Slashdot Mirror
Vatican Astronomer Comments On Extraterrestrials
An anonymous reader writes "There's an Astrobiology.net interview up with a Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, who also curates one of the world's largest meteorite collections. On the possibility of a non-terrestrial lifeform, he says initially 'I don't know', followed by three scenarios. First, he argues: 'We find an intelligent civilization and there's no way in creation we can communicate with them because they're so alien to us. We can't talk to dolphins now. In which case, we'll never know.' Secondly, he suggests: 'We find the intelligent civilization. We can communicate.' As agents of free-will, the aliens are self-aware of good and evil, thus convertible to some terrestrial religion. Thirdly: 'We find a dozen civilizations out there, and a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses go up and convert them all.' The question of whether an alien civilization might convert Earth to their religion, or become a religion unto themselves, is left unconsidered. This compares to the many reasons people give for hosting a SETI@home client, including that ET contact would unite humanity, challenge religion, or all of the above."
See the video. Check out Wired.
The video looks pretty convincing, and according to AP and Reuters, the Mexican military is standing behind the story.
The detailed information is at Rense.
The interesting thing is that the Mexican plane was a drug interdiction aircraft with advanced radar and forward-looking infrared. It was designed precisely for the task of finding, intercepting and identifying unidentified aircraft, and it sounds like the data was handled in a way that would meet legal evidentiary standards (for obvious reasons: it was designed to convict drug smugglers).
Maybe the Vatican missed a fourth option: they're already here.
First off, the summary puts words in his mouth: "As agents of free-will, the aliens are self-aware of good and evil, thus convertible to some terrestrial religion."
He doesn't even IMPLY that.
What he SAYS is that if we can communicate intelligently with the aliens the question becomes, are religious concepts of right and wrong UNIVERSAL, and if so would their concepts match ours? He hopes so.
Later on, he states: "The other thing that happens is that each side learns from the other, inevitably. And the sense of acculturation continually goes on. It went on when the missionaries from Italy showed up in Ireland. Irish sensibilities became part of the Christian milieu. German sensibilities. Russian sensibilities. Every culture has added something to the mix, and brought something out of the mix. It's inevitable. You can't pretend that it's a one-way street. Even if you wanted it to be a one-way street, it wouldn't be."
He also answered the reverse question (Aliens converting us):
"We can't even convert ourselves"
There is, of course, an existing tradition of Christian thought on extraterrestrial life.
C.S. Lewis' Cosmic Trilogy is probably the best known example: Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra took H.G. Wells as its point of departure and speculated upon other world in which the corruption and redemption of humanity and nature had followed different courses. (I never got far into Vol. 3, so I can't recommend it.) Probably both are in a library near you.
Going back a little farther, the poetry of the Catholic writer Alice Meynell (1847-1922) touched on a few of these themes, e.g. in 'Christ in the Universe':
Meynell's works are available online.
This material's been done.
Since the calendars have been fucked around by the Conspiracy, 1998 hasn't arrived yet and the space critters from Planet X are yet to arrive (or "Bob" fucked up and transcribed 8991 as 1998, the year of the Rupture). However, once they do, they're only concern is to take this planet as the valuable resource it really is. They rescue all the Subgenii and whisk them off the planet to have sex with space goddesses with three pussies and fifteen tits, and destroy all the Pinks infesting
Earth.
Anyway, that's what it says in The Book of the Subgenius. You decide.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
You could look it up, but the rest of the chapter spells out the point far more forcibly, citing examples of Bible characters revered for their deeds, pointing out that even devils have faith, and stating three times that 'faith without works is dead.'
Yes, imagine that. See, the bible wasn't written yesterday in English directly to you. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago in a different language by authors living in a different culture. It occasionally happens that the understanding someone might gain from reading a solitary verse from a modern English translation ceases to make sense when the grammar and syntax, audience, author's corpus of work, culture, and the immediate and extended context are taken into consideration.
You're wrong. Well, you're right if you read Paul and pretend that Jesus didn't say anything. Jesus and Paul don't agree on many things. Salvation is probably the biggest one. Consider this scripture:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Mat 25:31-46.
Here Jesus gathers up everyone in the world ("all the nations") and judges them. What is the criteria for judgement? Faith? Abosolutely not! Jesus doesn't even mention faith! The criteria is works and works alone.
That's it. Nothing else to it. It's in black and white in the Bible. You'd have to actually read it to know that, though.
Nice little dig. Unfortunately for you, I *do* read the Bible and know exactly how flawed it is and can detail and debate those flaws with any Christian on the planet. It is the work of humans, not the perfect work of a divine being.
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Again, wrong. In order to get into heaven, you must do the following:
If you do those things, you go to heaven. Otherwise, you roast in hell. If you disagree with this, then you are disagreeing with Jesus. Your likely response is to argue, "That's what Jesus said, but that's not what he meant." Or perhaps you'll try, "You're taking things out of context." Maybe, if you're desparate, you'll try the "natural man" argument.
The majority of the New Testament is philosophical explanation of Jesus' words, and guidelines for behavior given by the early apostles, not the direct handing down of a list of rules by God (like the Ten Commandments).
Incorrect again. The majority of the New Testament is the creation of the "Christian" doctrine by
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Reading past the passage you mentioned would have cleared things up a little:
This passage, when considered alongside the many other verses that say salvation is achieved through faith and not deeds, tells us that 'good works' 'living the good life' (read James 2 1-12, previous to the verse you posted) is intertwined with faith (see verse 22 above).
What ignorant bullshit. Have you ever been to Spain? Have you ever seen the al-Hambra? The fact is that during the 7th through 10th Centuries, while Europe was little more than a stinking barabaric backwater, Islamic civization was very highly developed. They even had soap. During the Crusades, many Christian lords would try to get hold of Saracen physicians, because everyone knew that their medical methods were far superior to the European ones (which tended to consist of bleeding and wrapping the wound in dung).
It was Arab scholars who preserved much of the ancient Greek litterature. Without them we would have none of it. As for your statement about the library of Alexandria, you should read this.
In addition, who do you think invented algebra? (a hint: it should be al-gebra). Most of the stars visble to the naked eye have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Almitak, Algol, Betelgeuse, Achernar etc etc.), meaning that they had highly developed (for the time) mathematics and astronomy.
I understand you're pissed about terrorism; who wouldn't be? But don't make the mistake of letting current events color your view of the past. It's bad enough the other way around.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?