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."
As agents of free-will, the aliens are self-aware of good and evil, thus convertible to some terrestrial religion
Even if Aliens know the difference between right and wrong but they might not be able to understand the concept of god. Even if the did understand god I doubt you could convert a space faring race to any of our religions in their current form. It makes the earth too special and they'd probably wouldn't take kindly to that. I do suspect religion will transform in to a 'many games of chess' set-up. Adam and Eve was Earth's story. Kalcknor and voltak was Vulcan's story etc etc.
Simon
Even if any aliens were to have a concept of good and evil there's no reason why they would see things the way we do. Just look at how it is on Earth: there are people who genuinely believe it is 'good' to do things that many now believe are profoundly evil. Take the Spanish Inquisition, for example: they really believed that it was the right thing to torture suspects - give a sinner hell here, so they don't suffer so much in the next world.
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
...what about religion?
Seriously, if some advanced race landed on Earth, at least some cult/faction/group would characterize them as gods. What I find interesting is the practical viewpoint of the Vatican astronomer; new scientific discovery does not eliminate the need for a God, it just redefines the boundaries between humanity and the Other.
I also think that a chance encounter with aliens would certainly polarize the creationists. Did God create the Earth in seven days? OK, what about Gamma Epsilon 7? The Catholic Church has had many, many faults, (hello, Galileo) but IMO the modern Church is much more accepting of scientific theories than, say, fundamentalist Christians.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He also seems to miss out the option whereby we atract the attention of "agents of free will" who have already discovered evil. Am I right in thinking that currently it's illegal to attempt to communicate with an ET without UN approval, or something? In case they wander over and rape our planet/enslave us all/demand McNeal.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
There's already a lot of people who believe in Grey Aliens, but I haven't heard of people interpreting these Greys to be Christian angels or demons.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
From the Vatican? This made me think it was going to be a religious commentary on the possibility of ETs. This is addressed very well in a book called "The Hercules Text", (kind of old).
The premise of the argument was, if ETs exist, there must be immortal ETs, if you subscribe to Roman Catholic religion. I.E. : The reason we are not immortal is that we failed the "test": we ate the apple!
Therefore, somewhere out there there must be people who passed it, or the test is "spurious".
Therefore there must be immortal aliens, or the test is invalid, and therefore the Redeemer is invalid.
That's just the argument in the book.
that's a logical fallacy.
Or a "straw man argument". Dolphins are not even aliens.
Whilst we are on the subject, this story has been shooting around the world; some very interesting infra-red footage shot by the Mexican Airforce shows...make up your own mind. The footage was shot by drug interdiction aircraft on patrol for smugglers.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Why? I don't follow this reasoning. After all, no one in the Americas shared any religions with people from Europe, but that doesn't imply that no European or Native American religion is true. Lack of agreement between alien cultures does not imply falsehood.
Shockwave Flash movies are the greatest thing to happen to non-sequitur humor since Japan.
Looking at it from the point of view of someone who is a Christian, it is hard to see how Aliens would be like us. Either:
They've never screwed up like we did and had the 'Fall' - so they have no concept of good or evil - in which case I doubt any meeting would be allowed to occur. My other problem with this is that the Bible, and the world around us, suggests that creation has also been affected by our mistake. There's far too much in nature that "isn't right" as people say.
Or:
They have had their own equivalent of the fall, and are just like us, the kind of Aliens you don't want to meet (think we'd avoid war in that scenario?). Considering the unique role of Jesus Christ, this would also be unlikely to be allowed by God.
I guess there's a third scenario too. The Bible isn't particularly specific on where angels and demons are (though they do business on Earth already). It is possible that some supposed UFO or alien encounters are a result of this. It's not entirely impossible, especially considering the apocalyptic sections of the Bible, that as part of some end times scenario, people beleive that we have encountered aliens (with the reality being more sinister).
Personally, the distance to our nearest stars, which may not even support life, looks suspiciously like a "buffer zone".
I'm sure that to those who do not beleive in any of the Bible, or in God, or Jesus, this sounds like nonsense. Hopefully its interesting though, and won't be modded down simply by those disagreeing. Also it would be interesting the different opinion that other beleivers have, not necessarily agreeing I'm sure!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
That's odd. I think a lot of the shit surrounding "Passion of the Christ" stemmed from the fact that Gibson rejected some of the Vatican's reforms. In particular, his splinter group of Catholisim ignores the reforms which absolved the Jewish people, collectivly, of culpability for Jesus's death.
Historically, there have been many pogroms and a lot of anti-sematism which stemmed from the notion that 'the Jews killed Jesus' and should collectivly be punished for it till they convert.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
McCoy: Just once, I'd like to beam down on some planet and say. "Behold, for I am the arch angel Gabriel!"
Spock: I fail to see the humor in that doctor.
Something even more amusing would be the discovery of aliens that take offence to the fact we don't believe in their god and start blowing us up. Oh wait, that happens right here...
Actually, the early church hit this one. Jesus was god made jewish man. How are you going to impress a Roman with `god became a Jew' if he doesn't care about that small tribe on the edge of empire. There was a significant shift when they turned from a jewish messianic cult into a catholic one. This is the cause of all the bickerring about circumcision and so on -- the greek and roman worlds found snipping bits of their children or themselves barbaric.
So, one thing which might happen to the monotheistic religions on contact with an ET is that they mutate into a universallist outlook. The big question then being whether the history on Earth is unique -- eg did Jesus death save the Qxthipus of Raffita VII, was Mohamed the last ever prophet, or just the final prophet for earth?
However, all this is probably moot. The religions of Earth are so heavily rooted in human psychology that they are unlikely to have any point of application to an alien intelligence.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
You obviously haven't been reading Christian publications. It's a belief among many Christians, that "aliens" are fallen angels and/or demons. There are plenty of web sites, radio shows, and speeches given on the subject. The same things written about fallen angels thousands of years ago (kidnapping, cross-breeding, trading technology for access) is supposedly the same things the "aliens" are doing even now. If you beleive in both, it's an easy parallel to make.
"Convertible to some form of terrestrial religion". Yeah right...
Forget about religion, how about cultural assimilation?
Read this exerpt from the Brookings report from 1960 comissioned from NASA about finding extraterrestrial life, it will make you think twice. Perhaps this is why the goverment is hiding the truth that "they" are already here. Oh and don't forget to see that Mexico video, just another iron in the fire so to speak.
--
Proposed Studies On The Implications Of
Peaceful Space Activities For Human Affairs
By
Brookings Institution, 1960
Report To The 87th Congress, Union Calendar 79
Report Number 242
For
National Aeronautics And Space Administration
The general public
1.As with other matters not central to day-to-day living, the
public, considered as a whole, is probably only selectively
attentive to and knowledgeable about space activities. The
relationship between the impact of events on indifferent or only
occasionally interested people and their attitudes and values is
but partly understood and needs further study.
2.It has been alleged that the "public" is optimistic about
space activities. If this is so and if the optimism is
widespread, the present support it generates for the space
program may not be lasting if the difficulties inherent in space
efforts have not been appreciated enough to make the failure of
specific projects understandable. The resulting disillusionment
may be a serious factor in reducing public support as space
efforts become more grandiose, the consequences of payoff more
exciting, and the losses from failure more dramatic. On the other
hand, this optimism, if it exists, may produce a state of mind
tolerant of failures. The factors affecting optimism, realism,
and tolerance of frustration need more study as an aid in
preparing for this situation. The roles of the promoter spokesman
and the mass media in encouraging expectations of great and
imminent accomplishments are integral to this problem area and
would benefit from research.
3.The conviction that space activities will broaden man's
horizons are presently based on the perspectives and special
interests of a relatively few people in western societies. The
claim may be justified, but there is need for research to assist
understanding of the conditions under which innovations broaden
or narrow perspectives in various cultures. For example,
sufficient emphasis on space as the proper expression of man's
highest aspirations may result in the evolution of a broadly
based belief that this is so. But whether or not this is likely
to be the case cannot now be decided in view of our limited
understanding of how new ideas disseminate through societies. If
and as horizons were broadened as a result of space activities,
other aspirations would compete with them for attention and
resources, and continuous study would be required to evaluate the
appropriate position of space in this competition.
4.Though intelligent or semi-intelligent life conceivably
exists elsewhere in our solar system, if intelligent
extraterrestrial life is discovered in the next twenty years, it
will very probably be by radio telescope from other solar
systems. Evidences of its existence might also be found in
artifacts left on the moon or other planets. The consequences for
attitudes and values are unpredictable, but would vary profoundly
in different cultures and between groups within complex
societies; a crucial factor would be the nature of the
communication between us and the other beings. Whether or not
earth would be inspired to an all-out space effort by such a
discovery is moot: societies sure of their own place in the
universe have disintegrated when confronted by a superior
society, and others have survived even though changed. Clearly,
the better we can come to understand the factors involved i
I think the common frame of reference is very important. With pets we tend to learn what they are after but it only works for the common things. We can tell the difference between them wanting out and them wanting food but maybe not between them wanting food and wanting water. For the pet, they may have a different frame of reference than we do but the position of their food and water dishes are close enough that we may not pick up a suttle difference in their message. They also may see the world much differentlly than we do. For example, my new pet is 3 mos old and is starting to learn that she's not allowed on the table however from her point of view, that only applies if shes jumping up on the table, not down to it. I think I have taught her not to jump on the table but in her mind, I may have taught her not to jump up from the kitchen chairs.
...This story is a TROLL.
I am reminded of a story by Arthur C. Clarke. Two IBM programmers are brought out to Sri Lanka to work in a monastery at the top of a mountain. The monks believe that if all the nearly infinite names of God are recited, the universe will come to an end. Their job is to write a program that will be run on a mainframe at the monastery to try and generate all those names. Someone out there probably knows the name of this short story.
BTW, one of the posts near the top of this discussion is correct. The Roman Catholic Church (my flavor of Christianity) is now very much at ease with the results of all the scientific discoveries of the past few centuries. One of our fundamentalist friends is a "Young Earth Creationist". Sorry, but I gotta laugh when told that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. All the animals were vegetarians (even T-Rex) until Adam and Eve shared that apple/pomegranate. Huh?
Dear Fellow Slashdotters, most of the world's religions are fine with scientific discovery. The great "undiscovered country" out there is the focus of most religions. What are humans capable of when their mind, body and spirit are all completely aligned on their spritual "North Star"? What matters is not material things but things like love, hope, joy, justice and so on. Mother Teresa (already beatified, now awaiting canonization- Sainthood. Similar to a certification from Verisign finally completing for the tech-obsessed) spoke of the spiritual poverty of Americans as compared with the spiritual wealth of the poor of Calcutta. Religion does not need these routine bashings on Slashdot. I have found most of it is good for helping keep the neighbor's kids from trying to break into my house. Without it, I am certain that mere Earthly laws and law enforcement will leave us much poorer in every way. Since the tyranny of the ACLU and atheists was unleashed by the Warren Court, we have seen what happens when God is driven out of America at every turn. As a lifelong historian, I truly believe that America was better off when it wasn't trying to force religion out of the public sphere at every turn. I would be fine with seeing crosses, stars of David, crescents, and Buddha statues all over America. Let the government referee the occasional conflict instead of suppressing them unevenly which is the current game. Studying anything BUT our major legacy of faith, Christianity, is fine for public educational facilities now.(e.g. universities down to elementary shcools) The anti-Chrisitan crowd that has been extending its reach through government is totally fine with promoting every religion but Chrisitanity. The Founding Fathers wisely chose not to establish state religions, (unlike Europe where tax dollars go straight to state religions) but their separation of Church and State was trying to protect BOTH. The protection of the State should not come at the expense of one particular practice of faith. If it must be paid, it should be paid evenly by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Everyone has made a religious choice since exposure to religion is inescapable. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. -Rush
In principio erat Verbum.
the more alarming thing is that secularist revisionists have twisted history so as to claim that the Crusades were unprovoked. they were a reaction to the unprovoked maurading accross north africa (burning the library of alexandria), spain, and half of france.
there is much evidence that shows that the so called "golden age of spain" was concocted in the early 1900s as propoganda so the British people would not mind allieing with the Turks.