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."
And this is in the 'science' section.
And it's nothing but a bunch of speculation about how to convert aliens to christianity.
My head is about to explode.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Despite the funny rating on this post, it probably is the truth. People will "interpret" the bible to mean that extraterrestrials are really angels; they're servants of God that guided us through the ages. Unfortunately, it is certain that there will be a bunch of loonies who also feel that extraterrestrials are obviously demons; man was made in God's image, after all. These are simply tests from above to see how we will adapt.
That's funny, I have, several times.
Then again, if you go looking for them you'll find someone who believes anything you can come up with.
stuff
> The discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence would be catastrophic for organized religion. What if they have the exact same religion as one of the ones on Earth? Then it must be the correct one, and there's no such thing as faith anymore, and at least 80% of the Earth's population was wrong all along. What if they DON'T share any of our religions? Then ALL of ours must be wrong.
Europeans didn't find that problematic the last time they discovered a New World.
Religions tend to be very conservative about their beliefs, but they've always shown an ability to adapt when the chips are down. Encounters with extraterrestrials won't be any different.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We can't communicate with dolphins because we didn't have the need to do so.
:-)
If we knew they were trying to tell us a message and they actually tried to get the message across, resources would be made free so we
could communicate with them..
Communication is 2 ways, you have to make sure
you understand what they say, and they must also
make an effort to be understood and repeat if
necessary..
What about cats ? Do they say we can't communicate with cats ?
Sorry, I do communicate with my cats.
I don't know everything they say, and they don't
understand everything I say (I hope
but if they want to send me a message
(need food/attention/to be alone/go outside/..)
they get the message to me.
And if they do something they shouldn't, I also
make sure they get the message..
So yes to me that's communicating.
And now I'm thinking about it, yes, some
people can communicate with dolphins.
Dolphin trainers do train them and I assume
they will also learn to interpret the reactions
of the dolphins. They won't understand everything,
and we speak our own languages to communicate
(dolphins won't speak and we won't squeek),
but there is some limited communication.
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
Perhaps 'first contact' will spark a re-enacment of how so-called 'tribal' religions came to be replaced, violently or non violently by 'great religions.' (the Aiwa (sp?) in Japan were mostly replaced by the Japanese, the Hopi were replaced by Christians. Muslims spread over N. Africa replacing whatever proto-voodo gods were native there (I don't know) etc.)
The theme is this - religions for small, racially similar groups of people are replaced by religions for larger, less racially similar groups of people. Religion helps justify this takeover.
Great religions often deal more with conversion than tribal religions.
I wonder if this trend will apply to extra-terrestrial religions. Will such religions tend to be converting religions? Will Extra terrestrials have eliminated the notion of 'race' from their religion and culture?
If so, will such a culture focus on genetically assimilating creatures along with religious and cultural conversion?
Considering how universal Nietzche's 'Will to Power' is likely to be, I sometimes wonder if aliens will be like Nazis, but with forcible genetic engineering rather than gas chambers.
Furthermore, since religion and nationalism have always been strongly linked, what kind of religion will a space-faring race have, considering that they will be the first intelligent creatures who aren't bounded by nations and territory as we know it.
I think living in space will have a profound impact on nationality, and thus religion, because it will eliminate the notion of fixed land, which is the basis of nationality. If sattelites can become self-supporting it will allow people to redefine how they organize themselves and choose citizenship.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Illogical, Captain. S is huge, but every other value is completely unknown. It's quite possible that L and I are so small that intelligence arose only once in the whole universe. Just because we're here doesn't mean that anyone else is.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Can you really evangelize as an AC? Now there's a moral question.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Hmm. So Jesus died for our sins but didn't die for their sins, and they didn't have their own Jesus either? This can only mean that god loves us so much more than he loves them.
I don't have to tell you what that kind of thinking usually leads to, do I? (hints: crusades, 9/11, war, torture, genocide, holocaust, terrorism)
Free as in mason.
As an aside, if you think that cats are impressive, try owning a dog sometime. Both I and one of my brothers go to college, and yet when my mother says one of our names, the dog immediately stands up and wags her tail. This is after not seeing us for months. Yes, household pets are quite adept at recognizing words, but can they string those words together to form more elaborate concepts? I would argue no. In the example of my dog, she can relate names to individuals (when we are actually present, saying "go to [name]" will produce the correct response), but she can't understand that a name can refer to someone who is not present. She certainly understands "would you like to go for a walk?" but can't understand "walk" in any context that does not involve taking her outside. Likewise with your cat, would it be able to understand it if you said something else was good or bad? Probably not.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Those who think they can disprove God by finding alien life better think again.
;)
There is NO REASON whatsoever to believe that Earth is the only creation, or even this universe. I happen to be Roman Catholic. The discovery of aliens would not shake my religious foundation one bit.
I see science not as competition for religion, but as complimentary. When we discover how things work, we discover more about God.
I have no problem accepting evolution as the PROCEESS that was used, for example.
I don't like the extremists on either side on this debate. On one side, you have the atheists, who think science can replace religion. Then, on the other side, you religious nutcases who think the Earth is only 5,000 years old, who scream BLASPHEMY! at you when you mention Mars is closer than it's been in 600,000 years.
But those types of nutcases aren't Roman Catholic, but they are a lot of my neighbors here in Easern Kentucky
We should be seeking to discover other life for many reasons, none of which have to do with proving or disproving God. Either task is impossible, BTW.
Corporatism != Free Market
It's still the same. At least morally. Do something for no good reason other than a threat.
How would you feel if someone walked into 7-11 you were in and said he was going to shoot everyone who didn't say green was thier favorite color, but those that did could leave right now and he'd pay them $50? Saying green is your favorite color wouldn't really hurt you and get you $50 in bargain.
You'd be ticked as all hell, and you wouldn't believe this guy liked you even if he said green was better for you in your everyday life.
Personally I'd rather be around people who do thier best to be good people than ones who half ass it, yet meet this special requirement for a better afterlife.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start believing in a being that behaves worse than a spoiled child, threatens those he says he loves, posseses contradictory powers, and has the morals of a sociopath. Especially when there are several such, all claiming to be the only one. And each on is running a different racket than the next, with the only major items in common is that the head believers all get special privilages here in this life, and a series of directives that make not believing a good way to get killed, or in more 'enlightened' cultures/times, meerly treated like a second class citizen and a leper.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
No, according to the Bible, works ("living a good life" in your words) don't count, no matter how great and wonderful you think you're being. Faith, and only faith gets the job done. It's an incredibly simple requirement: profess your faith in Jesus as your savior, accept the gift of redemption offered by his death (and proven valid by his resurrection). That's it. Nothing else to it. It's in black and white in the Bible
And in black and white in the Bible we find the exact oppposite:
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (James 2:14)
You'd have to actually read it to know that, though.
Let me guess: you also have to 'interpret it properly'.
Of course, the problem with this is that it applies to the beliefs of every other loony on the street, not just to yours
Yes, but if that looney does unquestionable good, why patronise him? Does that make you a better person?
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are, but I don't know anyone that has managed to keep them.
Why do people keep pushing the Ten Commandments? Half the problem with Judaism at the time was that it was "function" lacking "form". After all, what happens when there's a conflict between two of the Ten Commandments (your parents tell you to kill someone, for instance)? That's why Christ simplified it in the New Testament.
Even Judaism realized that later on - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
(Yes, I know that Matthew 6 says that Christ said that the old rules still apply. Of course they do. They always will. The problem was that somehow people managed to miss the meaning of them - to God, they were obvious. To man, apparently it was too much.)
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Yes there is - it's all through Matthew 5-7, though it boils down to the above - Love God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself. That's it.
And those commandments are much easier to understand.
(So why are people pushing so hard for the Ten Commandments in courts? The Golden Rule is almost completely universal in almost all religions, and it has a lot less "wiggle room" - you're still a dork if you think about killing someone and don't do it, for instance)
Anyway, my point is that if you're pushing Christian doctrine, you shouldn't be pushing the Ten Commandments. You should be pushing the Golden Rule.
Note that I'm not commenting on what's necessary to get into heaven - that's a matter of belief in my eyes, though I firmly believe that any religion that believes that just saying the magic words "I believe in Jesus Christ" saves me, and the converse (not saying it means I can't be saved) is crazy - function without form. I can believe something without stating it. Heck, I can have faith and belief in something without knowing it.
But I'll stop there.
The act of faith, in itself, is a work. That is why "salvation through faith", while hugely popular, is in itself heretical. It's just a bolted-on idea with little Biblical basis. The comment that James is not canon is nonsense.
If you rewrite the grandparent post to say "salvation through irresistable grace", things start to make a lot more sense. If you accept the idea that Man is fallen (as it taught in the Bible), and is only redeemed through the grace of God (i.e. it is not by any work of ours that we are saved, as is taught in the Bible), then James starts to make sense. Faith, by itself, is only one manifestation of salvation--not salvation in and of itself--and works are an external expression of faith and salvation.
The inevitable question is, "How do you know if you are saved by grace, then?" Well, if you have faith, and you do works, it's a fair indicator.
Discussions like these are why I get so annoyed with religious discussions between believers and non-believers. Non-believers tend to lump all Christians under a single rubric, when Christian-on-Christian oppression is at least as significant as Non-Christian-on-Christian. We're hardly a homogenous group. (The same goes for Hinduism, Buddhism, and just about every other -ism, BTW, so the idea that "Hindus" won't have a problem with aliens is likely total nonsense.) It's intellectual laziness backed by raving bigotry when a non-believer lumps a Catholic with a Jehovah's Witness with a snake-handler. There is just as many key differences between them as there are between Perl and Java and Tcl/Tk hackers.
In reference to the news post itself, why is the Vatican speculating on alien civilization? We have less than adequate proof of alien life. We have no proof. When you look at the Hubble deep-sky photos, it's easy to say to yourself, "Gosh, all those galaxies, surely there's a civilization in at least one!" Who knows? I do know that there is less evidence for alien life than that Jesus walked the earth; but Jesus' existence is less than universally accepted among non-believers, while alien civilization is given serious thought.
Think about that--we have Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior; we have New Testament witnessing to the fulfillment of those prophecies; we have new prophecies that the Savior will return with ultimate judgement. All of this is based on pretty reliable historical documents, and consistent over at least 4000 years. But we ignore this, and instead concentrate on wondering about alien civilizations and how they'll affect us? Even assuming that they do exist, what sense does it make to think they're even aware of us, or can ever reach us? So there's bug-eyed monsters in galaxy MCC-435PDQ, or whatever. Unless they have faster-than-light travel (another leap of faith that is bolder than the goofiest Christian Scientist praying for God to heal their kid's cancer), they will never get here. Generational ships and interstellar travel make fun science fiction, but the odds that ET is heading here because he's jonesing for Starbucks... well, it's just silly.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.