Scriptorium Daily
A bright student passed on an article from a wonderfully interesting book What is Your Dangerous Idea?
The contents of the article were both illuminating and fascinating as the author, Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist, attempts to explain why ET has yet to visit our homes.
To quote Miller:
Sometime in the 1940’s, Enrico Fermi was talking about the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence with some other physicists. They were impressed that our galaxy holds 100 billion stars, that life evolved quickly and progressively on Earth, and that an intelligent, exponentially reproducing species could colonize the galaxy in just a few million years. They reasoned that extraterrestrial intelligence should be common by now. Fermi listened patiently, then asked simply, “So, where is everybody?” That is, if extraterrestrial intelligence is common, why haven’t we met any bright aliens yet?” This conundrum became known as Fermi’s paradox.
Fermi’s Paradox An Interesting Puzzle for Secularism and Naturalism
One solution to Fermi’s paradox is that there is no other life in the cosmos, but this solution is very distasteful to many moderns.
If we are the only planet with intelligent life, then we are amazingly important and interesting. The assumption of the stupid that the size or position of the Earth determines its importance would be finally laid to rest. A pile of junk might be much bigger than the Mona Lisa, but it is not better.
So far as we know, the human brain is the most amazing structure in all of space. So far as we know, it is unique.
If this is true, then naturalism could still be true, but becomes much less plausible. Naturalism can admit no miracle and the brain would start looking like one.
An Aside: God and Other Worlds
A theist need have no particular position on whether there is life on other planets.
God can have many motives and means for what He does. We will have to find the life before we know what to make of it. For all we know the cosmos is filled with beings who are have never sinned and know what is only revealed to us.
It will all depend on what kind of life is found out there, if there is any to find.
If there is life on other planets, it would help secularism (by showing life might be easy to develop), but it might also be helpful to theism (depending on the nature of the life there).
No life anywhere but here is very damaging to the immediate plausibility of secularism.
A theist has no need to favor one view about intelligent life on other planets over another, but a secularist would have a preference.
Life exists here. If this is the only place life exists, then life is beyond amazing . . . surely the word “miraculous” begins to lurk in the mind . . . and that is unthinkable for a secularist. Better, by far, (though not fatal to a theist) would be for life to occur easily enough that it must exist on countless worlds.
It is important to remember that theism does not exist only to explain the cosmos or in opposition to secularism. Just because an idea, if true, would falsify secularism does not mean theism needs it to be true. Only one miracle means naturalism is false. Theism need not hang everything on any one given miracle! For example, if the Shroud of Turin were really a miraculous item, then naturalism is false, but if it is not real, that only shows one idea held by some theists is wrong.
Modern thought has a vested interest in making Earth “a not-so-special place.”
Yet if life exists on countless worlds over the billions of years of cosmic history, the fact that it has made no contact with us is at least odd.
Another Solution to Fermi’s Paradox
Another solution to Fermi’s paradox is to assume that the life of an intelligent species follows a broadly determined course. Species get old, just as individuals do. Miller notes that in the Cold War period many wondered if life did not eventually grow so intelligent that it could wipe itself out . . . the subject of more than one good Twilight Zone or Star Trek episode.
Looking at humanity at the moment, Miller worries that we are more likely to go out with a sound track than with a big bang. As a species develops in abilities, it gains the power to give itself pleasure without much effort. In nature, pleasure often accompanies necessary actions and encourages them. Miller says “. . . any evolved mind must pay attention to indirect cues of biological fitness rather than tracking fitness itself. ”
This is hard to do in modern culture. In nature most pleasures (Miller suggests) lead to what evolution demands of us.
Sex is fun and so babies get born. Food is good, so nutriment happens. Water is sweet, so we drink the fluids we need.
Moderns can separate the fun from the other benefits . . . having sex without babies, tasty food without nutrition, and drink that does not give us the water we need. We eat fatty food, because our bodies demand fat as a sign of food that contains the nutriments we need. Now humans have learned to eliminate the nutriments and just give us the fat.
Miller worries that most intelligent life may lose all ambition and ability to move forward as it amuses itself to death. We will get stuck in a holiday from the serious work of science, space exploration, and study, because our toys will allow us to have the feelings of accomplishment that comes from such hard and dangerous things.
A Problem as Old as Plato’s Phaedrus
Miller overestimates the unique nature of the problem. Men have always desired to separate pleasure from natural ends, as any Vatican official could tell him. Cultures, or at least the leaders of cultures, have destroyed themselves by doing so. We may have more effective ways of doing this and so be able to commit cultural suicide faster, but (as Miller later concedes) some people will always reject the “softness” of the leadership class.
These will almost always be the religious (though small numbers of secularists may “get it”). Plato knew this well and discussed it (amongst other things) in his Phaedrus.
Plato saw that the desire for pleasure is innate, but that desire for excellence is acquired. Young people, whether secular or religious, will always be tempted to play X-box too much instead of doing algebra. They will always want to watch too much bad television and never understand Tarkovsky. In this battle those who believe in an objective Good, True, and Beautiful outside of matter and energy will always have an advantage.
They will have an obligation that transcends that to self.
An atheist need not be selfish, but it is easier to make a case for it if one is an atheist. A theist can be selfish, but he or she is always wrong (and knows it) if he is.
Miller merely proves that “liberal” secularism will by its nature always run the deep risk of becoming trapped by hedonism and selfishness. It has no external moral mandate to cause it to commit to future generations. It will not breed, invest, or investigate. There is no cause greater than self that cannot be mocked and sneered at within its own barren universe.
In a universe that contains only matter and energy it is hard to see why I should sacrifice my short term and certain pleasure for long term good. Miller concedes by the end of his article that there is good news, though perhaps not the news his typical reader will find good.
Whatever the merits of evolutionary psychology, nature has (either by Darwin or Jehovah) provided us the remedy for liberal secularism: the religious right. These people have a cause greater than self that they believe true, even if they are mistaken. This cause helps create the character that allows larger number of them to do their biological and cultural duty.
They are willing to live and die for future generations. Secularism can, for a few generations, sustain such commitments with slogans about the “greater good” or a sincere commitment to excellence. It is not obvious that the godless can produce enough secular saints to sustain themselves culturally.
Miller is right to worry.
Secularism in the first generation is often motivated by a quest for freedom (especially from restraints to pleasure), but then quickly becomes fearful and totalitarian. Fifties science-fiction promised the stars would be ours, but has degenerated into building pleasure domes and not space stations. Secularism promised us a “new man,” but most men simply took the old liberties (we used to call sin) with their new found freedom. The old myth that if we could just pull down the nasty old men of the religious magisterium that we would all be bold and brave young explorers is now utterly unbelievable.
It turned out the magisterium was useful after all. The magisterium was just the college of experts in finding higher goods. Those who have lost it show little sign of producing a new paradise . . . or much of anything including a next generation.
We were promised a new and better man, but he is not developing . . . people are flocking to Vegas and not to difficult college majors . . . and so Stalin and Mao types rise up to try to force us to be good. In our democracy, of course, there are no such wicked secularists, but they still can tend to a father-knows-best paternalism.
In frustration, secularists soon form a new magisterium, but this new authority is not based on a book or Revelation apart from the rulers, but comes from their own self-interest. The simplest Christian could denounce his bishop based on an authority both (in theory) accepted and many could understand. “Thou shalt not steal” did not require ordination or a doctorate to grasp.
A religious teacher tells you to be good, because he believes it true. Too often a secular mentor tells you to be good, because it is useful to him that you be so and nobody without a philosophical degree can examine the reasons.
Christians Can Be Amused
The religious of the West need not fear amusement, if they believe their own religion. It provides the sign posts that warn them of where immoderation could destroy them.
The danger is that my fellow religionists will miss their advantage.
We share Miller’s just fears so much that we will lose faith in the Divine plan. We will become nasty and curmudgeonly. Our fear of being trapped in simple pleasures will develop into a case of snobbery. We will forget the simple joys.
Sadly, religious people often blow it, fail to understand their own position, and fritter away a natural advantage.
We can rest, play, and amuse ourselves, because religious education produces a moderate soul that will not go too far. Our calling in Christ (to place this in a Christian context) will prevent going too far or at least give fair warning to us when we begin to go too far.
We can party, because God commands us to do so. We can be less fearful about joy, because we have a cause that will bid our party cease before it becomes a snare. We don’t have dread the holiday’s end in this life, because Paradise is coming.
Sadly, a few Christians, with Cromwellian sensibilities, lack the faith that feasting can safely follow fasting. They worry to much about amusement (like Miller) and so give rise to the equally loathsome puritanical party. These souls ban Christmas, card playing, worry about motion pictures, and worry that every pleasure is merely a snare.
They tend to gnosticism (a hatred of the physical), not to traditional Christianity (where God gets a body!), and the mainstream of the Church has always pulled back whenever tempted by their error. Anyone who has ever attended a traditional Catholic, old world Orthodox, or traditional German Lutheran wedding does not worry that Christians cannot party well.
Of course, this advantage is not unique to Christianity, but is shared by many of the great religious traditions, though the Incarnation of Jesus (where God becomes human) helps. All great Western thinkers who lived in the city of man and who believed in a better city lived in the tension between pleasure and a greater calling.
This is an idea that united Plato and Jesus.
Plato pointed out that the wise man knew the simple and higher pleasures. Jesus called us to a Kingdom of Heaven that was compared to a party!
This is not amusement for the sake of amusement, but because it is good for us. Christmas is the medicine the Church applies to weary humankind this side of paradise.
Amusement for Its Own Sake?
Amusement for its own sake is a trap.
In the end, everything a man does should bring him to the Vision of God. This relationship with God is the greatest pleasure and man’s duty. The good news is that what we should do is what we will find most enjoyable. We must be careful to get there, but the care is also our play.
How do we know when we should play? What is good amusement?
A former professor of mine recently paraphrased Plato saying, “Pain and pleasure are untrustworthy guides.” Miller was right about this.
It is too easy to confuse pleasure with the good. Sometimes pain is good for us. Not all pain is after all, because of sin. There are growing pains as well as the pains of death. How will we know? What is a good guide?
Reason is a good guide. Discussion in a community is a better guide. Learning from the accumulated wisdom of the past is also wise. Revelation is the best and most sure guide . . . though understanding it will require thought. The Christian should alway keep in mind the ultimate goal. Our every pain is for a great pleasure. Our every pleasure is just a foretaste of a greater one to come.
We should err on the side of enjoyment and play hard enough to experience the higher joys.
Great music.
Great art.
Great poetry.
The Vision of the God of the Grail.
If a thing feels good, it does NOT mean we should do it, but that there may be a context where somebody can do it. Our predisposition is not to fear pleasure, except where it would keep us from greater pleasure. We must take great care, but God’s love will cover a multitude of our errors.
We can play games, because to God everything we do is a child’s game. We can only amuse ourselves to death when we take our play too seriously. Modern culture makes hard work of play, commanding us to spend, and to party until we drop or are too bored to take it any more.
The world is a serious mess. There are sick people to be helped, hurting people who need comfort, and the poor who demand justice. Yet we cannot go into this serious business without remembering that it is not the normal state of cosmic affairs (if we are Christian). The cosmos was created good and the injustice was not God’s will.
He wanted us to garden and walk with the Almighty and we decided to be serious. Our serious turn was just pretentious folly. So now if the world is serious, it is not as He wished it. There is work we must do, but even there the work will be sustained and guided by His Spirit. Nothing serious can be done without Him. We are little children that He lets try to clean up our messes, because it is good for us to do so, but all the real cleaning is done by God Alone.
Someday we will grow up enough to get over our “work” and get a real holiday.
He delights in our honest play before His face. He created us for His pleasure and for ours. That is good news. If there are Others out there, the answer to Fermi’s Paradox may be that suggested by C.S. Lewis in his Space Trilogy.
The aliens are too kind to come to us in our present state. They are graciously waiting for us to lay down our self-imposed childishness, become children again and finally grow up. When we do grow up, we might find many others waiting to play with us . . . other children of the same Father.
*Administrators Note: For more on this topic, check out our podcast: On Amusement and Its End.
