Pastor upset to find Bible labeled as "fiction" by Costco

On November 15th, 2013, Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach was shopping at his local Costco in Simi Valley, California, when he was surprised to see a Bible in the Fiction section. On inspecting the $14.95 price tag, he found that, sure enough, it was labeled as Fiction.
Upset, Kaltenbach attempted to complain to Costco, but was unable to find an employee, so instead tweeted a picture of the Bible and its label.
Kaltenbach argues that this is a matter of tolerance. He claims that labeling a Bible as Fiction is tantamount to calling out Christianity as untrue, a claim not to be made lightly, and certainly one that should be avoided by a public company such as Costco.
There are four attitudes likely to be adopted on this news item: those who consider it a bold and proper stance for Costco to finally label the Bible for what it really is; those who hold that the Bible is an accurate representation of history, or at the very least, a legitimate and ancient system of belief, and should therefore fall in the category of non-fiction; those who would be willing to give religious believers their freedom to believe, but don't think that the Bible rises to the level of "non-fiction"; and finally, those who think that the whole affair is much ado about nothing, and couldn't care less what Costco chooses to label their Bibles.
In an increasingly Postmodern culture, rigid categories such as "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" may be seen as increasingly too narrow, especially to classify a book as controversial as the Bible. More than ever, a distinction is being made between the categories of History and Religion. More and more people - professing Christians even - would consider the Bible to be a kind of "Religious Truth" without being a historical one. Only those at the extremes would continue to maintain that the Bible is either true or it isn't; that no shades of grey are permitted to enter the discussion.
Adding to this confusion is the fact that there is a very real argument to be made that the authors of scripture claimed to be transmitting actual history.
In the introduction to his gospel, Luke says, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:1-4
In his first epistle, the Apostle John stresses over and over the eyewitness and factual nature of what he writes, saying, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.…” I John 1:1-3
In his second epistle, the Apostle Peter writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty..” II Peter 1:16
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul goes to great efforts to establish the factual nature of the gospel message, saying, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me..” I Corinthians 15:3-8
Paul stresses this because, he says, if these things are not facts then Christianity is a lie and serves no purpose. He says, “…if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. “ I Corinthians 15: 14-19
Not only does the Bible claim that it is literally true, it admits that if it is not true, it is a lie and a vain faith.
If the Bible cannot be taken literally, it cannot be taken at all. It does not, by its own admission, leave anyone the option of an airy, poetic, spiritualized reading that sets it aside as historical fact.
The first century Christians certainly didn’t have that option. Of the handful of writers that composed the New Testament, most of them were supposedly executed for their beliefs according to early church writers, including Peter, Paul, and James. Men do not willingly suffer such abuses for what they believe is not literally true.
By the same token, the concept of scripture as Fiction is a mockery of those in totalitarian countries who, today, are imprisoned or executed for their beliefs.
When Christ began to teach things that people did not want to hear, many of his followers abandoned him.
“After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,’” John 6:66-68
G.K. Chesterton said: "When belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to
turn away from him. But in heaven's name to what?"

Bart Ehrman´s Latest Book may be good news for Evangelicals

Bart Ehrman is one of the most highly regarded New Testament scholars of the modern day, and a persistent thorn in the side of Evangelical Christians. Like many well-respected Biblical Scholars in academia, Ehrman’s notions don’t exactly support conservative, religious views of the Bible, and he says as much in the majority of his books. But his latest book may have some seeds for hope in conservative circles.
No, Ehrman has not converted (re-converted?). His latest book does not state that Jesus was God, rose from the dead, is the savior of mankind, or anything so blatant. However, the things it does say are worthy of heavy consideration, especially in comparison to some of Ehrman’s previous stances.
Ehrman’s new book, How Jesus Became God: The Exultation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, looks at the development of the notion that Jesus was the same person as God.
In his interview and debate on the 4/5/2014 episode of the British radio show and podcast Unbelievable? , Ehrman summarizes:
“A lot of people have this misconception that it was at the Council of Nicaea that Jesus was ‘decided’ to be God, which is absolutely wrong.”
“It gets a little complicated, which is why it takes a whole book to explain it, but the basic idea I have is that in the Greek and Roman worlds, there were ideas that some human beings were made divine – the become divine by being exalted.
“There are other stories in the Greek and Roman world where a divine being becomes a human. So in one case, you have the exaltation of a human being to divinity, and in another case you have the incarnation of divinity into a human.
“I think John has the incarnation view, and I think the synoptic Gospels have the exultation view.”
Bart then cites a passage in Philippians to show that Paul had a combination view of these two.
So clearly Bart has not adopted a conservative position on this topic. So why is this good news for Evangelicals? On the same episode of Unbelievable?, conservative Christian scholar Simon Gathercole comments:
“I thought ‘Oh this is just another evolutionary tale which is just a re-hashing of an old idea …where Jesus starts off as a rabbi or even a prophet and then becomes Messiah, and then becomes Lord, and then becomes pre-existent, and then becomes God.
“What I was anticipating was that the earliest Jewish Christians sort of had a rigid conception of monotheism and then when you get out of the Jewish environment and take Jesus out into the wild and wacky pagan world, then he can be called a god.
“Bart’s whole approach to the question is very different from that, and it was refreshing to see a different take.”
There are two key points in this book upon which conservatives may pin some hope. The first is that Bart has, indeed, changed his mind on several historical facts surrounding the resurrection and the rise of Christianity:
“I did think that people didn’t come out and call Jesus God for decades after his resurrection – that they had a different understanding of Jesus – and I’ve changed my mind, when I wrote this book.”
Ehrman has come to the conclusion that the Christian ideals about the deity of Jesus are far earlier than scholars have previously been willing to admit. This being so, the writings of otherwise liberal and unbelieving scholars such as Ehrman may be adopted into the defense of an early and accurate view of the divinity of Jesus.
The second, and possibly more important admission Ehrman makes is that the visions of Jesus resurrection were probably historical:
“I think from anybody’s perspective, you’d have to say that it’s not the resurrection that starts Christianity, it’s the belief in the resurrection. Because if Jesus had been raised from the dead and nobody knew about it, then obviously you wouldn’t have Christianity.
“So it’s the belief in the resurrection, and the question is, what motivated that belief? And that’s where I spend a good bit of time in the book trying to show why it is that the belief in the resurrection started.”
“This is something else I’ve changed my mind on. I came to think (this will be controversial) that the traditions about Jesus having a known tomb that was discovered to be empty are probably not historical. That belief in the resurrection hinges completely on the visions. Now whether or not you agree about the empty tomb, it is true in the New Testament that the empty tomb doesn’t convince anyone to believe. And you can understand why.
“If someone goes to a tomb where a body used to be, they don’t immediately say resurrection. They say ‘grave robbers.’ Or they say ‘hey, I’m at the wrong tomb!’
“So the immediate thought isn’t ‘resurrection.’ It’s the visions of Jesus in the New Testament itself that are said to inspire faith in the resurrection.”
These eyewitness supports play a key part in Dr. Gary Habermas’ “Minimal Facts” defense of the resurrection.
Dr. Gary Habermas spent over five years examining and cataloguing hundreds of prominent secular scholars from the 1980’s to current day according to the first-century records that they considered historic facts. Among these he found strong support that a significant number of early Christians did have some kind of transformative experience.
In one of his epistles, the Apostle Paul, whom scholars agree wrote his books in the mid-first century, decades after Jesus’ ministry, says the following:
1 Corinthians 15:3-6
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
Given the early dating of this passage, it would be bold indeed to make such a claim if there were, in fact, no eyewitnesses. Paul could be discredited as a fraud very quickly by citing specific witnesses (Cephas/Peter, James, and “the twelve”) and by listing numerous witnesses (over 500) that did not exist. And if Paul was discredited, his letters would most likely not continue to be copied and circulated so widely.The post resurrection appearances of Jesus are not simply reported by one person or group of people on one instance. Rather, it is reported on multiple occasions by multiple people or groups of people, many of which had not communicated with one another prior to witnessing Jesus alive. The reports of the witnesses are not restricted to one or two books, but are independently attested by all four gospels and several of the epistles. Multiple, independent attestation is one of the hallmarks of the truth of an eyewitness statement.This is something that even the harsh German critic of the resurrection, Gerd Lüdemann, had to admit to:“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” (Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p.80)
Ehrman should not be taken to be saying anything more than what he admits to; however his admissions, and the change of mind that has led to them, support the idea that the very earliest Christians held the divinity of Jesus and experienced resurrection appearances that are difficult to explain as illusion, hallucination, or hypnosis.
While Ehrman does not support Evangelicals, his admissions add evidence to the Christian conceit.

Re: The Atheist Daughter of a Noted Christian Apologist Shares her Story

In a recently released article that has exploded on the internet, Rachael Slick, daughter of Matt Slick, spoke of her atheism. Matt Slick is the founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), and a public voice of Christian Apologetics. Rachael tells of how she grew up in a home where
theology and apologetics were rehearsed and drilled daily. However, when she began to question certain things about these beliefs, she was unsatisfied with the answers. Says Rachael:
"This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?
“Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either. Everyone had always explained this problem away using the principle that Jesus’ sacrifice meant we wouldn’t have to follow those ancient laws. But that wasn’t an answer. In fact, by the very nature of the problem, there was no possible answer that would
align with Christianity."
Since the article doesn't explain to which moral precepts she is referring, one can only speculate that it is a reference to Levitical restrictions such as dietary laws, days of observation, clothing restrictions, etc.
Frequently, skeptics of Christianity use some of these more extreme Levitical laws as an argument about the absurdity of the Bible.
Assuming these are the laws to which she is referring, then the answer to this question is that often a person's position or responsibility before God indicates that which is right and wrong for that person. A simple example of this would be that it would be wrong for a parent to not discipline their child for being disrespectful to a stranger. On the other hand, it would be wrong of the stranger to discipline the child for the same thing. This is because the child is the responsibility of the parent, not of the stranger.
The Jews were chosen by God to become the holy bloodline through which his Messiah would be born. More than this, they were given the singular privilege of being given the scriptures and of caring for and transmitting those scriptures across the generations. Because of this responsibility, they were called to act in a way that distinguished them as being unique and separate from all other people.
In the Biblical story of strong-man Samson, the hero was defeated when he allowed his hair to be cut.
The reason for this is that Samson took what was called a “Nazirite Vow.” This was a vow, described in the Levitical Law, which was to be taken by someone chosen to be a holy representative of God. The vow indicated a number of restrictions, one of which was that the person’s hair was never supposed to
be cut. When Sampson took the Nazarite Vow as an appointed Judge of God, it became a sin for him to cut his hair by virtue of his position before God, despite the fact that there is nothing morally wrong with cutting one’s hair.
In the story of Jonah, there is a rare Old Testament instance of an evangelist preaching repentance to a gentile nation. When Jonah called the people of Ninevah to repentance, he did not enforce upon them the Levitical Law. He merely accused them of violating the basic moral precepts that they knew were
right and had chosen to rebel against.
Significantly, their repentance led to their forgiveness.
What is interesting about the New Testament is that as soon as Jesus commissioned his disciples to go forth and preach the gospel to all the world, he abolished the Levitical code. Prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus made a point of remaining separate from the Gentile world. In the book of Matthew, he is seen telling a gentile woman who is pleading for his help, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Yet after his resurrection, he changes his tune entirely:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Suddenly, rather than remaining separate from the world, the disciples were now called to integrate with the world. The most significant example of this is seen in the life of the apostle Peter. Shortly after the disciples were commissioned to preach the gospel to the entire world, God drives the point home to Peter by giving him a vision of unclean animals which he is told to “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Peter
responds by saying “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
God replies “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Immediately after this vision, Peter is called by a gentile who is eager to hear the gospel.
With the sacrifice of Jesus, the responsability of the Jewish people had been fulfilled. They had delivered a Messiah through which, as the Old Testament says “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Jesus, in his parables, took the example of leaven, which in the Old Testament had been a negative symbol of integrating with the world, and turned it into a metaphor for the "Kingdom of Heaven":
“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”
No longer was the Kingdom separate, it was now called to spread and to "leaven" the entire world.
Possibly the problem that Rachael faced was that she framed the question incorrectly. When God created the universe, various aspects of the universe were designed to fulfill various purposes. What is “right” for any created entity is to adhere to the purpose for which it was designed. What is “wrong” is to stray from that purpose. Morality, like all other immaterial constructs, is a function of purpose. This is why God describes people who have sinned as “worthless.” They have literally lost their worth.
Rachael spends the majority of her article outlining the nature of her childhood with specific focus on her relationship with her Christian Apologist father. While one should not judge either her or her father
personally based on this article, she does paint herself as a person open to discussion on topics of philosophy and theology. Appropriately, then, this is a theological answer to a philosophical question.
Of course, the Christian answer is not that one can somehow obey their way into heaven. God demands nothing short of perfection: a standard that no human could achieve through their own efforts. Rather, Christianity states that humans, no matter their imperfections, are forgiven through the work of Christ,
and if they so choose, are ushered purified into God’s presence merely for the asking.

Archaeology uncovers an obscure town mentioned in Bible

The biblical book of Mark has long been considered by scholars to be the earliest gospel written.
However, one common criticism leveled against Mark is a lack of knowledge regarding the geography of Palestine, leading many to speculate that the author of Mark was not familiar with the regions about which he writes, and that he probably wrote long after the events he claims to record.
As German scholar Kümmel writes:
“[T]he considerations against this assumption [that John Mark, companion of Peter, wrote the gospel of Mark] carry weight. The author obviously has no personal knowledge of Palestinian geography, as the numerous geographical errors show.”
While Kümmel and others claim “numerous” geographical errors, the list of such errors that they cite is
actually quite short. Author J.P. Holding responds to Kümmel’s claim:
“Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 97] accuses Mark of "numerous" geographical errors, but names only three: Mark 5:1 (the Gerasene swine), 7:31 (having to do with Tyre/Sidon and the Decapolis), and 10:1 (re the region of Judea). He indicates that a lack of knowledge of the geography of Palestine is against Markan authorship. In reply we may note: The "errors" are a product of the imagination.”
One criticism (not from Kümmel, but from other skeptical scholars) that J.P. Holding examines is this:
“Mark 8:10 he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.
“So what's wrong here? Well, Anderson [another skeptical scholar] complains that Dalmanutha is not referred to anywhere else in any extant literature! Considering how little literature we DO have from the first century, this is rather silly, and very much an argument from silence!”
This “argument from silence” may now have been silenced, as archeologists believe they have uncovered this obscure town.
On the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee, in Israel’s Ginosar Valley, a first century town has been unearthed. A first century fishing boat unearthed in the same region in the 80's, the fact that the town is so near the region in which the events of Mark 8 took place, and the dating of the ruins themselves, have led some to speculate that this may, in fact, correlate with this previously criticized section of Mark’s text.
While this claim is certainly not without its critics, at best this is confirmation of the early dating and accuracy of Mark’s Gospel. At worst, it does nothing to hurt the veracity of this text.
Archeology has time and again upheld the accuracy of the New Testament documents. So much so, in fact, that famed 19th century archaeologist, Sir William M Ramsey, who was a vehement skeptic and critic of scriptural accuracy finally came to the reluctant conclusion that the New Testament documents were a valuable archaeological tool; this after fifteen years of work in the Middle East.
History and philosophy professor, Dr. Tim McGrew of Western Michigan University notes that there is a stunning double-standard for scholars of history with regards to the New Testament documents. While most historians take an “innocent until proven guilty” approach to other ancient historical texts, they maintain a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to the New Testament documents.
Archaeology, however, has proven the accuracy of such documents far more often than it has disproven them.

Atheism and the Liberal Church

J. Warner Wallace is a cold case homicide detective. It is his job to pour over the evidence from old,
unsolved murders to see if some overlooked detail may reveal the identity of the murderer. When
Wallace feels he has sufficient evidence to convict a suspect, he works with the prosecuting attorney to
build a case that will convince a panel of jurors that the suspect was responsible for the crime.
J. Warner Wallace is also a Christian Apologist. In this role, he uses the same techniques of evidence,
abductive reasoning, and logic in order to build a case for the truthfulness of the Christian faith.
“Reasonable Doubts” is a skeptical podcast and radio show aired by a panel of Atheists. As the title
implies, this panel also believes in the courtroom approach to their beliefs. In examining the relevant
evidence, they have concluded that enough doubt, based in reason, remains to deny the truthfulness of
any transcendent deity or power that has any relevance to their lives or society in general.
As much animosity as there is between the Skeptics and the Christian Apologists, there is also a
begrudging respect amidst the more sophisticated crowd. This respect exists because the two sides can
recognize that they are using the same techniques of evidence and logic to opposite ends. Some of them
are building arguments to support a conclusion that they already held while others, like Wallace himself,
held the opposite viewpoint until an examination of the evidence forced them to change their view.
Worldviews will always have an effect on the opinions and behaviors of their adherents. It’s not
surprising, then, that the Christian Apologists and the Skeptics will frequently find themselves at odds
morally, politically, and philosophically. Debates about the morality of abortion and homosexuality, for
instance, are as frequent between the two sides as are debates about Biblical accuracy and the origins of
life.
There is a third group, however, that is a strange animal indeed. This group agrees with the Atheist and
the Skeptic in almost every regard. They will, for instance, support a late dating to the writing of the
New Testament and deny the textual accuracy of these scriptures. They whole-heartedly embrace an
evolutionary outlook in all its particulars, while simultaneously denying the miraculous. Moreover, they
tend to have the same political, moral, and philosophical leanings as do the Skeptic crowd. And yet this
group call themselves Christians and will confess a belief in God. This is the Liberal Church.
Here “Liberal” is referring to so-called Christians who are doctrinally left-leaning, not Christians who are
politically liberal, although the two are usually one and the same. The Liberal Church will readily admit
that the evidence does not support any sense in which a God is necessary either for the existence of the
universe or for their moral conclusions, but they believe in God anyway. This crowd tends to call God
“The Great Mystery,” and so he/she/it must be, for this God has not given them anything that might
indicate what he/she/it is like. Scripture can’t be trusted because they will readily admit to its inaccuracy.
The existence of the universe cannot be leaned upon as evidence for a God, for that would have sprung
into existence whether God were there or not. Nor can moral impulses be appealed to, since all moral
frameworks are equally valid according to their thought. God accepts you no matter what you think, no
need to believe what they believe.
The Atheist and the Liberal Church will both advance the idea that man is intrinsically moral, however
the Atheist will appeal to evolution as the source of morality, whereas the Liberal Church will give God
the credit to these moral impulses. This, again, with no evidence to support this conclusion.
This is interesting, because the frequent cry of the Skeptic is “We can be moral without a God,” while the Liberal Church tries to sneak God in the back door by saying, “Whether you acknowledge Him or not,
God put goodness in your heart.”
In both these instances, the party advancing the argument makes the issue of morality to be the subject
of the argument. This is to be expected as morality is the central issue of practically every world religion.
Jews and Muslims have a restrictive set of moral laws, Hindus have the quid pro quo system of karma,
and Buddhists have the eightfold path.
Interestingly, though, Biblical Christianity is not about human morality. The very first premise of
Christianity is that human beings are incapable of being good, and that whatever behavior they may
judge to be good falls woefully short of God’s standard.
Stranger than this, however, is that in the view of the Biblical Christian, becoming a Christian does not fix
this. Instead, it earns the Christian forgiveness for the wrongdoing. The Christian will still make mistakes,
and these mistakes will also be forgiven.
There is a certain arrogance in any worldview that says that humans are capable of moral behavior
independent of any outside force. At the very least, the Atheists are consistent with their view of the
evidence and the resulting beliefs. The Liberal Church has no such consistency.
This way of building a religion reeks of intellectual dishonesty and is truly, as the Atheist would put it, a
blind faith.

Alien Intelligence and Religion

In their September 7th discussion on the British radio program, “Unbelievable?”, astrophysicist David
Wilkinson and astronomer Mark Kidger discussed how the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the
universe would impact Christian belief. Thoughts were exchanged regarding what life elsewhere might
be like. The two commentators were in agreement that it would likely be almost unrecognizable to
human beings. Life forms elsewhere may not be carbon based, would possibly communicate in ways
other than sound, and may look more mineral than biological. They discussed the likelihood that much
life in the universe may be primitive microbes or basic, unremarkable organisms. Others might be
millions of years more evolved and advanced than humans.
Possibly one of the more imaginative authors when it came to envisioning non-human life forms was the
horror author H. P. Lovecraft. In his most celebrated short story, The Call of Cthulhu, what made the
creature from the story so alien was not its appearance – which though monstrously inhuman, still bore
recognizable features such as bilateral symmetry, a head and four appendages. The truly alien thing
about the titular character, Cthulhu, was its mind. While in a death-like stasis, this being’s powerful
mind transmitted its dreams to the sensitive psyches of artists, poets, and writers the world over. The
result of contact with so alien a mind was insanity. The story describes the time that Cthulhu and his
kind would emerge:
“The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free
and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing
and reveling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel
and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.”

When questions regarding alien life are bandied about, the question “are humans alone in the universe?”
is often used to frame the discussion. This question is very revealing about the mindset of the
questioner. It is not just any life-form humans seek to contact. There are inhuman life-forms aplenty on
earth; but still the question is “are humans alone in the universe?”
An old lady that lives with dozens of cats is not said to be fulfilled, but lonely – she lives alone with her
cats. There is a reason Eliot freed the frogs but kept E.T.
SETI is not the search for extra-terrestrial life but rather the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. This
is a search for life forms that share an essential quality found so far only in human beings: intelligence.
But what defines intelligence? Perhaps the work of Howard Gardner is an appropriate study in answer to
this question.
Unsatisfied with the traditional I.Q. test as a global treatment of the concept of intelligence, Gardner
formed the theory that each individual possessed a number of ways in which they perceived the world
and framed their thoughts. As Gardner put it:
"…we are all able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial
representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an
understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves. Where individuals differ is in the
strength of these intelligences - the so-called profile of intelligences -and in the ways in which such
intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and
progress in various domains." (Gardner, 1991)
But how many of these aspects would an alien being have to share with humans in order to be
categorized as “intelligent”?
In their discussion on “Unbelievable?”, Wilkinson and Kidger speculated that alien beings would most
likely look nothing like humans. This eliminates the possibility that they would share the same “use of
body to solve problems or to make things” as do humans. Kidger and Wilkinson also discussed how they
may communicate and perceive sounds differently, which would revoke the concept that they would
“know the world through language,” or have “musical thinking” in the same way that humans would. As
they would be so different from humans, humans and aliens would be severely limited in their ability to
understand one another.
This leaves those things which are truly universal: logical-mathematical analysis and spatial
representation. Indeed, this is the kind of thing for which SETI searches. That is why the discovery of
pulsars – rotating neutron stars that pulse radiation – caused such a stir in 1967. Burnell, one of the
discoverers of the pulsar, says this about their initial reaction:
"…we did not really believe that we had picked up signals from another civilization, but obviously the
idea had crossed our minds and we had no proof that it was an entirely natural radio emission. It is an
interesting problem—if one thinks one may have detected life elsewhere in the universe, how does one
announce the results responsibly?" (“Little Green Men, White Dwarfs, and Pulsars,” Burnell, 1977)

The fact that they were picking up regular, patterned, and consistent radio “pulses” immediately
brought to mind the concept of intelligent communication. The universe is structured in a logical and
mathematically definable way. Any life form that successfully evolves within the universe will think,
behave, and communicate in logical ways in order to survive and to adapt; regardless of their chemical
makeup, location, language, and body plan.
Of course behaving and communicating in patterned, logical, spatially representative ways doesn’t quite
meet the robust standards humans have for sentient intelligence. Honey bees behave and communicate
in such ways, but one does not have a bee as a conversation companion.
In their discussion, Kidger and Wilkinson brought forth the fact that humans are helplessly prone to
anthropomorphize everything around them, from animals to plants to inanimate objects. If the universe
truly is the result of a random, undesigned expansion of space and time coupled with random chemical
reactions sufficiently complex to create walking, talking, thinking flesh-bags; then humans will ultimately
be stymied in their search for someone in the sky to talk with. Circumstances would have to gift the
alien visitors with body plans, sensory capabilities, and perception of identity very close to those of a
human if any common ground were to be had. Otherwise they would be just one more animal for
humans to observe and catalogue.
In his book, Lord of the Flies, author William Golding tells the story of a group of British school children
stranded on a deserted island. As they struggled to survive and maintain some kind of order and
civilization, they rapidly and tragically devolved into superstition and predatory behavior toward the
wild pigs on the island and eventually toward one another. When they are finally rescued, the British
Naval Officer who discovers them is shocked at their degraded, primitive, and animalistic state. He says
that he would have expected “a better show” from British children.
When humans degrade to a might-makes-right way of behaving, and prey on one another, they are said
to have become “animals.” Perhaps, then, it is worth consideration that, consciously or unconsciously,
for something to meet the human standard of intelligence, people would expect it to behave in a very
particular way. It would have to have a sense of “I” and of “you.” It would have to identify that “I” and
“you” are equal in terms of how “we” are to be treated. In other words, the alien would also have to be
a person. Far from being “free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside,”
humans find that laws and morals are the very thing they use to define the “intelligence” for which they
seek.
Sometimes the search through outer space is framed as a search for “alien civilizations.” A civilization is
more than a mere capacity to build dwelling structures. Ants, termites, and bees do this quite efficiently.
It is the ability to be civil.
The impact that discovering extra-terrestrial life might have on religion, and the nature of this life itself
are entirely hypothetical. It would be improper without any evidence of such life existing to use its
hypothetical existence as an argument against the existence of God, as Lawrence Krauss attempted to
do in his September 21st, 2013 discussion with John Lennox on “Unbelievable?”. It is, however, fascinating to examine what the idea of “intelligence” truly entails, and how - when considered - self-
awareness and mutual respect are so closely bound up in what humans expect from intelligence.