Corfu, Greece (Google Images)
Zombie and I took Uncle Chuck out for dinner as his Father recently passed away. After dinner per Saint Chucklins II's request we went over the Golden Ears Bridge, paid the toll and headed to Langley to watch the latest movie in the 'Alien' franchise 'Prometheus'. Although I admit the films are well-made normally I would not watch them in the theatre or on television because I find them too gory. But the movie does serve a blogging purpose.
From Wikipedia the Alien creature is the films is described as follows.
Alien
‘a highly aggressive extraterrestrial creature that stalks and kills the crew of a spaceship.’
In Prometheus is it deduced these creatures may have created human beings, although the one scientist wisely asks who made the creatures, to another scientist, seemingly understanding the need for first cause that is not finite and is beyond even everlasting. But an infinite and eternal first cause.
From a secular, naturalistic perspective it could be argued I suppose within this fictional framework that the Aliens were evolutionarily advanced from human beings and therefore as they had the natural ability, had the evolutionary right if not a moral right to kill (another argument for another post I very likely will not write but there is the comments) human beings for survival. The survival of the fittest. If the Aliens were more advanced rational beings in the survival context, this evolutionary right could be argued I suppose, whether or not they created human beings. That would not really be key. The Oxford Dictionary of Science explains that 'fitness' is how well an organism adapts to the environment it is in and this determines its survival. 323 (2010). It could be deduced that the Aliens via natural ability are more fit than human beings in a shared environment and if human beings cannot reason out a way to defend themselves then the Aliens have a evolutionary right to keep killing, even though both are seemingly highly rational beings.
This secular, naturalistic perspective could be translated to actual reality. If somehow in the future Earth came under the attack of aliens that wanted to dominate human beings, keep them for food etc. I am not stating I believe in aliens, but I am making my point. It is disturbing though...
A secularist could argue that any rational being like a human being has the basic right to live under normal circumstances, and I fully agree with this as long as rationality is defined well. I reason human beings should not abuse animals in nature, as pets or ones involved in the food industry, but I reason it acceptable to eat certain animals (I will exclude pets for cultural reasons, again another argument) as food as they do not have a level of rationality that can build a society, or worship God, for examples. A correct view would be that the Aliens in science fiction or potential aliens in actual life should not kill human beings because human beings are rational to the point of being able to build a society and worship God, as examples.
An essential addition to that argument in my view is that since human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1: 27), a being with a spirit made by God (Genesis 2: 7) being of that high level of rationality and value to the creator should not be killed under normal circumstances and certainly should not be used as food for fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens. Even if a human being is somehow mentally disabled with a damaged brain, still possessing the spirit from God he or she would still fall under the protection with this argument. Merely stating that a rational being that can build a society or worship God should not be killed by fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens would not necessarily protect the mentally disabled person that would not be rational at the level of an average human being or even perhaps significant measurable rationality, but they would be protected with this addition to the argument.
Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
In Prometheus is it deduced these creatures may have created human beings, although the one scientist wisely asks who made the creatures, to another scientist, seemingly understanding the need for first cause that is not finite and is beyond even everlasting. But an infinite and eternal first cause.
From a secular, naturalistic perspective it could be argued I suppose within this fictional framework that the Aliens were evolutionarily advanced from human beings and therefore as they had the natural ability, had the evolutionary right if not a moral right to kill (another argument for another post I very likely will not write but there is the comments) human beings for survival. The survival of the fittest. If the Aliens were more advanced rational beings in the survival context, this evolutionary right could be argued I suppose, whether or not they created human beings. That would not really be key. The Oxford Dictionary of Science explains that 'fitness' is how well an organism adapts to the environment it is in and this determines its survival. 323 (2010). It could be deduced that the Aliens via natural ability are more fit than human beings in a shared environment and if human beings cannot reason out a way to defend themselves then the Aliens have a evolutionary right to keep killing, even though both are seemingly highly rational beings.
This secular, naturalistic perspective could be translated to actual reality. If somehow in the future Earth came under the attack of aliens that wanted to dominate human beings, keep them for food etc. I am not stating I believe in aliens, but I am making my point. It is disturbing though...
A secularist could argue that any rational being like a human being has the basic right to live under normal circumstances, and I fully agree with this as long as rationality is defined well. I reason human beings should not abuse animals in nature, as pets or ones involved in the food industry, but I reason it acceptable to eat certain animals (I will exclude pets for cultural reasons, again another argument) as food as they do not have a level of rationality that can build a society, or worship God, for examples. A correct view would be that the Aliens in science fiction or potential aliens in actual life should not kill human beings because human beings are rational to the point of being able to build a society and worship God, as examples.
An essential addition to that argument in my view is that since human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1: 27), a being with a spirit made by God (Genesis 2: 7) being of that high level of rationality and value to the creator should not be killed under normal circumstances and certainly should not be used as food for fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens. Even if a human being is somehow mentally disabled with a damaged brain, still possessing the spirit from God he or she would still fall under the protection with this argument. Merely stating that a rational being that can build a society or worship God should not be killed by fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens would not necessarily protect the mentally disabled person that would not be rational at the level of an average human being or even perhaps significant measurable rationality, but they would be protected with this addition to the argument.
Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
York (2001)
York (2001)
York Minster (trekearth)
Poor kid.
