In Search of Aliens (Some further thoughts for Matt Walsh)

Photo by  Dino Reichmuth  on  Unsplash

Last week, I listened to an episode of the Matt Walsh Podcast in which a fascinating topic came up. Not that his other topics aren’t fascinating. They mostly are, and I recommend the podcast if you’re looking for a conservative commentator on political and social issues from a relatively Christian perspective. I say, “relatively” because, in my opinion, there are some aspects of his testimony that I don’t believe a careful Christian would have. None that I’ll bother mentioning here. I mean that respectfully. Suffice it to say that, while a conversation with Mr. Walsh would be great, we would probably respectfully disagree on a few matters of doctrine and practice. But, that’s not the point of this post. His podcast makes me think, hence this post, so go be sure subscribe to his show.

Suppositions about aliens…

When Mr. Walsh began reading listener-submitted emails, the topic of aliens was brought up. Now, I’m not a scientist, but I don’t think the topic of aliens really falls in the realm of science since, to my knowledge, no evidence of aliens, past or present, has ever been discovered for scientists to observe and test, which are key activities to qualify something as Science, I think. Since no evidence has been observed, or at least none that the government tells us about (insert creepy conspiracy theory music here), there are only suppositions. I jest, of course. I don’t think some government/alien conspiracy exists. But, I’m not jesting about aliens falling in the realm of supposition.

Believe it or not, I think the Bible has a rather definitive case against the existence of aliens. I’m not trying to be a jerk about it. I just think there are some things to think about.

Biblical logic from Soteriology…

A well known argument against alien life exist from the standpoint of Soteriology, or the Doctrine of Salvation. Basically, if sentient, sin-accountable, alien life existed, then they would need a Savior too and Christ would need to save them out if His nature of love, mercy, and grace. Yet, scripture only ever tells us of Christ dying for humans. And since God is just, viola! There can’t be aliens. At least, that’s how the argument goes. Mr. Walsh addressed this argument by saying something like, "there could be different ways of salvation that don't make sense to us for other beings in the universe". However, Leviticus says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Based on God not being able to contradict Himself, this would mean those beings would also need a Savior who sheds His blood for them. Yet, Hebrews 10:10 said that Jesus died, "Once for all." So, He could not also do this on other planets should any have intelligent, sin-accountable life on them. Jesus only died for sin once. More than once, would diminish the sufficiency and salvation efficacy of a perfect, God-incarnate Savior.

Biblical logic from the fall and the future…

Mr. Walsh also supposed something like, "perhaps those other beings are not be fallen beings" and thus might not need a Savior after all. However, God called not just earth, but all the original creation "very good" and Romans 8:22 seems to indicate that all creation now groans and travails because of sin. This means sin has tainted the entire universe simply because it entered it at all. Though, arguably, for the sin of Satan and man to not taint a place it might have to be a different universe, and there is certainly no evidence of that. Even if there was, it would still be part of Creation and thus still tainted by the entrance of sin. Also, prophecy in Peters' epistles and echoed in Revelation indicate that one day the Lord will destroy ALL creation with "fervent heat" and He'll make new heavens and a new earth (see 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 21:1). That would be awfully unjust for God destroy non-fallen, sentient, intelligent beings on those other planets. We'd have to presume they'd be destroyed at that time because the only beings spared from destruction then will be the “over-comers” (saved humans) mentioned in Revelation 21:7, and those written in the Lamb’s (Jesus) Book of Life mentioned in Revelation 21:27. The Lamb was given for the salvation of this world (John 3:16), thus His Book of Life can only contain the names of the beings of this world, namely humans. I hope you followed all of that.

Biblical logic from the canon of Scripture…

Christian arguments in favor of alien life are making arguments completely from silence. Basically, “Just because the Bible doesn’t speak of aliens doesn’t mean there aren’t any.” Arguments from silence are, frankly, poor logic. They’re unreliable because the same can be said in reverse: “Just because the Bible doesn’t speak of aliens doesn’t mean there are!” It just doesn’t speak of them! That’s it. Such musings about what “could be” outside of the Bible, sort of undermines the authority of the Bible. It could even cast doubt in the Christian’s mind like, “What else isn’t God telling us?” That’s how you end up with a Book of Mormon and a Charismatic movement with their “words from the Lord”! Though the Bible does not cover every single subject that exists today, it does give us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness.”(2 Peter 1:3) It gives all we need to know. There’s a good reason why the Scriptures represent themselves as finished (Revelation 22:18-19) and why Christians should stop fantasizing about alleged things God hasn’t revealed. Note: Revelation 22:18-19 is not just referring to the Book of Revelation because that book’s truths are found throughout the entire Old Testament and New Testament, so the passage can be applied to the completeness of the whole Bible.

Biblical logic from the nature of God…

Finally, Mr, Walsh discussed the “fine-tuned” argument, which asserts that evidence for God exists because the universe is “fine-tuned.” That’s a good argument, however, Mr. Walsh suggested that to deny that alien life exists undermines the “fine-tuned” argument because a universe with a bunch of “dead planets”, as he calls them, doesn’t appear fine-tuned.

I think we need to consider all the arguments together as cumulative and congruous. The fine-tuned argument must also be considered with the nature-of-God argument together. Other planets aren’t “dead”. They were never “living”. And I don’t think God intended them to be so in order to make a demonstrable comparison between here and everywhere else. Perhaps why we only observe life here on this planet says less about God's creative ability to "fine-tune" things and more about His love for this world in particular (see John 3:16). He would die for the people of our puny, life-exclusive planet as a revelation of His great ability to love the infinitesimally small and the insignificant. That is characteristic of His nature. And something tells me Him doing it that way was very deliberate.

You can find the discussed episode of the Matt Walsh show here. Be sure to subscribe to his podcast.