It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO 'Theology' vs. UFO 'Science'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Do you feel that the UFO & Aliens forum would be better suited by having it split between theological discourse and scientific study? Personally I would rather sift through scientific evidence than post after post discussing why the aliens might be coming or what their intentions are.

I feel that spliting the forums would suit the comunity as a whole by keeping the burden of scientific proof in the Science forum while retaining the theological speculation in the Theology forum.

Photos, Videos, Alien Artifacts, Crashes, Communication Methods, and other scientifically measurable topics could be posted in the UFO & Aliens Science Forum. Abductions, Theories, Religous/Theological Interpretations, and other scientifically unmeasurable topics of interest to the community could find a welcome home in a UFO & Aliens Theology Forum.

I have hinted at this in other threads, but seeing as it isn't the true topic of some of them, it doesn't really get the notice I feel it should. (If this thread should be elsewhere, please correct me.)




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Due to the lack of physical evidence, the theology and the science of UFOlogy often blur together. Such a division could end up causing less feedback than true advancement, but that's just an opinion.

Also, who is to judge what is scientific and what is theology or mythology? That's a pretty steep slope that I'm not sure we volunteers want to be slid down and thrown to the lions, hehe...



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Also, who is to judge what is scientific and what is theology or mythology? That's a pretty steep slope that I'm not sure we volunteers want to be slid down and thrown to the lions, hehe...


My interpretation would be dependant on the availablity of scientifically measurable phenomenon. Does a thread promote the scientific aspects of Ufology or the theological based on conjecture? I personally think it wouldn't be all that hard to discern the differences, but then again, this is something I have been thinking about for awhile now and my ideas are more orderly in my mind than those I have commited to text.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I always believed that the best way to be more productive in ideas is to compine science with theology. Theology begun from the past eras as a form of science to explain the phenomena that had taken place around them. That was the ancient's civilizations way to explain things. Trough observing things
Theology=science

After Renaissance humanity introduced a new norm on who to explain things. Observation and experiment. Which means that we added in theology the experiment part. That was the level-up of science into the today's morph. An evolution to our way of thinking.

I believe that HankMcCoy is right and i congratulate him for this initiative.
The Alien/UFO is big and reaches approximatelly the 208 pages. A split would help the visitors or those who wish to go back for further investigation over the past threads. The most important ,though, is that we will avoid any obfuscation and specialise into the today's science and the past's. Theology and science, altough, that satisfy the same needs for explaining things are not to be conbined. Today we follow a different way of explaining things from 500 years before.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   


My interpretation would be dependant on the availablity of scientifically measurable phenomenon. Does a thread promote the scientific aspects of Ufology or the theological based on conjecture? I personally think it wouldn't be all that hard to discern the differences, but then again, this is something I have been thinking about for awhile now and my ideas are more orderly in my mind than those I have commited to text


I'm also thinking of the realities of modding such a division. It would be a logistics nightmare for the mods involved, and require an awful lot of thread moves on a regular basis, and dealing with hurt egos thereafter.... Not saying it's a bad idea, just unsure of the practicality of it from a moderation standpoint or a moral compass standpoint. It could have the unwanted effect of making the more "non-scientific" members or threads feeling "lesser" and thus not participating.....

EDIT: you may also want to post this in the Board Business forum... It does "fit" here, but likely to get more staff views there.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Ah, science... so cut and dried. Nothing fuzzy, everything clear and easily discernable...

Right?

Nope... check this out;



www.fnal.gov...

The Search for Extra Dimensions
OR Does Dzero Have Branes?

In fact, we do not really know how many dimensions our world has. From our current observations, all we know is that the world around us is at least 3+1-dimensional. (The fourth dimension is time. While time is different from the familiar spatial dimensions, Lorentz and Einstein showed at the beginning of the 20th century that space and time are intrinsically related.) The idea of additional spatial dimensions comes from string theory, the only self-consistent quantum theory of gravity so far. This theory tells us that a consistent description of gravity requires more than 3+1 dimensions, and that indeed the world around us could have up to 11 spatial dimensions.


Bolding mine

And that's from Fermilab!!! So, when someone talks about beings visiting us from other dimensions, the division between science and the paranormal/shapeshifting aliens from the 8th dimension becomes darn well plausable.

I know what you mean, though.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

I'm also thinking of the realities of modding such a division. It would be a logistics nightmare for the mods involved, and require an awful lot of thread moves on a regular basis, and dealing with hurt egos thereafter



Logistics nightmare---?

There isn’t even one scientifically provable alien or UFO story, idea, wish, or what have you out there.

It will be a quiet and peaceful board, good luck finding something “scientific” that will hold any muster---


Dang, I’m sounding like a skeptic



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I am for this idea 100%. These days the forums are full of conjecture and it's really hard to have a full out Scientific discussion in a professional manner. However, I don't think the forum will catch on if it just becomes a sub-forum, it'll have to be a 50/50 split, so that when you first come to the ATS Aliens & UFOs forum you'll have to choose which one to post in.

It'd be nice to find out what we can conclude.
Personally I wouldn't mind becoming more organized than... well, we're just not organized right now.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   


Personally I wouldn't mind becoming more organized than... well, we're just not organized right now.


I am 100% in favor of more organization

Trying not to stay off topic I would also like to put forward the idea of a ''litter forum'', where:

stupid,
trivial,
repeated,
already mentioned,
locked,
closed threads

would be placed

I mean that it is not aesthetic to go e.g. at the alien forum and see 5 threads closed

Got my drift?


Dragon

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
That's a good idea, dragon. All those unnecessary posts saying "It's old, it was already posted here ", which results in a lot of spent time, digging up that old thread, trying to convince this guy that it's already been discussed. I know several forums with 'trash' sections where all the type of threads you describe end up, and usually they're not even accessible by non-mods.

However, this is some major changes we're talking about. Splitting up the forum would require some major backing from mods. They'd have to like the idea, and I hope they will.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
So, when someone talks about beings visiting us from other dimensions, the division between science and the paranormal/shapeshifting aliens from the 8th dimension becomes darn well plausable.


Yes, I see where this is coming from, however, if someone says..

"I am being abducted by 8th dimensional aliens." The difference between a scientific debate and a theological one would involve the status of measurable data that can be analyzed.

A scientific debate would include detailing and analyzing the the evidence of the claim to determine the origin of the phenomenon in an attempt to discern the facts of the matter. If no evidence is there to be analyzed, there is not chance of a scientific study.

A theological debate would include anecdotes of others claiming to be abducted by these 8 dimensional beings, discussing their motives, and questioning their involvement in our lives. The topics of discussion would not be seen as 'falsifiable', and as such would not be backed by scientific means.

This is the major divide in this field of study. 'Scientists' trying to obtain evidence, and 'Theologins' trying to draw conclusions based on theory. If the same standards of evidence are put on both types of threads, it leads to instances when perfectly viable stories are cut to shreads from lack of evidence.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Wonderful idea, Hank.

I've held back from discussing events I've been through just because I have no desire to place them in an offical alien/ufo thread when I know full well my story might not hold water to the majority of the hardcore community in there.

Kudos. Excellent idea.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
A scientific debate would include detailing and analyzing the the evidence of the claim to determine the origin of the phenomenon in an attempt to discern the facts of the matter. If no evidence is there to be analyzed, there is not chance of a scientific study.



I understand completely what you are saying Hank, but in response to the above I have to point out that science itself is starting to sound like the paranormal forum. When the worlds' leading physicists envision an 11 dimension reality, I doubt they consider those extra dimensions empty space. It could very well be inhabited.

This problem we're talking about is in relation to Aliens and UFO's forum and trying to distinguish what seems pure fantasy and what may be scientific, right? But the lines between them are blurred, just as the idea of Ezekiels Wheel and angels are easily interchanged with UFO's and aliens. One could readily be an interpretation of the other.

It's the same with science. The more we find out about how the universe began, about Dark Matter, Anti-matter, gluons, muons, strange particles (and so on), the less 'real' it all seems to be. Advanced science today, imho, is weirder than any pulp science fiction story I ever read.

String theory and the attendant 11 dimensions it proposes really does throw an entirely new spin on our little gray aliens. What if they do move in and out of our view because they travel between those numerous dimensions? Is it now paranormal? The stuff of ghosts? Or are they still highly advanced beings, mentally and technologically?

I've said in another thread that I see aliens as being from another solar system. or even another galaxy. That's the way I grew up... reading Heinlein, Clarke, Farmer or dozens of other 60's SciFi authors. It's what I know and want to believe.

But the truth is...facts are stranger than fiction and the topper to that is the fact that science seems more confused than ever before. When the scientists are seeing God in physics, you know they're standing around with their mouths ajar at what they're just learning now

So...how do you seperate the science from the fantasy, when the science begins to look like fantasy and fantasy resembles science?

Edit to add thread sort of related, kinda...


[edit on 11/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Do you feel that the UFO & Aliens forum would be better suited by having it split between theological discourse and scientific study? Personally I would rather sift through scientific evidence than post after post discussing why the aliens might be coming or what their intentions are.

I feel that spliting the forums would suit the comunity as a whole by keeping the burden of scientific proof in the Science forum while retaining the theological speculation in the Theology forum.

Photos, Videos, Alien Artifacts, Crashes, Communication Methods, and other scientifically measurable topics could be posted in the UFO & Aliens Science Forum. Abductions, Theories, Religous/Theological Interpretations, and other scientifically unmeasurable topics of interest to the community could find a welcome home in a UFO & Aliens Theology Forum.

I have hinted at this in other threads, but seeing as it isn't the true topic of some of them, it doesn't really get the notice I feel it should. (If this thread should be elsewhere, please correct me.)


What about the science of theology used to derive the definition of theology? Or the theology behind science? The speculation of factual evidence and the fact of speculation? What about the immeasurable "scientific" topics? Quantum Existence (quantum physics) which is related to consciousness says that the fact is... Extra-terrestrials Exist because it is in Our consciousness. We should discuss why the idea consciously Exists and why consciousness Exists, what the Existence of consciousness means, what the consciousness of Existence is and why they all are important to Be aware of.

Dividing "research" only impairs the ability to rocket forth

[edit on 11-1-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
'Theoretical Sciences' are just that, Theories.

Can we use theories to explain theories? Sure we can! But when you do that, you get topics like.. Reptilians control the NWO... and.. Greys are mechanical slaves of the Nordics! Without the measurable evidence SOMEWHERE in the mix, even theoretical science is just a good bedtime story. (Even though I do believe in M-theory.)

@LOVE

Considering your statement has no unfalsifiable claims, it would be seen as a theological statement about science, and not a scientific statement about theology.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Great idea. I think if it was done well it would really help. Being science minded myself, I've pretty much stopped reading UFO threads because they are so much theology and story telling these days.

I do foresee one issue... people who don't understand the scientific method or concept of evidence posting in the wrong forum a lot.

I've seen so many "proof" and "smoking gun" post that contain neither lately.

The moderation of such forums would be demanding.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
'Theoretical Sciences' are just that, Theories.

Can we use theories to explain theories? Sure we can! But when you do that, you get topics like.. Reptilians control the NWO... and.. Greys are mechanical slaves of the Nordics! Without the measurable evidence SOMEWHERE in the mix, even theoretical science is just a good bedtime story. (Even though I do believe in M-theory.)

@LOVE

Considering your statement has no unfalsifiable claims, it would be seen as a theological statement about science, and not a scientific statement about theology.


"Science" is considered to Be mostly "fact", No? This would Be considered to Be "unfalsifiable". Science must then Be theological by the standards Being presented. Does Being the unfalsifiable define the theological? If so, can this reasoning please Be explained?

There is theo- in theology and theo- in theory. Science has many theories, No? Maybe there is an inspiration here?

There is No separation of the two, only an illusory concept. There is a theology of science and a science of theology. Why divide them? There is a theology of theology and a science of science. Theories? Why deal with theories? They are falsifiable. So according to this perspective presented, science must Be falsifiable? What kind of research bases itself on Being false?

That which is unfalsifiable is that which is truth. Relative truth which is limited is falsifiable and temporary, this way of thought will come to an end by alchemical (all chemical) conscious transformation, because of their base which is built on illusional limits. Temporaries are impermanent, theories are such and claim in and of themselves in great pride to Be.

Those which are limited have beginning and end, thus they are falsifiable. Therefore they have the ability to Be false when judged from reality and illusion, but are Not necessarily Existentially false Because Existence allows them to Exist.

The unlimited transcend even time, having No end and No beginning; unfalsifiable

The truth is unlimited, yet denied and ignored. We are seen as IN-finite when actually We are Out-finite and Omni-finite (any idea regarding finite, including out of the finite).

Thinking freedom is gained from IN-dependence, when it is Out-dependence that will free Us from wanting to gain anything and gain anything from wanting. We all ready are, there is Not even Nothing to gain

"Science" has Been presented to Be the perpetrator of "theology", and "theology" the limiting of "science". Together they can and will prosper and bloom into truth.

"UFO's" show Us that We are Not only connected to Everything, but We are Everything, and Not to divide consciousness which is of the thought, word, and concept. Science and theology develop consciousness the same as consciousness develops science and theology. Dividing consciousness is what limits progress, but all so allows Us to see Our connection, because to see the divided We can see the connected. The goal is to acknowledge the division and remain connected: remain connected while observing and accepting all things... even division

[edit on 12-1-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Despite posting infrequently, I read threads in various forums here continuously, and feel that this is an excellent and advantageous idea.

Theological discussions could be conducted without demands for verifiable evidence derailing threads, while scientific analysis requiring evidence and debates rooted in the scientific process could be carried out without purely theological input likewise derailing those threads.

Some may find themselves asking, "But why should theologians be allowed to advance a position or lay claim to a belief without evidence?" or, "Why should scientists be allowed to dismiss or refrain from factoring in certain more exotic or seemingly improbable possibilities on the basis that they lack evidence, if such evidence might exist but remains concealed, or if such possibilities might be true yet impossible to prove?" The answer is simple: people are different.

The logic of a scientist is that facts or probabilities can be reasonably established via the examination of observable evidence, hypothesis, experimentation, and, at least ideally, proof. In a sense, that logic itself forms the basis of a belief - the belief in the scientific process as the most reliable path to truth and the establishment of facts. Theologians have the luxury of their own belief, however, which permits them to ask, "What if that isn't true?" and, "Is not adherence to the scientific process itself to adhere to a belief - just as theologians adhere to beliefs - but a belief supported by our senses, which could conceivably be deceived?" (i.e. If we are incapable of knowing everything, then there could be phenomena or truths which we are incapable of observing or proving which could nonetheless be true.) Too many discussions with potential merit end up dying due to this conflict of diametrically opposed logic.

Both of these positions have merit, people are diverse, many will staunchly adhere only to one or the other no matter what anyone says or does, and both deserve to have their position fully explored and discussed regardless of what the other side thinks. This idea, in my opinion, is one way to allow that without one position or the other paralyzing or derailing discussions taking place within the context of either form of logic.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
So...how do you seperate the science from the fantasy, when the science begins to look like fantasy and fantasy resembles science?
[edit on 11/1/07 by masqua]


Fantasy isn't the case here, many contactees would take umbrage with that term.

Perhaps the best way to separate the two groups would be to create a sub-forum which is exclusively for contactees to share their experiences, unconventional ET communications and to discuss the dimensional aspects which borders on mystical in many ways. Faith in the knowing that it happened is all that we can bring back with us and the description of the events is all we have to offer (though I am determined to bring back some sort of proof if contacted again, beyond determined, I'll find a way somehow).

But until we can deliver solid evidence it would be greatly appreciated if we could share what we've experienced and discuss it with other contactees without the flamethrowers wanting a HD video on youtube or a ET bodypart served on a platter. The flamethrowers are getting lower and louder in their comments and are driving us off the board, soon there will not be any contactees left and the forum will be left with only the nuts & bolts of UFOs to discuss like a one legged chair. The missing legs are a part of the structure and without them much of the insight into this phenomenom would be missing from your equations as to what the big picture truly is.

Also, I seriously doubt that the nuts & bolts people are capable of considering a dimensional aspect to the UFO/ET phenomenom and if they should, well I'll get my popcorn and watch the show, should be good for some laughs. They would probably start with their 2D explanation of them but wouldn't really know how to describe them if experienced. If they should attempt to they would find themselves sounding like us. They should stick to their nuts & bolts and let us explore for probably the first time on the internet the finer points of our experiences uninterrupted. At first it would be pretty ABC but with time I would hope that we would distill it down to its essence and find some answers.

Just my thoughts on this,

STM

BTW Masqua, I wanted to vote your last post WATS but saw that that option isn't available for Mods, it was the best post I've read on the board in months.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by seentoomuch]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I am only new here but if what your asking for is 2 seperate UFO/ET forums and 1 is for pure facts and to dispute evidence and media coverage. The second for are the completly unproven stuff and outlandish claims and all the other stuff that doesnt rely on disutible evidence rather than someones opinion then I agree. My biggest problem with this topic is its so blurred with, lets face it crazy people and lots of disinfo so having a seperate forum that deals with facts only would make it easier to lump all the good stuff together. It would though imo be tough to distinguish from person to person what belongs in what forum and people will most probably disagree.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join