|
Hubris or Humility?Reasons To Believe has long asserted that the universe seems designed specifically for the benefit of human beings. While not alone in this observation, RTB has certainly incurred the ire of some skeptics who charge that it is the height of arrogance to maintain that humans occupy the figurative center of such a vast cosmos. Those critics might contend that, first of all, many scientists are not willing to concede that life does not exist on other planets. The explosive rate of extrasolar planetary discoveries alone provides hope and serves to check premature judgments, especially those based on religious texts. It's better to hedge than risk embarrassment. Second, nonreligious people wonder why a strictly human perspective of the universe is the correct one. It smacks of speciesism. Here again, the argument is that a religious holy book has provided justification for the abuse of not only other species but also of the planet itself. Fixation on an afterlife breeds contempt for other life. Popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (host of NOVA scienceNOW), when asked the same question posed in the last post (Does the universe have a purpose?) answered in part:
Personally, I'll take my existence over the intestinal bacterium's any day, but is it mere human hubris borne of religious superiority to espouse that humans were in view during the formation of a 14-billion-year cosmos? Christianity affirms that the image of God separates humanity from the rest of creation, but that creation care (stewardship) remains a foremost human responsibility. And what of humility? Doesn't the Christian violate this biblical edict every time he raises his nose by proclaiming grand status on this tiny pale blue dot? Cosmologist Michael Heller, winner of the 2008 Templeton Prize, in a statement after the announcement, seemed to captured the idea of the image of God when he said that the human brain was the most complex and sophisticated product of the universe, and that science was "but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God." As for humility, Heller concluded:
So, what do you think? Humility or hubris? |
Comments
Sorry I am late with this
Sorry I am late with this post. My seminary studies have been filling up my days the past couple of months.
I want to address the question directly: Yes, it is hubris to think that the universe is human centered and created for humanity.
The universe was created for the glory of God. We live in a God-centered universe, not a man-centered universe.
The big bang theory points us to the center of space time: God. Information theory points us to the origin of all information: God. Physics points us to the origin of all energy: God. Genesis shows us God in the center of the garden. Exodus shows us God in the center of the tabernacle and his people. Kings shows us God in the center of the temple and his people. The Gospels show us God incarnate in the center of his people. Revelation shows us God in the center of the shining city.
Let us rethink our paradigm here.
Plain pumpernickel Rob. I
Plain pumpernickel Rob. I like rye better too. But you are still serving up red herring.
I never made the claim that ID or Christianity has nothing to offer the sciences. I do not believe that to be the case, and would not argue for it.
If you are an astute and careful reader of a vague yet perfect ancient divine text, then why are you not an astute and careful reader of the more precise and modern text of a mortal?
Oh baloney Bob... Though I
Oh baloney Bob... Though I like genuine baloney on rye...
I just addressed your claim that ID or Christianity has nothing to offer the sciences. You are palming the pea (as a debate opponent of mine likes to say).
ID will neither add nor detract scientific discoveries any more than a materialistic scientific view will.
If you will tell me how the dominant evolutionary theory of the origins of the cosmos and life in general has anything to do with the discoveries you've mentioned, I will do the same for ID.
Unfortunately neither of us can, because our historical sciences have nothing to do with practical applications and observationsal sciences put to market.
Which makes me wonder... what is the real purpose of evolutionary theory?
Dear Bob, I can always
Dear Bob, I can always count on you to make my point so well.
I wish there were some way I could help you see my world view for what it is, but even those who are far better than I at explaining it seem to be getting nowhere.
In any case, your world view of my world view is pretty much confirmed, I have no doubt that is exactly how you see things to be and I know of no way to respond to that kind of perspective of where you think I'm coming from, except to say I don't accept your premise that I am who you think I am.
Dear Rob, Red herring
Dear Rob,
Red herring alert! I am glad I like herring, though pickled. Your post has nothing to do with the current thread. I think you are instead addressing the comments here: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=54#comments
Notice that my posts there neither state nor imply "Science is all good." None of my arguments rely on such a silly claim.
Next to my working and reliable cellular telephone, the advances given by Christianity in understanding the universe are embarrassingly pale. (Here is where Kenneth Samples will step in and argue that the scientific method is actually due to Christianity. Revisionism can work wonders.)
Dear Chuck Arthur, You
Dear Chuck Arthur,
You present some wonderful personal evidence against Darwinism. If life could arise spontaneously, then you most definitely should have seen computer programs develop a life of their own in your 13 years of using computers! Why, all of us should be up to our ears in new life forms popping out of our computers! Our computers should be walking out the doors. We haven't seen any of this because, obviously, Darwinism is wrong.
While on that note, I have some serious problems with Einsteinism and the atomic theory. In my line of work we shred millions of paper documents and tons of digital media every day. Our shredders contain some of the sharpest blades in the world. You would think that if splitting an atom releases enough energy to flatten Hiroshima, then my company should have exploded off the face of the Earth a long time ago! Why hasn't this happened? Well obviously Einsteinism is wrong. Also, the "atom bomb" was just focused TNT, but the government doesn't want anyone to know that.
Dear Bob Sturm, I thought it
Dear Bob Sturm, I thought it noteworthy that you brought up the success of science in making our lives better. There is no denying it... BUT... there is a flip side.
I gave this response to a man in another forum and if it's ok with Average Joe, I would like to paste it with only the name changed. It will save me a lot of time...
-Ah yes... the successes of science!
I must admit Bob, that we would not have this opportunity to converse so readily if not for our splendid achievements as a species. And there is no denying that there is much good that has been done.
But science is a double-edged sword. The same technology that frees us to do so much, is the same technology that threatens our survival when in our hands.
It's quite a conundrum...
It is no suprise then that Aldous Huxley had the following to say, even as a humanist. As a Christian, I wholeheartedly agree. And his brand of honesty is sorely lacking in this current age of cynicism in which the 'tooth and claw' of darwinian style democracy drowns out the voice of reason:
Aldous Huxley wrote: "We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends." ( Aldous Huxley / 'Ends and Means' )
It was Ravi Zacharius who reminded us (paraphrasing) that 'technology has freed us, and science has freed us. We have supposedly broken a thousand tyrannies. But we may be accurately described as restless man, intoxicated by a sense of freedom'.
And Ravi particularly warned his American audience... that freedom is not the same thing as autonomy.
More cries the unsatisfied heart... more, more, more technology until poof..... man is no more.
It was Malcomb Muggeridge who said:
“It is difficult to resist the conclusion that twentieth-century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”
Science is the pride of man, there is no doubting that fact. It is an image, tower, and temple to his magnificence. Yet even with all it's splendor, science is not only inept to keep man alive, it will almost certainly be his ruin.
That is my opinion on the matter anyhow...
Let's keep everything in perspective...
Dear Kenneth, I think it is
Dear Kenneth,
I think it is wonderful that I can reach the truth of the world by only sitting and praying and having it revealed to me by God. Experiment and skepticism are crutches for those with weak faith. Besides, those activities take a lot of time and effort -- which can be better spent praying and praising Him for what He has given me. With life everlasting ensured through accepting His only son, Jesus Christ, I don't need the products of science (clean water, sanitary living, ample amounts of food, medicine, weather prediction, etc.) to delay the inevitable. Without all these things, the more humble and miserable I can be, and thus the more meeker, and thus the most noble of His subjects. Thank you dear Lord, King of kings, for my predestined role, whether I end up in eternal torment or bliss. You are the most just and fair above all others.
Now that is an outstanding worldview worthy of praise.
Dear Bob: No, that is not
Dear Bob: No, that is not correct. You only see what you allow yourself to see, and you only understand in terms of your own world view.
Humility is humility, like truth, it applies the same to all, one cannot exempt himself from it while imposing it upon others. Truth is imposed by God, not man.
I am a believer in Christ. I
I am a believer in Christ. I cannot say for certain whether God made the universe in which we live for Him or us. Probably both. Life is a miracle. An honest study of science and statistics points to the fact that our existence is way beyond impossible. The Bible states, "With God, all things are possible". When an agnostic follows the theory of Evolution back through time to the "Big Bang", what explanation do they have for the Universe exploding into existence? How can something come from nothing? Perhaps there was something? What was it? Since logically it seems more probable (and easier) that absolutely nothing at all should exist than something, why does anything at all exist, rather than absolutely nothing?
Sometimes I think of some of the things we take for granted such as color and our five senses. If we gave the pointy-headed agnostic scientists the challenge to create a new color or an additional sense for us all to enjoy, how far do you think they would get? Could they even come up with a concept on paper? And then life happened by accident!! In my 13 years using computers, I have never seen a software program self create new and usable features. I have never seen a software program reproduce itself. I have only seen software degrade and require re-installation. Sure software could be programmed to do some amazing things, but those amazing things require a software creator/programmer.
How did God come up with all of this stuff? It's so beyond ridiculous to believe the miracle of life could happen by accident. Life is nothing short of a miracle. Not believing in God and putting together a system of non-belief is something one probably has to work hard at for a long time. There are many people with honest questions but there are also many who work hard at unbelief because they are terrified that there may actually be a God. They don't want to be accountable to God and the thought of an all-powerful God is something in their mind that they oppose with everything they can throw at it. Logical or not. One has to really want to not believe. According to the Bible God accommodates those who persist in unbelief:
Romans 1 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. I refer to those who persist in unbelief as "re-wires." It's like their mind is rewired to think in a way that makes sense to them, but their thoughts clearly reveal a person who is in some serious denial. I don’t confuse rewires with those who have legitimate questions about the Christian faith.
The Christian faith is a relationship. When Jesus gave his life for us sinners, he gave us his spirit, which is the only way (connection) to God. When we confess our sins and accept Christ into our hearts, we are reconnected to God and forever secure.
Dear all, I think I am
Dear all,
I think I am beginning to understand. Christian humility refers only to being humble with respect to God, and does not refer to being humble with respect to other humans (unless you are the daughter of a man who doesn't want some stranger to be harmed by an angry mob). Furthermore, in order for one to properly judge Christian humility, it should only be judged relative to what is said in the Bible, not some universal notion of what the morality of humility is. In other words, Christian humility should not be compared to the humility of a person who does not believe in the Bible. Is this correct?
I'm a father, so I look at
I'm a father, so I look at this issue from that perspective. Let's say for the sake of illustration that I was a perfect father and I told my child in no uncertain terms, every day, that they were loved and were more important to me than anything else, and never gave them any reason to doubt it. Would it be arrogant for my child to say, "My daddy loves me more than anything in this world." No, it would only be the truth as she has observed and heard it from her daddy. To say anything else would be contradicting what she's observed.
On the subject of stewardship of the environment, let's say that I created something - a painting, a sculpture, a toy - that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that I loved my child, and that I wanted it to serve as a testimony of my love for her. Well what if my child wrote all over the painting I painted especially for her, cut it with a knife, and burned it? On one hand, I would be very disappointed that my child acted so irresponsibly and didn't value what I gave her in the way it was intended to be valued. On the other hand, it was a gift, and it was her choice - to either cherish it or destroy it.
Hello Everyone, I think
Hello Everyone,
I think this discussion needs to back up a bit. You see, we Christians should be getting our ideas about humility from Scripture. The Bible is our objective standard by which we are to be measured...not Bob's ideas.
So, I did a word study on humility and then looked at every verse in the Bible that has the words humble, humbled, humbleness, or humility.
Since that would be a really long post (and in an effort to not give Joe a heart attack), I posted my research as a *.pdf at the following link:
http://home.cvc.org/RTB/humility.pdf
I found 51 verses that use those words. 47 of them were written in this sense; a person with an elevated position lowers themselves in attitude and sometimes in bodily position. This lowering is brought about by force or by their own will.
The other 4 verses used the word humble to describe someones physical or emotional circumstances.
Bob, the humility that Christians are to emulate via scriptural example implies moving from position A to a figuratively lower position B. There is nothing wrong with a person being aware of, describing, or reflecting upon that higher position. The fact that someone has a high position does not make them boastful. In fact, in order to be humble in the Biblical sense, one must have a high position to begin with. The measure of their humility is how willing and to what extent they are able to attitudinally "lower" themselves and treat others as if they are in a higher position.
For example, it is not wrong for Chelsea Clinton to acknowledge, describe, or reflect on the fact that her dad was president for 8 years. Now if she then says, "and you must do my laundry because I am more important than you!" that would be a lack of humility. The same thing goes for you Bob. 2 years from now when you are a highly paid professional with an advanced degree, you would not be wrong to acknowledge that. In fact, you should be praised for such an accomplishment.
The Bible teaches that God created this world for Humanity. He gave us his image (Imago Dei), gave us a purpose, died for us, and is making a place for those who believe in Him. It is not wrong to acknowledge these facts. We are to lower ourselves attitudinally and treat others as if they are better than us. But, that does not change the fact that to be humble one must start with a high position.
Bob, if I have only one
Bob, if I have only one weakness, it is a lack of humility. Unfortunately I have more than one...
I think it was clear why I answered your questions with questions; to expose assumptions that I thought were in error. Had I answered your questions I would have had to concede a false premise.
I don't want to have an emotionally charged conversation. I've had too many of them.
OK, Bob. I let you get away
OK, Bob. I let you get away with one by posting your last comment. I appreciate your input and want you to keep commenting here so let's stick to the issues.
Thanks.
Dear all, These comments
Dear all,
These comments are wonderful.
Dear Rob,
I like your questions to my questions. They almost sound like you are saying, "Let's have a contest to see who is the most humble here: me or you."
Dear Kenneth,
I can always count on you to drive home my point.
Dear Clifford,
I stand corrected. The extent to which you manifest a walking contradiction, and the lack of pride you show in such an accomplishment, is remarkably humble.
Humility has nothing to do
Humility has nothing to do with that statement. It's a mere fact. God did it, and has told us about it. True humility is recognition that He is the Creator and Redeemer in Christ Jesus and to glorify Him in it.
Humans are the most
Humans are the most intelligent creatures on this planet. All other creatures are inferior. Human societies progressed as they attempted to understand the natural world. They attributed unexplained natural phenomena to supernatural sources, gods or demons. As reason took hold, societies began to doubt the supernatural and started looking for natural explanations. The material world is now explained by science.
The mind is not explained by science. Yet that is where intelligence resides. The human mind provides answers to metaphysical questions, values and morals. Nothing similar is found in other creatures. Our mind is what sets us apart. The answers to metaphysical questions point humans back to a supernatural Cause.
Science is a mental construct designed to help us make sense of the material world. Religion is a mental construct designed to make sense of the immaterial, spiritual world. Regardless of the numerous deities and practices of different religions, the older sophisticated religions have a lot in common. That means civilized humans are attuned to a spiritual world that is very similar.
The material world and science have only one truth. It is not unreasonable to assume that the spiritual world and religion must also have only one truth. The answers to questions about the spiritual world cannot be given by humans. They can only be witnesses to its manifestations and attributes. The spiritual world cannot be tested similar to the material world. The truth about the spiritual world needs to be revealed to us by the Cause of our existence. The monotheistic faiths are unique in that they claim Divine Revelation by the Cause as the foundation of their understanding of the spiritual world. Thus it is reasonable to seek understanding of the spiritual world using the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
It is hubris to claim that there are more intelligent creatures than humans in the universe when there is no evidence. It is hubris to presume equal moral standing for animals. Animals don’t show enough intelligence to understand their own moral standing. Finally, it is not hubris to simply claim that Christianity is truth. It is for others to prove that Christianity is false.
What is wrong with answering
What is wrong with answering a question with a question?
We are not the most important thing in the universe... God is.
The reality I see is that I
The reality I see is that I am who God made me to be. I have no purpose other than to humbly serve and trust my Creator.
The alternative reality, it seems to me, would be that I am simply a higher evolved animal with my destiny in my own hands and my service is to fulfill my own needs and wants in order to survive.
"There is an omnipotent,
"There is an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God, who is the Creator of the universe, and of all things therein.
And of those innumerably many things, we are the most important."
Is that your idea of humility?
Rob Lockett has 'answered'
Rob Lockett has 'answered' questions with... questions.
Not much of an answer.
Try again, Rob, and this time, address the issues.
"Not mad AT ya... just MAD."
Unfortunately Bob’s
Unfortunately Bob’s perspective is probably prevalent among many who find issues with religion. It also has some truth to it, but is simply a recognition of man’s sinful nature, a reality Christianity does acknowledge. What it lacks is a logical understanding of Christ and Christian Theistic philosophy.
Many religions view and interpret the Old Testament out of context with the New Testament. They miss the whole point of God’s purpose in doing so.
There is simply no way to avoid the sinful nature of mankind. Religions that harp on the Law and the avoidance of sin and temptation often talk about the evils of vanity and pride. But what do they end up doing? They praise their own culture over the sinful one, they look down on the infidels and nonbelievers while elevating themselves to some special honored class. I agree with Bob, that sounds a lot like pride and vanity to me?
People who look upon religion with discontent see all religions in this light. The Christian religion is only different if Christ is the Redeemer who the Christian doctrine and Creeds say he is.
Here’s my understanding of how it works. Striving to do what’s right out of love for God is a beautiful thing, because it’s foundation is love, it comes from the heart. Striving to obey God’s commands to obtain salvation and glory is a pointless exercise founded on vanity and pride. It is an exercise of obedience in which the heart need not play any role at all, a lesson from Christ the Pharisees could not understand. Humans cannot escape their human nature without Christ.
We have no worth apart from the worth God gave us. The glory belongs to God not man, therein lies the humility.
Bob Sturm questions /
Bob Sturm questions / comments: Rob answers:
Q. "Is it humility when one believes he has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, and a direct phone line to ask for whatever he needs?"
A. Is it humility that doubts God is that generous... to the undeserving?
Q. "Is it humility thinking that the creator of the universe is concerned about one’s day-to-day choices and needs?"
A. Is it humility that is offended by the suggestion that He is, and is watching, and will hold us responsible?
Q. "Is it humility when one believes he deserves to live forever, or is important enough to the entire universe to necessitate everlasting life, or is an essential component in God’s plan?"
A. Who is claiming to be deserving of such things?
Bob Sturm writes: "Of course these are not examples of humility. Such beliefs are leaps and bounds beyond narcissism."
And these points of yours have nothing to do with Biblical Christian faith, or are completely contrary to it, so far as I can tell.
Bob, at this time, I think you are responding emotionally. What is it that offends you so?
"If" you were to buy a
"If" you were to buy a lottery ticket, won, and had check in hand what invisible commodity would be missing? One heck of a lot of losing tickets scattered throughout the State! In order for a miracle like this solar system and planet to exist, a whole lot of "losing" planetary systems must exist. I don't think God fudges the odds; He sticks to real laws and truth. It is my nature to seek nourishment (truth) as a Christian; so I'll try to take care of this planet in a like-minded way as I will behave in heaven under God's direct supervision.
While human faults are many,
While human faults are many, (and this includes all believers in God), Jesus is one historic human being whose character is worth focusing on. Doing so puts the rest of us in a proper perspective to the only one who demonstrates a supreme humility but could rightfully claim the title of Lord of the Universe without exhibiting any hubris whatsoever. So let us, believers and unbelievers alike, consider Jesus, called the Light of the World by those who knew him, as the "standard candle" for our friendly conversation. We won't be disappointed.
Note to readers: I know some
Note to readers: I know some of you will be "loaded for bear" in response to Bob's last comment. I suggest that you take a chunk at a time. The long posts are hard to read (and I don't like to delete anyone's comments).
Thanks.
Dear Joe, This post is one
Dear Joe,
This post is one of your best. Nice work.
All of the comments so far, including Heller's quote, reminds me of the story of the humble monk. When his humility was called into question the monk responded, "I am the most humble person I know, and probably as there ever was."
Is it humility when one believes he has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, and a direct phone line to ask for whatever he needs? Is it humility thinking that the creator of the universe is concerned about one's day-to-day choices and needs? Is it humility when one believes he deserves to live forever, or is important enough to the entire universe to necessitate everlasting life, or is an essential component in God's plan? Of course these are not examples of humility. Such beliefs are leaps and bounds beyond narcissism.
Now for the hubris. Hubris is taken to absurd heights when one proclaims to have the truth, the correct interpretation of God's "perfect" text. Can one be in a humble state of mind and then say that he knows what God wants and what God means through His words, while discounting and ignoring the thousands of other interpretations of the same text?
Less benign and more malignant to my life and my family is the hubris displayed when Christians claim they are "helping," they are being "stewards," when they are really remaining ignorant about reality and putting all their weight behind irrelevant poorly written words and idiotic beliefs. The extreme lack of consensus among Christians in what is "human responsibility" is telling. Many Christians believe Earth was created for us, so why shouldn't we rape it? Some believe that when all the resources are gone, the rapture will happen; so let's hasten that! Or how about increasing the tensions in the Middle East by financing the building of an irrelevant temple so that we humble 144,000 will disappear into heaven and the Judgment will begin.
Further examples of malignant Christian hubris showing a pathological disconnect with reality are: the focus on teaching to teenagers abstinence and reducing the availability of birth control and information about sex; the fight against a vaccine for cervical cancer (because it will just encourage underage sex); treating marriage problems, drug addiction, and real psychological problems with prayer and Bible study; neglecting to administer medical aid to a dying child because "we must have faith!"; fighting against science education because it contradicts the real truth that only you possess; etc., etc., etc.
That's a good post Joe.
Note to Joe J: Regarding
Note to Joe J: Regarding your comments, see the post and discussion from January 3, 2008 ("What evidence would make the case?" http://www.reasons.org/blogs/average_joe/?p=48).
Thanks.
1st of all, bacteria don't
1st of all, bacteria don't think! I know it was meant as an analogy, but in reality it ends up being nothing more than an obfuscation and distraction, and a waste of time. The point is, evidence of intelligent design is EVERYWHERE! And yes, that DOES imply at least a purpose. And I can't think of any greater purpose for the created universe (or any other purpose for it, for that matter) than to provide a home for the great abundance and variety of life forms (most important of which are human beings!) that are found on this planet. And though we currently have no evidence of any kind of life outside this solar system, I would have no problem whatsoever with the discovery of life elsewhere! In fact, the universe could be FILLED with life, at least in those locations that are hospitable to biological life. And it would ALL be God's creation, according to His will and purpose. And if it includes intelligent life, then they, like us, would be children of God! And in a real sense, they would be our brothers and sisters (assuming that God created them 'male and female'!) I think the knowledge of such a thing would only cause me to be even MORE in awe of Him! What an awesome thing it would be, to discover that there is another stage out there somewhere upon which the great drama of the building of His Kingdom is being played out!
First time reader, 12 year
First time reader, 12 year Christian; never blogged before . Forgive me if I sound elementary in my statements, or if I breach blogger protocol. I have an observation:
Why is it that those who do not believe that there is a God or Creator want science to prove that there is- before they consider it as truth? But they are willing to accept theories (that aren't necessarily scientifically proven or sound) as truth to point toward evolution(ism)? For instance, back in the 80's Carl Sagan was teaching about the primordial soup and life evolving from it. A mere 20+ years later we now know that conditions for such “soup” could not have existed and therefore eliminate Sagan’s theory that evolution happened this way. Another example is the fossil record; it does not fill in the blanks that Darwin hoped/thought it would.
Every time I hear all these scientists explicate their theories on how it is impossible that we were just created or how life must exist elsewhere in the universe (which it may- as Larry stated, if God wanted to He could), I think of this: a man is caught on tape robbing a store; several customers witness the crime and ID the man; the clerk who was behind the counter ID’s the man; the owner that was on the phone with the clerk can ID his voice; a policeman who happened into the store and subdued the man and arrested him can testify it was the man who committed the crime; the crime lab has matched his fingerprints to those on the gun he used; several friends testify that he openly talked about his plans to rob the store; the jury says “we don’t believe it was him; there’s not enough proof”. It seems no matter what you present, some people refuse to believe that there is a Creator. That breaks my heart.
It's interesting to read
It's interesting to read about skeptics' impressions on 'purpose in the universe', and who is humble or showing hubris. If they actually believe that theists would have contempt for other life because of faith in an afterlife, then naturalists really know nothing of Judaeo-Christian philosophy. As stated by Joe, we are to be humble, responsible stewards of this planet, and that includes caring for the poor and downtrodden in the world---something many organizations of faith have done in the past and today, in the most dangerous parts of the world. And, I might add, that would include showing responsible attitudes toward any intelligent life found on other planets.
The Bible doesn't speak of dinosaurs. Neither does it ETs. However, dinosaurs existed, so it is possible that somewhere in the universe, another intelligent race could exist. The odds are extremely low, but possible. Here's the rub-----even if there were 'aliens', that would not contradict the Biblical texts in any way, in my humble opinion. God is certainly capable of creating life anywhere in the universe. But did he? The current, cumulative scientific evidences can reasonably lead one to say it's very unlikely. However, it doesn't concern me either way.
Dr. Tyson (his analogy was poor) is probably in the Carl Sagan/Arthur C. Clarke camp with regard to ETs. I believe that one of Clarke's wishes was to meet an ET. Those individuals in that group do, in fact, have a 'god', after all. You can call it the god of Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life. In my view, it's a poor substitute for the real thing.
As it is written in Romans, God has made his Creation clear & obvious to even the most casual observer, so, at the end, there can be no excuses.
Now that I believe God
Now that I believe God created the universe for me to be able to live and thrive in it, then I MUST be truly humble before God. However, back in the days when I believed the universe was "all there is", I could never fully accept evidence of design. To be convinced of one's own humility, an atheist can not aford to perceive evidence for design in the universe.
Neil deGrasse Tyson's
Neil deGrasse Tyson's bacteria example makes a analogical mistake by reversing who-serves-whom. It should read: "If you are religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. And if you’re one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been born) you might declare that the purpose of being a bacterium is to serve your human host in the same way as your human host serves God."
It seems to me absurd that
It seems to me absurd that we should view ourselves without respect for our ability to reason and moralize. The only 'reason' (ironically) to play down our moral role in the cosmic scheme of things, is to avoid the reality of our fallen nature, which demands of us far more than we feel qualified to achieve.
It is this failing, to live as we seem bent on demanding of our neighbor that is the real rub. We do not want to be brought low by a sense of absolute moral duty. Therefore, to remain proud, we must abolish that bar (and make its law our enemy), and reduce humanity to nothing but a fecal habitat for our supposed equals.
In this way, the real hubris is in the denial of the standard which makes us human, so as to live content with ourselves as we are; a beast.
Mankind cannot attain the purity and essential quality of the moral law by his own efforts. To do so would require the help of one who can, and genuine humilty in the bending of man's knee to God. So the alternative, disguised as humility, is really mankind being himself apart from his creator and being unabashedly proud of what his hands have achieved.
So, as if there were any ambiguity as to my position, I contend that purpose in the universe is clearly a position of humility under which mankind must conform to that which has been revealed to him through his conscience, by God.