Ridley Scott Does not think god created us

This a direct link to Peter Weyland and Davids chad on AC first scene asking for the same question, just because from this point how we were made this movie begins.

I agree with Ridley to a an extent. 

I knew that James Cameron is an atheist, but didn't know that Ridley Scott is also an atheist. I just read about it yesterday.

I think he´s an agnostic. He's seeking the answers and evolution is part of it.

Well for me it's as simple as it is mind blowing:  Life will arise when the conditions are right.

Our problem (as humanity) is that we have only one reference point for how life came to be (Earth) and can't be sure if this was a one off or, indeed, how or what life may have arisen elsewhere.

Life, as we know it, is matter working together.  Think, all life on Earth is essentially water and other inorganic particles thriving in an admittedly complex relationship, that results in said matter appearing to be 'independent'.  In reality though no life on Earth is truly independent from any other life or the Earth itself.  We're all part of the same thing, just different variations.

I offer the notion that the water we consume today may well have once been TRex piss! :)  All matter is recycled.  It's not created or destroyed, ever!

Anyway, I'm rambling; but to my mind we don't know enough about life here, or we certainly view life from a very species/egocentric and narrow perspective to even begin to think about origins in any meaningful way.

Think about what is needed for you to exist.  Take one element away, or even any tiny element in the chain since the big bang, and hey presto, you don't exist . . .

Now ask yourself, what am I and what is life?  Where was 'I' before I was born,  where do 'I' go when I die?

Sorry if that sounds like pretentious gibberish but I believe life to be more, much more, than we assume.

I doubt there is a 'creator' more that things 'just are' and when conditions are 'right' life comes into being.  I would imagine the variety and type of life across the universe to be infinite and mind blowingly different to what we may assume or imagine.

A bit philosophical for a Monday morning but this is why I love these films - get the brain juices and imagination flowing :)

Deep Space As you  say "life will arise when the conditions are right" and the exact combination of those conditions and accidents might be so difficult to concur and coalesce into "us" that there is also the chance that we are actually alone in the universe. It can also be, like the film "Interstellar" suggests to me, that the other more evolved beings we might find is none other than ourselves in a future stage of evolution.

In response to my post I will add that it could well be possible for a life form(s) to have understood certain principles or 'laws' that govern the origination and continuation of life.

If that were the case then beings like the Engineers and what we see in Prometheus may not be too far from the truth . . . 

So in that sense I'd go with what Ridley is trying (imo) to get at with these films.

@Joylitt - Yes that could well be the case and I really liked that idea in IS.

My feeling though, based on nothing more than intuition and the shear size of the known universe (which is essentially infinite), is that there are is an infinite variety of life out there.

When we factor time into the process as well it makes me wonder how many Earth/human like civilizations have been and gone already over the course of history and how many more will come to be . . .

Deep Space really fascinating stuff. I also hope we are not alone and if we ever make contact that we won't be annihilated :-)

Joylitt - Indeed! :)  

I don't buy Stephen Hawking's rather bleak assessment that any ETs would be a threat to us.  It's possible but not probable imo.  NdG Tyson shares this view as well.

Again, it's that human/ego-centric view that only allows us to see the universe through human perception and human desires; ergo, life is there to be conquered, mastered and understood.  But, granted, we are kind of stuck with it ;) lol

To be fair, this is why philosophy and esoteric or other contemplative practices are so important to mankind, but sadly seem to be a dying art . . . 

Two things I have never been able to accept and never will:

'God'

We're alone in the universe.

Statistically, even when seriously handicapping the odds, you still end up with Life arising elsewhere.
Life is simple, get the right chems together, you get amino acids, they start assembling, and eventually you get DNA, and it's a pretty 'smart' molecule, and competes on a chemo-mechanical manner to build itself up, etc, etc..
Creating the amino acids is very likely to occur in a wide range of primordial environments as the chemistry is quite flexible as to temperature and other variables.

NOW...Intelligent Life? Sure, a Cat is pretty intelligent, really.
But Tool-Making Life is gonna be Rare.

The whole 'God' question, I consider wholly irrelevant. There is NO evidence or proof of the paranormal and supernatural goings-on in assorted religious texts despite assorted claims which are all easily exposed as false.
Like it or not folks, there's only one's actions and having to take responsibility for them. There's no 'devil' to make anyone do anything.

The Afterlife: ODDLY enough there's early stage scientific evidence that a Consciousness (NOT just Humans) does indeed go somewhere upon death of the brain. DEATH of the brain, not merely 'shut-down'.
The signature on an Electromagnetic level corresponds to any one of the Mathematically-Predicted Alternate Realities that science has started looking into.

Deep Space Yes, exactly. We humans think we are the center of it all. As Stanislaw Lem, author of Solaris used to say: "We are only seeking Man. We have no need for other worlds. We need mirrors". That is why I find it funny that nobody points out that in the "Alien: Covenant" trailer someone says "no animals. no birds, nothing". What makes them assume that they are supposed to find those types of life forms on another planet?. It could be a planet where animal life never evolved. Or the forest as a whole could be one single creature much like the ocean in "Solaris". I also find it boring when scientists can only talk about "earth like planets". I know this would be useful for the purpose of future survival, but wouldn't be even more fascinating to find life that is very different from us?

Blackwinter-witch you reminded me a lot of Ellie, the protagonist of Carl Sagan's "Contact". And I bet you could have a good debate with a man of faith like her with Palmer :-)

@ Joylitt - yes, you know I wouldn't mind betting there is 'life' right here on Earth that exists but doesn't meet the accepted 'organic' principles of life like us, therefore it is dismissed or ridiculed.  

@ BW-Witch - Interesting post and I agree in the main with lots of your points.

You mention alternate realities but dismiss the paranormal etc.  Perhaps these things are one and the same?  

I've read a lot of books on esoteric practices from different cultures and even took part in some, spent years meditating and was a Buddhist monk for a time; and I can say from experience that when our perceptions change/grow, or whatever, and we get into a different 'space' we can see the world very differently.

Now does the world change or do we?  And what does that imply about life, perception and the world around us?

I would argue that there is life or forces or whatever you may or wish to call it/them that exist right here and now and most people on planet Earth are oblivious.

I'm not talking about ghosts though or the spirits of dead people, which imo, is pure fantasy and wishful thinking on our part.  But, perhaps those kind of ideas are a very basic way of attempting to understand some of these stranger or seemingly unexplainable phenomena?

Blackwinter-witch: I prefere to be more openminded. Popper has an interesting view on theories/hypotheses (and free will) which gives us an other perspective.

joylitt

Heh, I have had debates with people of faith.
One got so upset because I invalidated and nullified every point they brought up they tried to knock my teeth out, religious discussion via fists, and I'm really lucky hubby was there.
Nothing makes them more aggravatedly angry then insisting they show proof and evidence beyond their texts, and reminding them that 'faith' is not evidence.

My view on 'God' is because it makes absolutely no sense. Also, the various texts and people of faith continually contradict themselves.

THEN we get into how modern texts have very heavily plagiarized from assorted myths, legends, stories and such before their respective religions were around.

If 'God' wants my attention, then I expect him run this universe better instead of being a brobdingnagian-scale deadbeat-dad.
Folks of faith LOVE to point to coincidences as 'proof' of 'god'. Which is, at best, grasping as straws and sound ridiculous when they make such claims.

Then there's how religion always insists that IT comes first in people's lives, and how it plays at being so 'nice'.
Well, look up religion-instigated Genocides, nuff said.
NO statute of Limitations on Genocide, BTW.

As a Native American, I find all the foreign and invasive religions to our lands to be absolutely and tragically false, they're just sheep's skins cloaking wendigo.
'God loves all his children', BUT, not the pagan red men.
ANYTHING on the purported scale of 'god' that claims to be so universally Loving isn't gonna play 'favourites', and any 'god' who DOES play favourites, is one to immediately turn away from and burn every text of.

So, bring on Brother Palmer. Unlike Ellie, I am no stranger to this theatre of discussion. :D

Deep Space

TY! :)

Alternate Realities are part of provable, mathematics-backed studies. They are by definition not Paranormal, nor Supernatural.

Sorry to be such a hard case, but one's Perception is Malleable. Reality is not. You might be noticing aspects of reality and life you didn't previously, but that's not Reality being altered.
If such DID happen, you can believe it would raise supreme hell with every local electromagnetic field system and structure, which would be VERY noticeable. You change reality even slightly, things on the Quantum level react first and would lead to some potentially lethal consequences.

IS it possible there are, for sake of argument disembodied Consciousnesses around us? Yes, nothing in physics denies that, and the new studies show support for such. When people, animals, even plants die, the Consciousness goes somewhere, undergoes a Phase-Shift, in which it's Quantum signature aligns to one of the Mathematically-Predicted Alt Realities...but not always, thus perhaps some stay around, until I suppose a compatible new body comes along, or however it works. The theory I speak of does support Reincarnation.

chli

Who's 'Popper'??

Blackwinter-witch I perfectly understand you because I am agnostic. What makes me suspicious about religion is the promise of an afterlife. Imagine how popular a religion would be if it did not promise you that. But I keep my mind open. I acknowledge there is a fundamental mystery. I don't know if you read "Contact" or if you watched the movie, but the very poignant twist of it is that the protagonist, being an atheist, has to appeal to the "faith" of anybody who want to hear her story about traveling to the center of the galaxy, because she cannot prove it even though it happened.

Deep Space Talking about little understood creatures from planet Earth, you should look out for "The Creeping Garden", a fascinating documentary about "slime mold" and the people obsessed with it.

Well, this explains some of his choices, like having the Engineers or their gods, thus alien beings, as creators of human.

I personnaly believe that there is a supreme being which created the universe/multiverse but which is so advanced, powerful and so above of whatever we could understand that the God of religions is almost nothing compared to this supreme being.

If this supreme being create specifically the humans and see us as his children, then we are both completely unaware of our true potential/capabilities and certainly being in a sort extremly limited simulation through our journey on Earth. A sort of school to learn humility or some other lessons that we can't learn otherwises.

joylitt

Never liked how she had to fall back on the 'faith' of people after her journey as there are many scientific ways of assessing veracity.
Also, they could have merely checked her boots for sand/soil samples from where she was standing after getting out of the pod.

Afterlife, man that's always both bothered me and really aggravates me the way religion treats that topic.
Eg:
"If you're good and do as your told in THIS life...AFTER YOU DIE, you'll be Rewarded!"
Blows the concept of a Loving, Caring, Infinitely Compassionate and Understanding 'god' to dust, right there.
As any Omniscient deity would know what circumstances were involved in your 'disobedience', Understand them, and via Infinite Compassion, forgive you.
Then there's the 'qualifiers' about how the messiah sacrificed himself for all mankind...even then it seems 'god' plays pick-and-choose.

Frankly the whole 'You get rewards after you DIE' thing is less believable than a Nigerian wash-wash scam or other related nonsense meant to take advantage of people.

I've seen Scott talk about this idea before and if memory serves its called the "Ancient Astronaut Theory". I've read a little about and a co-worker subscribes to it so we have some fun and interesting discussions.

@BWW and a few others

Many of your criticisms or complaints about religion are a recent philosophical construct only found in the Western world. You should give Charles Taylor's book "A Secular Age" a read. I think you would find it very eye opening and interesting and the challenge you may be seeking.

BZ

joylitt

Slime Molds, they are one of the most intriguing critters. Right up there with Hydrovent extremophiles and jellyfish, as well as octopi!

Bubba Zanetti

Well, MY complaint with religion, and that of my People goes back about 500 years...
The whole Genocide thing conducted against us, yeah, religion-backed, religion-based, with lots of gold to smooth the wheels.

For some of us on this planet, it's not a 'recent philisophical problem', it's History, written in blood.

I wasn't challenging the history of what has happened to Native peoples, nor was I bringing motivations into the matter.

Your statement:

Two things I have never been able to accept and never will:

'God'

If you check out Taylor's book you will see what I am challenging and its not your heritage.

As David Foster Wallace said/ wrote is his famous commencement speech "In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships". 

BZ

@BWW - Popper is the late Professor Sir Karl Popper.

He developed the doctrine of falsification; that is that statements cannot be proven absolutely true , but can be exclusively falsified; statements not subject to falsification in principle are not scientific.

Use your favourite web search engine to find other enlightening details about him, but only if you want ;)

@BWW - God loves all his children', BUT, not the pagan red men.

He wasn't that keen on the pagan black men either ;) and when Christianity first came to Britain many years ago the indigenous white pagans were treated in a similar manner . . .

Surely though, that is one races' misinterpretation or abuse of religious ideas to justify their vile actions?  We see similar happening today within some sects of 'Islam'.

I'm not a Christian and again, in the main, agree with your points but I think separating true religious ideas, knowledge and wisdom from  the lunacy of ego and greed driven actions must be done.  They're not one and the same . . .

Would a 'true' Christian treat a brother or sister in such a cold way?  No.  Would a true Muslim kill another?  No.  Here in the UK not long ago people were killing each other due to a supposed religious conflict that was really all about land and perceived historical subjugation. (Ireland, UK and the IRA).  Thankfully this has quietened somewhat but I raise this as an example of what I refer to above.

'You might be noticing aspects of reality and life you didn't previously, but that's not Reality being altered.'

Well I kind of agree ;)  The question I'm getting at is, how can we be certain what reality is as it changes based on perception.  Physics tells us that at the smallest level we know nothing is solid - nothing - and matter can change from solid to waves.  Now, that contradicts everything our perception tells us.  Perception is relative and changeable.  That suggests to me that the world around us is as well - nothing is fixed.

A simple analogy but here goes - a dog has eyes, a brain, a body, a nose etc, but does it 'see' the same world we do?

Well on one hand, yes it does.  But on the other you could argue it actually lives in a different realm.  One where smell is king, not vision - add that to the differences in its nature, desires, needs etc and it's fair to say a dog's world is vastly different to ours, yet they are both the same!  It's a paradox.

I think a very human error though is to think that a dog is somehow lacking as it can't see the 'real' world like we can.  That is pure arrogance and narrow thinking from us . . .

In short, I think reality is a fluid thing that has no beginning and no end and no fixed points within it.  Beings that perceive are like a radio - some can pick up only FM, some AM some both and some can pick up things that aren't even on the dial!  

I could discuss these ideas all day, I really could :)  

@Joylitt - I will check it out, TY :) 

We have to wonder why throughout history in the whole world, many (at the time) unconnected civilisations worshipped some kind of higher power or God or Gods. Egyptians, Greeks, Pagans, Mayans (and all the meso-americans). Look at Easter Island, Stone Henge and maybe the oldest temple in the world, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey 12000 years old.  Everyone at these sites had some kind of religion. Now thru the miracle of my day job, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, science seems to show fundamental Neurological processes that are associated with "thinking there must be a God/Gods"

A 2016 study using functional MRI found "a recognizable feeling central to devotional practice was reproducibly associated with activation in nucleus accumbens, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and frontal attentional regions. Nucleus accumbens activation preceded peak spiritual feelings by 1–3 s and was replicated in four separate tasks. ... The association of abstract ideas and brain reward circuitry may interact with frontal attentional and emotive salience processing, suggesting a mechanism whereby doctrinal concepts may come to be intrinsically rewarding and motivate behavior in religious individuals."

To be honest I KNOW evolution is how we got here and most of our features have come about by some evolutionary advantage.  So how in evolution does it seem to be an advantage to have religious feelings/ the idea that there is some higher power?

Is it to keep most of us relatively humble and not too arrogant like David?  Does this help humans thrive and evolve further?

Some think that God programmed our brain for religion, but I think it evolved that way, but I do think the neuro wiring seems to have grown to make some belief inevitable.... but why?

I am still hopeful we can eventually get some of the answers to our why's that Prometheus posed, when Sir Ridley comes back to address the question of the 'Big Guy in the Chair'!

@ CB - Yes, me too!

@ Quibism - good post!  I'm being a tad reductionist I suppose but perhaps a lot of the brain wave stuff is a product of our socialisation; which is very much a significant part of our evolution from ape like mammal(s) to the social animal we are today?  Just a thought.

Think it was Desmond Morris (or he quoted a study on this in Naked Ape) that suggests that our large brain, compared to primates, is due to our increased co-operation and socialisation rather than our commonly accepted, general intelligence.

But yes, perhaps we feel the need to create an apex/alpha creator.  Question is if apes could think/talk . . . I know, I know lol . . . would they create a God in their image?   

I am inclined to believe as well though that perhaps early man literally saw the world in a different way to modern man.  Mankind's encounters with less advanced societies/peoples seem to bear this out to some degree . . .