quiet weekend evening curled up on a the couch with a wholesome book that tells a great story. While, granted, I’m sure there are more profitable ways to spend my time, one of the benefits of reading sci-fi is that every writer has a philosophical worldview (some more apparent than others), and the best sci-fi writers will challenge you to think about your own worldview and its practical application via ethics and morality (whether you agree with them or not).

         Within the sci-fi genre, writers generally reflect a variety of views on religion, some neutral, some criticial to various degrees (e.g. Isaac Asimov to Jack McDevitt), occasionally sympathetic (e.g. Timothy Zhan), while others seem to write from a religious worldview (e.g. C. S. Lewis, Dianne Thonley, and Orson Scott Card, who has an LDS background). L. E. Modesitt, Jr., seems to belong in the second group in that the themes reflected in his books are somewhat critical of organized religions, especially those of the more radical variety

         Yet Modesitt is not content to simply engage in “religion-bashing,” as is the case with some authors. Rather, his protagonists genuinely grapple with complex social and philosophical concepts while developing the narrative. The Ethos Effect is a well-written book and forces the reader to struggle through the issues along with the main protagonist.

      Summary:   

      In The Ethos Effect (New York: Tor, 2003), the protagonist, Van C. Albert, a soldier by trade, struggles with ethics and morality all throughout the book. After foiling an assassination attempt yet being subsequently retired by his superiors, he joins a private organization (the “Echo-Tech Coalition”) that is secretly manipulating the human race. Three quarters of the way through the book, Albert watches in horror as his mentor-of-sorts, Trystan, uses alien technology to complete destroy an entire sun, wiping out the homeworld of the “Revenants,” an extremely aggressive and murderous religious society that was, in the minds of the Coalition, hindering the progress of the human race.

         The ethical struggle Albert goes through is evidenced a little later in an discussion between him and the alien Farhkan:

         F: "That culture [the Revenant society] is predicated on the existence of a deity. Rules of conduct are ascribed to that deity. Those rules preclude free choice. No deity can preclude free choice. The society developed under the ascription of those rules is fatally flawed . . . rues that are  imposed in the name of a deity are always flawed. They are flawed because they are inflexible. The universe changes. Even the laws of the universe are not inflexible" (453).

         At the end of the book, Albert mimics his mentor’s actions and decimates another entire solar system, this time the seat of power of a secular state that was acting in the same aggressive manner as the Revenants. When confronted about his actions by a subordinate, the following exchange ensues (p. 535): “How can killing seven hundred million people ever be right?” [Albert]: “How about when it prevents killing millions more? Especially millions of innocents?”
         At one point, a fictional source cited at the beginning of the chapter states,

         "There is indeed an ethical absolute for any situation in which an individual may find himself (or herself), but each of those absolutes exists only for that individual and that time and situation. This individual ‘absolutism’ is not the same thing as cultural relativism, because cultures can be, and often have been, totally unethical and immoral, even by their own professed standards" (348).

         This same “source” also argues that "in practice, what is necessary for a society is a secular legal structure that affirms basic ethical principles” while allowing  nevertheless allowing anyone accused of  wrongdoing to argue that their actions were, under the circumstance, “as moral as   the situation allowed” (349).

        Discussion:

         Yet the protagonists do not clearly lay down the foundational basis for “basic ethical principles,” let alone a means of determining when exactly one’s actions may justifiably go against those principles

The case in point is the use of weapons of mass destruction and/or the total obliteration of a particular culture. The characters Albert and Trystan seem to believe that one can completely wipe out a particular society (be it religious or secular), if such action was done for the benefit of the human race as a whole. Christians, of course, may initially think themselves to be on shaky ground in the debate, since God in the Old Testament did indeed command his people to wipe out various cultures.

Yet herein lies the issue. Albert, the protagonist in The Ethos Effect, holds up the welfare of the human race as the standard. In other words, his is a truely humanistic outlook. Actions may be justified if done for the stability and/or betterment of humanity as a whole. For Albert, then, the morality of the annihilation of a planet depends on the goal that is hoped to be attained by such an action.

Now let’s bring the matter a little bit closer to home: is it morally acceptable to [deliberately] bomb civilians in war, or to annihilate an entire city à la Hiroshima or Nagasaki? For many, the answer would be “yes” if such an action would bring to close a brutal war against an evil (however “evil” is defined) enemy. Many Christians (including myself in the past) have thought along the same lines. Since the use of atomic bombs in World War II brought about the end of the war and most likely saved lives in the long run (a reasonable suggestion, in light of the bloodshed an invasion of Japan would have brought), then the bombs were justifiable.

Yet I’d like to propose an alternative way of thinking, based on a few key (in my opinion, Biblical) principles. [Digression] I am not discussing here the matter of warfare in general; I would tentatively suggest that serving in the military may be acceptable for Christians in light of the fact that Christians were not forbidden from serving in the military in the New Testament (see especially Luke 3:14; Acts 10). I would also suggest that a Christian man has a duty to protect his family and the weak from violence, but that’s a discussion for a different time. Yet even so, Christians at all times have an obligation to demonstrate the nature of Christ by being merciful to their enemies, always speaking the truth, etc. Some so-called military activities, then, are clearly off-limits, though I do not necessarily believe shooting a gun is one of them. I will suggest, however, that the idea of “just-war theory” is ultimately irrelevant to the Christian life; a Christian may fight in a so-called “just-war” and still behave in an un-Christ-like manner by torturing his enemies, delighting in their destruction, cursing, lying, etc. [end of digression]

         First of all, Christian ethics are God-centered rather than man-centered. In other words, my first question in any activity is not “how will this benefit humanity” or even “how many lives will this save” but rather “what would God have me to do?” I must stress at this point that to a certain degree God’s desire for his people may differ at different times. There is a difference between pre-exile Israel and Christians of this dispensation. The former often acted as God’s executioners during the conquest, while we, the latter, are commanded to pursue peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14).

         Secondly, Christian ethics presume upon the sovereignty of God in this regard: it is not up to us to determine the outcome of wars or the future of the human race. That lies solely in the hands of God. Thus, my responsibility is not necessarily to determine what will save the most lives in the long run. That is ultimately in the hands of God. My responsibility is to do right in the here and now (especially towards my neighbor) and trust that ultimately God holds sovereign control over both the minutia (who lives and dies) and the larger parts of history (war, etc.)

         Indeed, in light of this, it is ultimately arrogant to suggest that the end justifies the means, for that assumes that my “means” is what determines the “end,” when in reality only God determines the end.

         Thirdly, in light of points 1 and 2, above, I would suggest that my responsibility to God trumps any future consequences of my action or my inaction. In other words, if dropping an atomic bomb would seem to contradict a Christian ethic, than I have a responsibility to refrain from doing so no matter what the cost later on. For the Christian, the means is just as important as the end. Since the end is the glory of God, the means must reflect the end at all times. If the means deviates at any time from obeying God’s Word, then I cannot possibly attain the end of glorifying God.

         As far as WMDs are concerned, my argument depends on the following progression of thought: 1. killing an innocent person is murder; 2. the term ‘innocent’ includes civilians during wartime [at a minimum those not actively involved with the war effort, which certainly would include at least some people in any given city or town]; 3. Thus killing civilians in wartime is murder; 4. Thus WMDs dropped on civilian targets constitutes murder.”

Edmund Burke may certainly be correct by declaring that inactivity on our part may result in the “triumph of evil” (indeed, this seems to be a major theme of Ethos Effect). Nevertheless, if my activity to prevent an evil is, in of itself, by God’s definition, an evil activity, then my inactivity (or a different activity) would be more in keeping with God’s glory than my activity. Of course, this must be balanced by the fact that my inactivity in of itself may be evil. The resident of Nazi Germany who knew that his or her Jewish neighbors were in danger yet did nothing to help them is guilty of sin (Proverbs 24:11-12). Such a person is under a holy obligation to help innocent victims escape, yet the means of helping them escape must, as with everything else in our lives, be determined by asking “what does God's Word command?”

To conclude, then: what about the protagonist, Commander Van C. Albert? Did he do well to wipe out an entire planet? If there is no god, there what he did was “right” to the extent that we can determine what’s “right” from a purely humanistic foundation. Yet if there is a God, specifically the biblical God, Albert did wrong in that he presumed to act in the place of God by taking innocent lives.