jgress wrote:If unbridled skepticism is not a virtue, neither is unbridled gullibility and completely uncritical acceptance of any report that happens to fit our preconceptions. Aren't we meant to practice discernment? What happened to trust but verify?
OK, you got me. I didn't bother to read through every link. But now I will and I'll offer my critique:
For the first one, on the "imminent disclosure of extraterrestrial life". That was in 2009, but we haven't heard any such disclosure. Sounds to me like this source ("Michael Salla", whoever he is), is not trustworthy or competent. Next!
The "IT world" article is arguing for the existence of extraterrestrial life on the basis of probability: the universe is so vast that intelligent life must have evolved somewhere else. Perhaps, but there's no indication the author believes we are about to contact these alleged extraterrestrial beings. In fact, he explicitly ridicules conspiracy nuts who believe we have already contacted ET. Next!
The third source seems to be attempting to read a belief in ET into the views of Pope Francis and this Fr Funes. All I get from it is typical RC theological speculation on impractically remote possibilities such as contact with intelligent ET life and the soteriological implications thereof. Again, no indication such ET beings are about to be contacted or revealed.
With the other sources, yes it does look like there's an ongoing research interest in ET life, but I don't see a reason to believe in some "imminent disclosure".
In addition, you say that these beliefs are "absurd". But the notion of "absurd" changes with the times. Here's a good example: very early Church Fathers (e.g. St Justin, St Hippolytus) believed that angels sometimes seduced human females, mated with them and produced offspring. Later Fathers, e.g. St John Chrysostom, thought this absurd, since angels were not corporeal beings. I'm inclined to side with St John on this issue, but clearly what seems absurd in one age may not seem so in another age. (See V Moss' article on "Genetics, UFOs and the Antichrist" for references).
I think for many the miracles we believe in seem "absurd", e.g. the Resurrection, the Virgin birth of Christ etc. And in a sense, of course, that's precisely the point: "where God so wills, the order of nature is overcome". But if we believe clearly "absurd" things ("credo quod absurdum" and all that), on what grounds do you criticize others for believing what seems "absurd" to you, e.g. evolutionary theory, extraterrestrial life, and so on?
If any source expresses the views and commonly held beliefs of the global elite, it is the Economist. I have never read anything in the past few years concerning imminent contact with aliens. I have read the odd article concerning programs like SETI, so clearly it's an ongoing research interest for some, but not in any way a priority. Consider the following blog post:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/ ... _diplomacy
The whole thing seems to me rather frivolous, and the author takes a similar view:
So is there going to be an alien ambassador? Well for one thing, distances in space are so vast the chances of anything more than a signal arriving from aliens is fantastically remote. For another, it is more likely that if we discover alien life it will be some form of microbe found under a damp rock on Mars or some pattern in the chemistry of a planet several hundred million years away.
The views of global educated opinion seem rather skeptical about the possibility of contact with intelligent alien life.