In my previous posts, I argued that if aliens appeared, they might fly in the face of current expectations that are drenched in an evolutionary (and atheistic) outlook.  Namely, we may find that these intelligent agents believe in God.  They may not, as Richard Dawkins smugly posits, inquire first as to whether not humans have ‘discovered’ evolution.   Let us allow that it is a possibility… but they may also possibly have a concept of God and creation that is identical, in theological principle, to what we see in the Christian Scriptures.  Naturally, they may have a belief system identical to other systems.

My point is that they may deviate a great deal from the common narrative of aliens either being hostile consumers of resources or super-intelligent, highly technological and benevolent agents that have transcended petty human foibles and myths.  In this narrative, both sides assume not just evolution but atheistic presuppositions.

The article I was referring to comes close to my perspective here, with the Roman Catholic Church representative saying that these creatures would still be part of creation.   Then it goes on to say,

Still, there are divisions on the issues within the Catholic Church and within other religions, with some favoring creationism or intelligent design that could make it difficult to accept the concept of alien life.

Nonsense.  Creationists and IDers would only have a problem if this alien life comes bearing an atheistic message.   But why should we assume they will, especially if it is assumed for the sake of discussion that there is a God as the Bible describes, as this Catholic representative clearly does?

Many folks take it for granted that alien visitors will come bearing a message or worldview that contradicts or challenges human religion, and Christianity in particular.  As we have no firm evidence (that I am aware of) of any such encounters, it is unreasonable to assume anything.  Rather, let us admit that the expectation one way or another is an inference, based on the assumption that our viewpoint is correct.

I refuse to concede even an inch to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and others who have commented on these affairs and while not surprised, I’m disappointed that this Catholic representative would not only concede the inch, but give a foot.

I will forgo discussion about the accusation of ‘privileged’ feelings humans and Christians allegedly have.  From a Christian viewpoint, if one sticks to the Scriptures, anyway, it is a pretty back handed ‘privilege’ indeed to talk about God’s ‘special relationship’ with us, being, as we are, not specially blessed, but rather specially rebellious.  But that is for another day.

The idea of space aliens coming to earth is something that this blog has explored previously.  For example, in this entry I argue that intelligent agents from outer space provide an interesting opportunity to test various world view hypotheses.  For example, years of movies and stories lead us to assume that an alien encounter would belong in just two possible classes:  1., the nasty creatures out to conquer us (Ie, “Independence Day” and of course “V.”)  2.  the creatures are super intelligent and benevolent to such an extent that they are, for all practical purposes, Divine (ie, “Contact.”)  In both scenarios, the atheistic evolutionary framework is presumed.  But what if alien contact yields a different result?  What if the aliens are mere creatures- but unfallen?  Or, what if they hold to a belief system identical to Christian theism?  That’d be interesting, eh?

While “V” does not appear to break this kind of innovative ground, it was a breath of fresh air to have one of the main characters be a Christian priest who is… wait for it… skeptical.  Christians are often portrayed as gullible or extremist whackos (see again, “Contact”) and your hard core evolutionary atheistic types are veritable bastions of cool headed logic and reason (see the TV show, “Bones.”)  (Yes, it’s true that one Christian in “Contact” was more reasonable, but he wasn’t exactly definitive about his beliefs, either).

The Christian priest in “V” issues forth a sermon that makes quite a bit of sense:  “Before you jump on the bandwagon, make sure it is sturdy enough to hold you.”  There is no atheistic foil in “V.”  Nonetheless, I am pretty sure that your hard core secular humanist would accept without question a message presented to them by aliens like those we see in “V.”  I know this because they already have.

I can’t believe that “V” is not deliberate commentary on the current political climate in America.  It is just too pointed to be coincidence.  But perhaps it is better to start at the beginning.

When the Visitors appear, they reveal their first message via… a television screen.   I cannot think of a better way to win the trust of the American population then to pop onto a screen and eloquently state something to the effect of, “We mean you no harm.  We’re awesome.  We like you.”

This is a population that believes practically anything that they see on a screen.  They are hyper-skeptical of anything written down and if its old, all the worse.  Clearly, nothing that ‘wandering nomads’ thousands of years ago wrote down can be believed… but if someone pops onto television and says [fill in the blank] it is instantly accepted.

Probably the biggest laugh I had was when the ‘journalist’ is invited to interview the Visitor and the Visitor insists that nothing be asked that paints them in a negative light.  The ‘journalist’ protests that it is journalism’s job to ask hard questions.  Really!  Since when?  But perhaps that is the joke of the scene:  the all powerful media brokers dictating terms to the ‘journalists.’

In the same interview, the Visitor announces the desire of the Visitors’ to offer medical assistance to all humans.  The ‘journalist’ is aghast, “You mean universal health care?”  The Visitor affirms this is exactly what they mean.  And of course, the Visitors seem to have going for them the fact that they can heal 65 human ailments.   Can anyone think of any other putative super intelligent entities who are surrounded by the ‘best and the brightest’ (read this ‘journalism’ carefully…) attempting to solve all the world’s social ills?

The Visitor comforts the journalist:  “Sometimes, change is difficult.”

You see why it is hard to escape the conclusion that the writers of “V” are trying to take jabs at the Obama administration.

To top it off, when the journalist leaves the mother ship, one of the Visitors comforts him for making the right decision:  “It was the right decision;  compromising one’s principles for the common good is the right thing to do.”

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Now, the Visitors turn out to be- as we expected- lizardlike sentient agents who are cloaked in perfect human skin.  Despite the many similarities between the Obama administration and the Visitors, I for one am not persuaded that Obama is actually a lizard-man in disguise.  For one thing, the Visitors turn out by the end of the show to be some pretty tough cookies that can handle themselves in a fist fight.  Obama can’t get a pitch over the plate without bouncing it over and if I recall correctly, he bowled a scant 37 in his attempt to appear like EveryMan.  I’m pretty sure rumors about his ability on the basketball court are highly overrated, but I’ve seen a lot of scrawny folks manage to sink a three pointer consistently, so who knows.

Of course, this could all be a charade, and in fact Obama is a lizardman who has wisely concealed his true physical strength.

The reader might be objecting at what seems to be a cheap shot.  It is not so:  I perceive Obama to be an ‘intellectual’ type who probably hasn’t done a day’s hard labor in his life.   I have great difficulty believing that the man can relate to the real challenges of the ‘working man’ he is portrayed as working for.  But I digress.

The Visitors portray a socialistic ideal that is virtually identical- in both content and in jargon- to the ideal presented to us by our Glorious Leaders.  While I confess I get a kick out of that, I’m not sure if that will be able to hold me through the whole series.  I hope that I see some metaphysical conversation.  The series seems to be well positioned for that already by having characters who are explicitly Christian that are both skeptical and ‘adoring.’

But if it turns out to be a simple story of revolution against hope-mongering tyrants ‘who know best’ I probably will stick around, anyway.  One hopes that our reality doesn’t mirror the social commentary too much- rather than a resistance movement, perhaps just an election will fix things.

One can hope- but if the man and his inner circle do end up wearing human skins that conceal an inhuman core- perhaps things may be different.  That may seem an over reach, but when you’ve had such pathetic journalism for however many years, you can’t hardly trust anything people say anymore.  You can only trust what they do, and that is what need to be watching now.

Watch this space for another reaction next week!  And remember:  compromising your principles is the right thing to do if it is for the common good!  And don’t you care about the common good?

What I really wanted to address was the ramifications and implications of discovering conclusive proof of an extraterrestial intelligent agent relative to Christian theism.

Already you should be chuckling, because if the atheists are to be believed, it is not scientifically possible to reliably detect intelligent agency.  Intelligent Design, we are assured, is pseudoscience at best and closet creationism at worst.  On this view I suppose space aliens could land in Richard Dawkins lap at which time they begin wheeling out some of their rumored probes, and Mr. Dawkins would be unable to recognize that something out of the ordinary was happening.  Anyway, as funny and as fun as that thought is, I have no doubt that hard core philosophical naturalists will have little trouble ‘reliably detecting intelligent design’ when the chips are down.

I think this is because they will expect these little green critters with big skulls to support them in their atheistic worldview.  But I think that will be the atheist’s undoing.  They would have been safer denying that a sentient being is conversing with them because what that sentient being actually says might compromise the atheist’s philosophical foundations.

Our expectations about an encounter with intelligent space aliens are highly colored by science fiction popularizers, and these are almost always atheists.  Example- the ‘big skull’ we are informed is the product of evolutionary processes because as we all know bigger brains means smarter entities.  This is proved by the huge warehouses of the sixties required to house that generation’s computers which had less computing power than your Iphone you hold in your hand.  Wait, I just made the opposite point.  My bad. 

My point is that our expectations are skewed.  The discovery of ET offers a really interesting opportunity to test rival earthling theories.  Dawkins insists that the first thing our little martian friends will ask is, “Have they discovered evolution yet?”  I would like to see Dawkins’s face when instead they ask, “How have things been since the Flood?”

Actually, I don’t personally think the aliens would ask that, but it would be funny.   If it turns out that the Christian world view is correct and aliens arrive, there are two basic classes that these aliens will fit into.  They can be a fallen race, like our own, or they could be unfallen.  If they are unfallen and just coming across our race they will probably leave as quick as snot before we can capture them and use our probes.  If they do stick around they will be more interested in why our race is so utterly hostile to God and to each other and they will be profoundly confused by the unwillingness of some to accept what appear to them- and are in reality- straightforward arguments.

It would be at this point that the emissaries sent by our grand leaders- Dawkins, Dennett, Barker, Harris- remember that it is impossible to reliably detect intelligent agency and they will explain the whole thing as a delusion or a hallucination, gesturing wildly in an attempt to deny what is plainly before their eyes.

In short, an encounter with space aliens may very well be a vindication for Christianity, not atheism.

Even if the aliens are fallen this could be a vindication for Christianity, because it would follow that God had put in place some plan for redeeming the aliens, too.  When we begin comparing notes with the aliens we may find some disconcerting similarities.

Of course you can say here that on these terms the discovery of aliens has as much chance as demonstrating Hinduism as Christianity and I won’t quibble over it.  My assertion is merely that the atheistic Myth which we have been led to think is the only possible outcome if aliens exist simply isn’t warranted.  In fact, the encounter might prove radically different than we have been led to expect.

So you want to know- do I believe in space aliens?  I wouldn’t go that far.  There is nothing in Christianity that I am aware of that would preclude their existence and I personally wouldn’t be too surprised if some popped up.  To tell you the truth, if there are aliens my gut is that they are unfallen and know quite well what is going on here on earth and mean to keep their discrete and definite distance.

Under that scenario, we’re probably lucky they haven’t put a galactic nuke down our gullet already.   Or unlucky, depending on your perspective.

Recently ChristianityToday had an excellent article on the use of science fiction to communicate a distinctly secular and atheistic world view.  If you are a Christian that cares for the state of the Church today and our modern challenge, you should read the article.

The article correctly says:

… viewers don’t leave movies such as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Hancock, X-Men, and Contact—or television programs such as The X-Files or Heroes—scratching their heads in confusion. We are intrigued, but not surprised. Why? Because stories of advanced extraterrestrials, ancient human-alien contact, superior intelligences roaming the universe, and emerging super-races have grown familiar through repeated exposure. Thanks to the longstanding efforts of a wide range of artists, popular writers, and even scientists, we immediately recognize intelligent aliens and advanced humans. We now see space and the future as sources of hope.

One of the things that I’ve noted (see this blog entry on Heroes and Philip Pullman) is that the modern method is to denounce anything we might call supernatural as nonsense in one breath, and in the other breath re-issue the same phenomena but provide a naturalistic explanation for it.   Heroes is a great case in point, as most of the ‘heroes’ have powers that, if we ever met them in real life, we’d instantly conclude were supernatural.  But Heroes prepares the way for 2 Thess. 2:9-10 in that it provides a ‘plausible’ explanation for how even the miraculous is merely natural.  (In my discussions with atheists, no evidence for natural explanations is necessary- plausibility is sufficient.  See, for eg., abiogenesis, and Dawkins hemming and hawing at the end of Ben Stein’s Expelled).

Another case in point is Carl Sagan’s Contact, where scientists are able to scientifically detect intelligent design.  We are told today that this is impossible;  the implications involved in conceding even the mere possibility of reliably detecting design are too frightening to be allowed by our ‘methodological’ naturalists.  So, Contact would not have been written today, but even so it served to show how ‘advanced’ information is no evidence at all for God, and can be- and should be- interpreted in natural terms.  With this method in mind, it is no wonder that atheists conclude there is no God.  They are merely ahead of the pop culture trend, prepared to interpret all facts in naturalistic terms and then smug in their conclusion that no facts exist to support supernaturalism.

So how does one combat this?

Christians are not losing on facts, argument, logic, evidence, and reasoning.   We are losing because we are not effectively transmitting the faith to the next generations and probably haven’t been doing so for some time.  With more nonChristians in society, logically enough, this is manifested in pop culture.  Fixing how we pass on the faith is one of the most important things Christians must do.  With more informed and grounded Christians in pop culture, this will have its logical effect.

The second thing is we have to fight fire with fire.   The author of the ChristianityToday article doesn’t make this point and I am at a loss as to why not.  He does say, correctly:

“…the church needs to broaden its apologetics work to include serious analysis of and response to popular culture, now our most potent form of religious persuasion. Frankly, we have given these narratives a free pass in our eagerness to appear culturally savvy. But we must be clear: Arguments against Christianity and in support of rival worldviews now arrive daily as embedded components of visual and written fiction. Pop-culture fiction, not academic nonfiction, is now the cutting edge of public discourse on spirituality.

You might expect the author to draw the conclusion that we too should be using ‘pop-culture fiction’ but surprisingly he doesn’t.  Perhaps an oversight?  Or perhaps I missed it.

At any rate, our apologetics cannot be confined merely to ‘serious analysis and response to popular culture’ at the level of discernment and confrontation.  Our response must be in kind.

This is why I have been changing the direction of my own apologetics ministry.  As much as I’d love to keep banging heads with atheists and secular humanistists, that is not where the battle is being won, even if that is often where it is fought.  I don’t know if my own Birth Pangs series succeeds on this score at the level of the greats like Lewis and Tolkien but it is at least an unashamed attempt to convey Christian attitudes and beliefs and perspectives in a format that is more palatable to the people of today.

It is also why my ministry is hosting a Christian writing contest.  We need to encourage Christians to write, and write well.  We need them in our newspaper conference rooms, as producers on TV and cable networks, writing sitcoms, in Hollywood, and as always, as authors of books competing against great secular authors.

If you would like to join me in this effort, I invite you to contact me.  I don’t believe it is too late (yet) to make a difference.