Aliens, of the ancient variety?

[Livewire]

My humble opinion:

The topic is interesting no doubt, but to speak in defense of those who consider such discussions futile: even if aliens do exist, I doubt it would provide any intellectual premise for a notable worldview shift for an individual, due to the fact that we are left in darkness as to what these supposed aliens want, and what is there purpose with helping us, if there is any to begin with. People may come up with this or that hypothesis but any hypothesis would be as good as the next.

As long as we cannot establish a valid nexus between alien and human existence, we cannot make much, in fact any, intellectual headway in any direction whatsoever (enter conspiracy theorists). It's kind of like the concept of the Prime Mover: if it does exist, we don't know how it relates to this world, so worldview-wise we cannot make any decision with this information.

That said, I do believe that the evidence suggested for existence of aliens is unsubstantial as well. Just the fact that there are "out-of-place" artifacts which demonstrate intelligence ahead of its time, doesn't necessarily point to the fact that extra-terrestrial super-intelligent beings were responsible for it, since the way I see it, any explanation in this regard would be as valid as the next one. And alternative explanations abound in world religions: it can be a case of Divine Intervention (since Miracle is a central concept to Prophethood and revelation, and miracle by definition points to something which cannot be imitated), for instance. The Qur'an (I don't know the Bible's position in this regard) posits Jinns (supernatural beings with superior ability than mankind) as Causes of great architectural feats. Where these feats took place, we do not know, since the Qur'an being a religious book (as opposed to a history book) doesn't concern itself with historical information such as dates. I'm not saying that this position is intellectually firmer than the alien explanation, but just that we don't know anything about the Causative agents behind these, so it would be intellectually dishonest to prefer one position above another.

To be a tad more specific, I disincline towards the position some of the posters above has taken i.e. positing aliens as safer explanations than the religious case. Truth of the matter is we just don't know, so it's intellectually dishonest to make assumptions, and prefer one explanation above another without any valid basis. If religious bias should be ignored, then so should the alien bias, or we should give equal amount of benefit of doubt to both of them.

I think this attitude has borne out of the tendency of seeking natural explanations to everything, and preferring the natural explanations above the supernatural even in cases where we have no knowledge. This is of course intellectually unsafe, since the primary (and only) assumption of science is "Nature does not change it's 'laws' ". We accept this assumption anyway, and I understand that we do, since otherwise no progress would have been made in the fields of science and technology and human knowledge would mean nothing. This however does not mean this assumption applies everywhere, rather we should subject this assumption to scrutiny, especially in cases like this.

Why is it intellectually dishonest to debate and challenging established views? Don't tell that to Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Da Vinci, etc. There is more intellectual honesty in honest doubt than there is in blind obedience and being a sheep.

 

[Steven]

Then don't post.

That doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting topic to debate. It raises some interesting theories and points, and challenges the established view.

You know, just because you're a moderator that won't stop me from saying things that I would say to a normal person. And that doesn't give you the right to ignorantly post rude remarks to other people.

I said I didn't see the point in debating them. This thread is asking for an opinion (and I quote, "What do you believe?"), not a debate. Therefore, I posted my OPINION and did not debate.

 

[Livewire]

You know, just because you're a moderator that won't stop me from saying things that I would say to a normal person. And that doesn't give you the right to ignorantly post rude remarks to other people.

I said I didn't see the point in debating them. This thread is asking for an opinion (and I quote, "What do you believe?"), not a debate. Therefore, I posted my OPINION and did not debate.

I wouldn't expect it to. I said that because the tone of your post came off as a bit rude to those who are genuinely interested in debating the topic at length. Not to mention, saying "then don't post" is in no way rude or ignorant. Maybe I read to much into it, but that's what it sounded like to me, reading it. But that doesn't give you the right to post that, either.

 

[aruchan]

Chariot of the Gods FTW. xD

 

[Hassan_Abdillah]

Why is it intellectually dishonest to debate and challenging established views? Don't tell that to Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Da Vinci, etc. There is more intellectual honesty in honest doubt than there is in blind obedience and being a sheep.

Seems like I wasn't quite clear in my wording. I didn't say it is intellectual dishonesty in questioning established beliefs. In fact, I hold the opposite: the nature of the belief has nothing to do with whether we give it the benefit of doubt or not.

Spoiler:

This doesn't really have much to do with the argumentation at hand, but since the topic has been brought up, I cannot help but share one of my favorite quotes:

"Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt, particularly to doubt one's cherished beliefs, one's dogmas and one's axioms. Who knows how these beliefs became certainties with us, and whether some secret wish didn't furtively beget them, clothing desire in the dress of thought? There is no real philosophy until the mind turns round and questions itself. Gnothi seauton, said Aristotle, know thyself." -Will Durant, "The story of Philosophy, Chapter: Plato

What I was questioning is the bias that was demonstrated by some of the posters above in "writing off" religious explanations without any valid reason to do so, and preferring "alien explanations" above religious ones. When we look at the evidence presented, we are left with a plethora of plausible explanations and hypotheses, all based on naught but speculation, none of them being any stronger than the next. So to choose one explanation above another, without any valid intellectual reasons, that's where things get intellectually dishonest.

Yeah I know, it would be intellectually dishonest of me if I preferred religious explanations above alien ones as well (at least based on the above information alone). But I did no such thing, while in contrast, the opposite was done by some posters above. I stated this in my previous post as well, which was ignored as it seems:

I'm not saying that this position is intellectually firmer than the alien explanation, but just that we don't know anything about the Causative agents behind these, so it would be intellectually dishonest to prefer one position above another.

And again, I do not think the position of doubt you- and others- have adopted about religion, is not "honest", as you claim it to be, at least based on this thread in specific. No intellectual reason was provided as to why religious explanations don't hold water, and why alien explanations would be more plausible than religious ones. If you accept alien explanations at face value without any evidence or indication towards plausibility, then I would argue this makes you just as "sheeplike" as the biased religious person who accepts his beliefs blindly. The only difference is the source of the biases are different. But bias is bias, intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty, regardless of source or nature of the bias.

"It would be perfectly possible to be a complete and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept this or that dogma. The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist." -Bertrand Russel, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?"

However, I traced the reason for adopting such views and biases against religion in the case of this "alien argument" in the last paragraph of my previous post. Do refer back to it if you have anything unanswered.

 

[Livewire]

Chariot of the Gods FTW. xD

I have yet to read it, but I'm quite tempted to. Von Daniken comes across a loon sometimes, but I think he makes some excellent points in the book.

/goes to read.