From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Big Questions (or, Why I am not a Christian)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:36:42 GMT

In article <justinf-210193174700@macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu>  
justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> In article <1993Jan18.051019.5072@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy (POWERS)  
wrote:
> > In article <justinf-150193175343@macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu>  
> > justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> 
> [my question on universe, purpose of, deleted.]
> > > Any thoughts?
> 
> > 	Yes, actually, I do.  What does this have to do with Christian  
> > doctrines?  As far as I know, the Bible makes no claims about the  
purpose  
> > of "the rest of the universe".  Evolutionary theory makes no claims  
about  
> > life on other planets except a few vague comments on the probability.   
> > Evolution theory has very little to do with the rest of the universe,  
yet  
> > you accept it here, while on the same hand rejecting another set of  
ideas  
> > that also has little to do with the rest of the universe.  What is the  
> > difference?
> > 					Erik Powers
> 
> Did I ever say I rejected it? I didn't think I specified Christianity. I
> just wanted to know how a near-infinite universe fit into Earth's  
decidely
> anthropocentric religions. For instance, in the OT there's the bits  
about
> how God made us in his image, and about chosen people, etc, etc. Did  
Jesus
> have to die once for every intelligent species in the galaxy? (That's a  
lot
> of times... :) And the bits in Revelations about the world ending... is
> that just this world or the entire universe? (this last question is a
> problem mainly for fundies)...etc., etc. I'm not singleing Christianity  
out
> for attack, it's just the religion I'm most familiar with.
> 
> Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
>                                This space intentionally left blank.

	I wish now I had kept a copy of your previous post, as I remember  
you using examples that seemed specific to Christianity, but I don't  
remember what they were.  But I'm glad you clarified the fact that you  
wanted to ask a more generalized question than I thought.
	I really don't know of a single religion that addresses the size  
of the physical universe at any length.  All the ones I'm more or less  
familiar with seem totally unconcerned with it.  Theistic religions, I  
think, would mostly consider their god or gods to be so much bigger and  
more powerful than nature that our universe's size would be an  
insignificant question.  Christianity, at least, seems to see it this way.   
Interestingly, Christianity also claims the existence of other intelligent  
"beings" besides ourselves, not just off-planet, but also right here on  
earth.  I can see a problem for Christian fundamentalists if someone were  
to claim that no intelligent life but ours exists in the entire universe,  
but there is certainly no conlict with the claim that such life "must"  
exist somewhere out there. 
	In this respect, I don't know that much about other religions, but  
I do know that Christianity is supposed to be a religion for people, for  
humans.  (C.S. Lewis did address the question about a Christian's  
responsibility should we ever find other intelligent life, and it made an  
interesting essay.)  It seems to indicate that the other intelligent life  
may find the situation on earth to be interesting, but hard to understand.  
("Even angels long to look into these things...")
	So, after all that, I guess I would just have to say that  
Christianity, at least, is supposed to be a religion that deals with the  
spiritual problems of people, and so is quite naturally "anthropocentric",  
in the sense of the word as you use it.  I'm not sure why it would  
surprise you.
					Erik Powers