“The presence of extraterrestrial life is heretical to many forms of organized religion, who believe that God created Man in His own image.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Spoony.

When the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism, AND Christianity. YES, ALL THREE), speak of “made in the image of God” , they refer to something to known as the “Imago Dei”, which in the theology of all three, speak not of form but of will and consciousness. The “image of God” in Semitic thought (the core of all three belief systems) is a reference to man’s ability to choose. Free will IS the image of God. In choosing, in our ability to rise above our base instincts we transcend other animals and in doing so are that much closer to divine.

In their theology, God is beyond form. He is beyond nature. He transcends all things and is all things. As such, nothing can have the physical form of God. This is established from the very beginning of their holy texts (which even the briefest scan of Biblical Hermeneutics would have told you)

As such, all sentient beings who possess Free Will (regardless of planet) can be said to be made in the image of God. As such, your entire statement is false.

Furthermore, religious clergy and writers have for years been open to the idea of other beings (in fact, the Vatican Observatory and Islamic Academy of Sciences have, since their inception, been at the forefront of the quest to find intelligent life).

“Some might reform their religious texts, be progressive about the whole thing, but by and large, the prawns’ arrival is the death of God. ”

Why would the texts need reforming? As I have shown, there is nothing wrong about it. Also, “the death of God”? Really? Spoony, the idea of new races and peoples to be ministered to, would be rocket fuel for countless religious groups. We would see an upsurge in religious attendance and a new emphasis on preaching to “our brothers and sisters from the distant expanse of Creation” (Don’t believe me? Read Lewis’s “Rocket Men” or the works of Alhacen or if you would be more comfortable hearing about it from a Secular angle, read “Holy Day on Mars?” by Kelsey, an Anthropologist and an Atheist, which shows that the idea of meeting new cultures and peoples actually BOOSTS religion).

This is doubly so if they are religious themselves, and especially if they are monotheistic in those beliefs (and since works like Sloan’s “Darwin’s Cathedral” have shown that religious beliefs are very useful as an evolutionary adaptation for a high level civilization, there is much to suggest that they will be.)

No offense, Spoony. I respect you and I love your work. But this piece is terribly misinformed (as are many of the comments here) .

I don’t know why so many people assume that the Christian faith teaches that there are no aliens. Perhaps it has to do with the old stereotypes that we are all backwards hicks.

I don't know why so many people assume that the Christian faith teaches that there are no aliens. Perhaps it has to do with the old stereotypes that we are all backwards hicks.

This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

To summarize:
Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

Sound familiar?

Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.

This film was made by a white South African whose family had been driven from South Africa by the ANC (the ruling party that took over after the whites abandoned apartheid). The central metaphor in this film is his family’s own oppression at the hands of the post-apartheid government.

To summarize:
Whites came to South Africa with vastly superior technology.
Those whites were abandoned by all the other white countries including their homeland.
Since then, those whites have been endlessly extorted, tortured, and murdered by the black majority.

Sound familiar?

Yes, the movie had to be dolled up to obfuscate this theme, and at least appear on the surface to fit the politically correct depiction of South Africa. But you can’t ignore the obvious: this movie is about natives abusing foreigners, not foreigners abusing natives.

If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The conditions in South Africa right now are so bad that Canada just granted refugee status to a white South African for racial persecution. Say what you will about the Boers, they were never as bad as the ANC.