Being a techno-nerd, I frequent sites like Engadget and Gizmodo. So, imagine my surprise when I spied this recent headline from Gizmodo: “The Possibility of Alien Life Is Now (Almost) Impossible to Deny.” Hmmm… Zat’s so? Now just what sort of evidence would lead to such a compelling conclusion? Seems it boils down pretty much to one thing: probability.

Because “our galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets…This means that the chances of life and habitable planets in our galaxy alone is overwhelmingly high. So high that it’s impossible to deny that it’s out there.” (emphasis mine).

The author continues, “Couple this number with the latest calculations that have extended the goldilocks zone, the area where life could happen around stars. And then add the fact that life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions, and the idea of a Milky Way thriving with life is impossible to deny.” Did you catch that – the part about “the fact” that “life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions.”? Seems this author has been spending WAY too much time in the Orgasmatron of wishful thinkng. He just accepts it as an apriori that life happens spontaneously. Hey, why didn’t I think of that?

Now I think I’d be as excited as the next kid on the block if we found real, honest-to-God sentient life outside our planet. Some of my favorite movies include ET, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 2001, A Space Odyssey and Star Trek. But, then maybe, as Stephen Hawking said, we wouldn’t be very happy with our new found friends because they would probably kill us without batting an eye (or whatever it is that they see with).

Truth is, not all scientists are gaga about ET. Enrico Fermi famously asked in a 1950 conversation with fellow scientists, “Where is everybody?” His thoughts have become known as Fermi’s Paradox: the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Paul Davies, world-renowned theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist, says plainly, “Despite this sea change in thinking, there is still not a shred of evidence for any life beyond Earth, intelligent or otherwise. Instead of the hoped-for clamour of interstellar messages, there is only an eerie silence.” Davies considers the best thinking on this subject in his 2010 book: “The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.” It is a balanced look at the scientific evidence, in contrast to the ET-lust that we see from many today.

Then we have John Gribbin, astronomer and science writer, whose new book, “Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique” comes to the same, boring conclusion as Davies. He sums up his 205 page analysis: “On a planet like the earth, life may only get one shot at technology – we have exhausted the easily accessible supplies of raw materials, so if we destroy ourselves the next intelligent species, if there is one, won’t have the necessary raw materials to get started. There are no second chances. And that is the last piece of evidence that completes the resolution of the Fermi paradox. They are not here, because they do not exist. The reasons why we are here form a chain so improbable that the chance of any other technological civilization existing in the Milky Way Galaxy at the present time is vanishingly small. We are alone, and we had better get used to the idea.”

And so again we have science divided on yet another crucial matter. Why the great rush to find ET? I can’t really explain it. But what bothers me is this: Why am I considered unintelligent because I believe in God – the Ultimate ET, when certain scientists look for a demigod? Their search is just not big enough.

Come to think of it, I actually do, for God’s sake (pardon the pun), believe in extra-terrestrial life – because as a Christian I believe that an eternal, omnipotent and loving being exists – and we call Him God. I seem to remember when I was younger seeing a book in a used book store with the title, “The Visited Planet.” (Can’t find it now – but if you run across it, please email me, will you?) The truth is, our planet has been visited by “aliens”, most notably one Jesus Christ. And we have a record of these visits, the Bible. Why not look into what we have here and now as earnestly as we expect to find something extra – out there? Chew on that one for a while.

See links below to books and articles referenced:

Alien Life: …Impossible to Deny

Davies Skeptical of ET

John Gribbin: Alone in the Universe

I’m a firm believer that faith lost can become faith regained. If that makes me an outcast at the latest Calvinist Meet-up then so be it. The Scriptures are unambiguously clear on this. In any event, I’ve been reading stories from those who lost their faith and then reflected upon what it’s meant to them. This is not my “I told you so” moment, but a look into the eye of a lost faith and its meaning to those who tell it.

I’d love to be able to say that all these stories have a happy ending. Some do. Some do not. But, for the record, it ain’t over till it’s over. In the meantime, we pray for those in the abyss of doubt and disillusionment.

With that in mind, I present to you some thoughts from Margaret Wheeler Johnson, Huffington Post’s Women vertical editor. I offer no commentary, no reflection. There are others like it I’ll post in the future, so keep your eyes open for them soon.

Losing My Religion: If I’m So Done With Faith, Why Do I Still Feel Its Loss?

So Josef Stalin had a daughter, Svetlana Iosifovna Alliluyeva. And two sons. One son was captured by the Nazis in 1941 and died in a concentration camp. The other son died an alcoholic at age 40. Svetlana defected to the United States in 1967. Her father had served 12 years as Premier of the Soviet Union, where his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers.

Yet even living in the godless Soviet Union, with her father as its Premier, Svetlana saw through this hopelessly misguided worldview and believed:

“it was impossible to exist without God in one’s heart.”

And so Jesus’ words come true again:

“…upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

See the full article here:

Stalin’s Daughter Dies

The Grace Effect

There’s “hard apologetics” where we engage the merits of philosophical, scientific and Biblical issues head-on. Then, there’s “soft apologetics” where life itself dictates the issues and nudges us toward reality. This book falls into the “soft apologetics” category.

Larry Taunton is the Founder and Director of the Fixed-Point Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to the public defense of the Christian faith. Fixed-Point is at pains to show that Christianity is the viable worldview in a culture where some discount it as a relic of a bygone era. Accordingly, Fixed-Point has hosted debates between such rivals as John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, Lennox and Peter Singer and David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens.

The book begins with a midnight dinner discussion among Taunton, Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox. Lennox and Hitchens had just ended their debate an few hours earlier and now carry it on in an amicable discussion in a nearby restaurant. The talk was turning to Hitler and his place in the pantheon of twentieth century atheistic dictators. Hitchens would have nothing of it. Hitchens and several other “new atheists” are not shy that the world would be a better place without Christianity.

Larry writes, “Sometimes these discussions can degenerate into a body count. The atheist will say, ‘Christians were responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials.’ The Christian will counter, ‘Atheists were responsible for Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.’ The reasoning is not sound, and this particular conversation seemed headed in that direction.” So Taunton doesn’t go there. Instead, he asks Hitchens which worldview leads society into a more humane, caring place, atheism or Christianity? Which is more prone to care for the poor and elderly, the orphan, the sick and disadvantaged?

This book takes the debate to a micro-level by looking at the process of adopting a young ten year old orphan girl from Ukraine. Taunton tells the story powerfully because it is his family who adopts her. Ukraine, of course, is part of the former USSR, where atheism was official state policy. It did its best to eradicate Christian teaching and influence during its 70 year history. Unfortunately, it was quite effective. On the other hand, it provides a dramatic picture of what life is like in a country where leaders do not believe in, much less, fear God.

The rest of the book takes us into the sad world of the Ukranian orphanage system. It seems as if the system is geared to make it as difficult as possible to adopt. Along the way we learn that bribery is a well-understood part of the process. Everyone wants a piece of the action. And to make it to the finish line, you have to play their game. Petty players in small positions of power wield it mercilessly. You must set your expectations incredibly low and even then you are surprised at the corruption.

Some say that Taunton is too hard on Ukraine. That he has created a strawman by focusing on the worst aspect of a culture and amplified it to attack a broader worldview. Maybe so. But maybe not. I’ve never been to Ukraine. Others, however, validate his account. Sasha herself provides a picture of grace and faith in God that no amount of arguing over the kalam cosmological argument could ever match. I simply commend the book to you for serious reflection on which culture you’d rather live in – one dominated by a worldview that seeks power “over others” or one that honors the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who said:

“Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

The Grace Effect

Even Richard Dawkins’s fellow atheists get it. Dawkins’s condescending tone dismissing Craig as an unheard-of philosopher is hardly credible, given the notable fellow-atheists Craig has debated in recent years (Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, Lewis Wolpert, Peter Atkins, Shelly Kagan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, just to name a few). Either he has not been paying attention to the comments on his own atheist-website or he is being dishonest.

Just searching the term “William Lane Craig” on Dawkins’s website brings up tons of comments, even some from Dawkins himself. Just today I did this and the site returned 2,670 results. For example, on September 28, 2011, Dawkins made this comment:

“I have to be careful to avoid prejudice resulting from my almost visceral loathing of “Dr” Craig’s odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice. But this piece of libellous logic-chopping almost deserves to be set alongside his notorious defence of biblical genocide and infanticide. Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts. After this, I’d have a hard time bringing myself to shake hands with him, let alone share a platform with him.”

Hmm. Interesting words there, Dr. Dawkins. I find it odd that you – writing from your moral highground (cough, cough) – refuse to debate Craig, while Christian apologists are not similarly loathe to debate Peter Singer, a Princeton bio-ethicist who has been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” (See http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html) Both Dinesh D’Souza and John Lennox have debated Singer – without Dawkins’s self-righteous remarks.

When the heat is on you, the strategy can be either to go forcefully to meet the attack or ignore, hoping the noise will go away. So Dawkins and some others have chosen to ignore. This tact usually works when your opponent is universally recognized to be a quack, but Dr. Craig is no quack. Dawkins knows it, but chooses to ignore anyway. Time will tell if this is to his advantage. I think not.

So, it will be a loss to the intellectual world to have Dawkins miss his opportunity next Tuesday, October 25th, if he does not show up for the debate – which, we think is what will happen. And, not without regret from some of his fellow atheists, as Daniel Came laments in The Guardian on October 22nd:

“As a sceptic, I tend to agree with Dawkins’s conclusion regarding the falsehood of theism, but the tactics deployed by him and the other New Atheists, it seems to me, are fundamentally ignoble and potentially harmful to public intellectual life. For there is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people’s beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn’t care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason. On the contrary, people’s attitudes towards religious belief can and should be shaped by reason, not bile and invective. By ignoring this, the New Atheists seek to replace one form of irrationality with another.” (http://tinyurl.com/3lao8jq)

We hope that in the coming days someone from the atheist camp will pick up the banner, and with a respectful and thoughtful tone, engage Christians in a way that promotes light, and not heat (such as the Russell-Copelston BBC debate back in 1948. See http://tinyurl.com/42g3g8u).

Now, that would be a miracle!