When broaching the question of whether we are alone in the universe or whether there is life elsewhere, one ought to be mindful, first off, of the way that either answer (‘yes’ and ‘no’) is used by the atheists (rather dishonestly and disingenuously, as it happens) against Christianity. They say that if we are the only life in the whole universe that must prove that our being here is merely the result of the sheerest fluke. If, however, there are other planets which contain life of some kind that must prove that we are not the special creation that the Bible claims we are. Both contentions are, of course, equally spurious - but it is easy to see how atheists like to have it all their own way. 

 

Both propositions imply that we know exactly what we should expect when thinking about the creation. But the trouble is, we do not know of another sort of universe - therefore we cannot say, as some foolish atheists have (including professor Dawkins), that if there were a God the universe would be a vastly different universe to the one that we perceive. It is very easy to see the cardinal difficulty with this ill-conceived contention - ‘different’ implies knowledge of something alternative of which we can have no clue. If a dressmaker states that a particular piece of clothing has been sewn wrong her argument is rational because she has a clear idea of what the correct stitch pattern should look like. If we make the same claim regarding our universe - if we say that a universe that was created by a God would have a ‘better stitch pattern’, we must know what a better stitch pattern would be - and, of course, we can make no suggestion without speaking nonsense. 

 

But there is a bigger point attached to this subject. Perhaps our feeling alone in the universe (maybe feeling that we’re detached from God) is bound to affect our psychology in a way that suggests a detachment from ordered things. Whatever our reason for feeling as we do, any implication of this kind involves attaching injudicious ontological value to things such as size, distance, and time. Thought about logically, there is no reason why we should view size and distance with any negativity, much less suggest that this adds weight to the atheists’ cause. 

 

This absurdity can be magnified when we realise that we do not think of earthly things in this way at all; that is, we do not regard size, distance and time as clues to learning about the essence of things within their qualitative context. We do not say that a 540 page novel is better than a 340 page novel because it is 200 pages more, or that a Doberman is a better pet than a Labrador. We do not say that an office on the 25^th floor of a skyscraper is more significant than an office on the 5^th floor, or that a holiday at a destination 3000 miles away will be better than a holiday at a destination 1000 miles away. We do not say that 3pm is better than 2pm because it is later, nor do we say that a speech that lasts half an hour must be better than a speech lasting fifteen minutes because it is twice as long. On the same principle it is easy to see how tricky it is to make claims about the likelihood of God being behind our universe from examining the properties of the universe itself, for when we do we can get into all sorts of trouble. 

 

It can be tempting when seeing a terrible natural disaster to claim that this is great evidence that there is no God watching over us, but to make such a claim would be guilty of being led by non-rational emotional appeals. Although I pointed out how tricky it can be to make claims about the likelihood of God being behind our universe from examining the properties of the universe itself, that doesn’t give us the whole picture – there is something else to consider. There are special things within the universe that give the suggestion of a Divine mind behind them.   Einstein had great reverence for the laws of nature (although he was not a theist), but it was Einstein’s greatness that created the awe. Cats and dogs roam around the small areas of a garden but they do not have the slightest reverence for one petal of a flower, yet even the greatest men get embarrassed in their skin. The beasts of the wild never become embarrassed by anything. All of these facts point to something much more significant than mere statistics about nature; they strongly suggest that we are on the wrong end of something glorious - that we are detached from the glorious truth of the whole reality. Whether it is the vastness of atomic activity in one inanimate object or the vastness of activity millions of light years in the distance, we are only receiving, at present, hints of the real greatness of God. For me ‘creation’ has got that special feel about it - it seems ‘just right’. If the laws of nature were simple enough that we might understand them with the Hubble telescope we would never receive any hints of its sublimity. If it were so incomprehensible that our activity was limited to our own surface area we would have no sense of anything outside of this planet.

 

Having established that and moving to the subject of life on other planets, it ought to be said that such life would not prove that we were any less special in God’s eyes (although I do not doubt that knowledge of which might have a negative effect on some people’s psychology). But if it did, it would be our old enemy ‘pride’ rearing its ugly head again. Perhaps these creatures are nothing like us, perhaps they do not need salvation in the same way that we do - perhaps they need it more. But the fact of their existence would not diminish the special nature of our own existence. We as flawed creatures have this awful habit (both in the Christian world and in the secular) of thinking of creation as though its sole purpose is to gratify our deepest suspicions by displaying answers to every universal thing. Do not misunderstand me, it is great that we have the capacity to discover more about our universe but we sometimes act as though any piece of information left undisclosed lends itself to blithe indifference if we happen to find it convenient.

 

But we know one very interesting thing - that none who have come to know Christ have ever complained about the lack of evidence - for as they have come to know Him - the Spirit and mind have touched just as a hand fits in a glove. Sometimes it might itch, sometimes it might like to wriggle free, sometimes it might feel too warm, but there is never any doubt that the hand and the glove were made to fit together. If there ever comes a point when the atheist becomes disquieted at the bleak thought that there is no intelligence behind our universe, he would multiply that disquietude by a trillion if he got the first hint of what he was rejecting. To become preoccupied with the progression of this planet and forget about the infinite story (and the finiteness of nature) is like letting all the bank notes blow away in the breeze because you are too preoccupied with finding the penny that fell to the ground.

 

The universe existed for around ten billion years before the earth began to form some 4.6 billion years ago, therefore it is worth considering that if there is intelligent life on other planets much of it is probably a lot more advanced than we are. Thus the chances could be that such life would be able to find us by now. However that is conjecture - an interesting idea, but conjecture nonetheless. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we must assume one of three things, either they do not have the capacity to search far enough to find us, or they do have the capacity but have not stumbled upon us yet, or thirdly they know we exist but are way too advanced to even want to find us; that is, the notional probability that they have reached such advanced levels - like that of artificial intelligence - which brings with it no necessity to contact us.

 

If either is true another interesting question, for me, would be what sort of creatures would they be? Presumably they evolved from carbon-based origins (silicon is unlikely) - a primordial soup of some kind - therefore one wonders if natural selection on their planet would produce anything like us. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that other creatures alive in the same universe would operate in a similar way to the way in which we operate. If such life does exist, I as a Christian would have to say that they too were created by God. It is true that they might not be fallen creatures like we are, equally true that they might be more fallen - perhaps their method of salvation is different to ours, perhaps they need no such salvation. Either way, we might not know until the end - we only know what it is like for us on earth. However, judging by the way that we have treated those who are less-capable and less-powerful than us, if there were such creatures in the universe who are less developed than us, it might be better for them if we never find them.

 

This then begs the question - if we were to locate a planet which harboured life more intelligent than our own; one which we thought might have the capability to destroy us, could we afford to risk the safety of our own planet? Interestingly I think it largely depends on belief in God, for Christians would say that they too must be creatures of God and that Christ’s instruction to love our neighbour as ourselves obviously must stretch to neighbours in other galaxies. Those who believed that there was no supervising God might be more inclined to launch a pre-emptive strike to secure the safety of our own planet. 

 

If we are compelled to admit that finding life on other planets might not be the best thing for us or for them, should we then face the moral question of whether it is right to spend so many millions on the search for extra terrestrial life, particularly when there are so many more pressing needs on earth? As a Christian who embraces scientific and technological discovery, I cannot say I believe that God endorses our spending so much money on searching for extra terrestrial life elsewhere in the universe, but it is more of a feeling of conviction than a feeling of certainty. Perhaps we haven’t considered that the vastness of our universe is no accident, and that God’s plan was for us to remain quarantined for safe measures.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that we are the only life in the universe, and I do not expect us to find anything out there. If, however, life is discovered elsewhere in the universe, it will not shake my Christian faith one bit, and nor should it shake yours - it will be an invitation for us to explore new possibilities and reframe our thinking into a wider creational context. Having said that, I suspect that if other life were to be discovered, many atheists would use that as a most encouraging pretext for arguing that we are not God’s special creation after all. And that is why I think that a) no life exists but ours, and b) if other life does exist, I doubt we will find out about until Christ returns. I could, however, be wrong on both counts - and that is what makes life all the more interesting - we never know what is round the corner or what exciting discoveries God had planned for us when He created the universe and set the pages of the creational story turning.