Slashdot Mirror
Vatican Debates Possibility of Alien Life
Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is holding its first ever conference on alien life, the discovery of which would have profound implications for the Catholic Church. For centuries, theologians have argued over what the existence of life elsewhere in the universe would mean for the Church. Among other things, extremely alien-looking aliens would be hard to fit with the idea that God 'made man in his own image' and Jesus Christ's role as savior would be confused; would other worlds have their own Christ-figures, or would Earth's Christ be universal? Just as the Church eventually made accommodations after Copernicus and Galileo showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and when it belatedly accepted the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution, Catholic leaders say that alien life can be aligned with the Bible's teachings. 'Just as a multiplicity of creatures exists on Earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by God,' says Father Jose Funes, a Jesuit astronomer at the Vatican Observatory and one of the organizers of the conference. Others do not agree. 'If you look back at the history of Christian debate on this, it divides into two camps. There are those that believe that it is human destiny to bring salvation to the aliens, and those who believe in multiple incarnations,' says Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist. 'The multiple incarnations is a heresy in Catholicism.'"
The hypothesis that no deity of any kind exists solves the problem in an unbeatably elegant fashion.
or is this just a "cover our own backs" maneuver to avoid what happened with Galileo, Copernicus and others? Those cases weren't exactly the best publicity they've had.
This is blinging
As a Catholic, I have a bit of a problem with this being filed under "humor". Yes, yes, most religious questions are a big joke to /. editors and posters (Cf. parent), but when institutions look as these low-level problems they frequently have
a) a faction that gets it really wrong and embarasses the institution; and
b) a faction that gets it right (or close) and enriches the institution
"what are the ramifications if there are nonhuman beings who experience conscience and guilt?" is a fascinating question, just like
"what are the ramifications if the earth goes 'round the sun"
"what are the ramifications if indigenous people are fully human and have as much God-given dignity as Western Europeans?"
etc.
This is one of the fundamental problems with modern religions.
When religion and scientific evidence are in direct conflict with each other, enlightened people accept the scientific evidence. Enlightened religious people accept the scientific evidence and try to find ways to resolve it so that their religion remains logically consistent. (Yes, sometimes jumping through hoops to do so, but at least they don't look at scientists as some kind of evil tricksters or conspirators.)
The dumb ones, though, continue to argue against the scientific evidence not because of any particular keen insight, but because of what they think they know about an invisible guy who reigns supreme and, for the most part, what a two-thousand-year-old book that was written in an ancient language by ancient people and interpreted through various political and theological lenses says.
And, of course, most modern religions (and in particular, most modern people pushing it) are out there trying to convince people that if you question their interpretation of the "facts," that you'll burn in hell for eternity.
The church shouldn't even be having this argument. Science points towards an almost certainty of intelligent alien life out there, even if we never meet it face-to-face. They need to resign themselves to the fact that it exists, and adjust their thought accordingly. A biblical reference to the "four corners of the earth" doesn't mean that the earth literally has four corners (i.e. it's flat). A biblical reference to God making man in his own image doesn't mean that the god they worship literally looks like we do.
Duh.
As for the whole Christ thing, well, I'm guessing that alien cultures probably have their own religions, and some of them are probably even more interesting than ours. If we ever do have the pleasure of meeting some of them, we'll probably do what we've done throughout our entire history of existence. Figure out some way to meld them together to make ourselves feel better about ourselves and go on with life.
The Catholics need not confront alien life issues at all. The idea that God's truth had to be delivered to the population of this world in such a way that they could understand and make use of it is sufficient. Can any of us imagine a Holy book being delivered two thousand years ago that babbled about relativity, the Higg"s Boson or multi dimensional universes?
We can trust that the message has been delivered to others in a format that they can both understand and make use of.
'Cause that would seem to be an important preliminary to your definition of science?
The problem: existence is the thing that *everything that *exists has in common, and scientific articulation of its meaning would require a comparison between the things that do and don't exist. Which comparison it cannot make, because as you rightly point out scientific inquiry cannot be made into non-existent things.
btw the 'which' in "things which don't exist" is a funny word misusage in this context -- do you see why?
That's just silly. A 3,000 meter tall solid gold badger watching over Madison Wisconsin doesn't exist. We can easily compare it to a small ceramic badger from the University of Wisconsin gift shop that in fact does exist. Now, there is no logical reason that the giant golden badger cannot exist, it just doesn't. However, a square with only 3 sides does not exist anywhere in the universe, because it is logically impossible for such a thing to exist. It is easy to compare this with an equilateral triangle which in fact might exist, or one that does exist.
This is related to the history of argument about the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas made a similar distinction between things which exist and things which don't exist, things which cannot exist and things which just happen not to exist. In this ontological argument he attempts to prove that God logically must exist.
To be precise, a square with 3 sides does not exist, because we have DEFINED a square to have 4 sides. But a square itself doesn't exist either. You don't walk down the street or through the park and say "look, a square". A square is a pure mathematical ideal, and exists as such only in our heads.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
To paraphrase your argument: "Everything must have a cause except the thing that doesn't need a cause."
1) Why are you satisfied by calling the uncaused cause God? Why can't you define the Universe to include the uncaused cause and accept that not all effects have identifiable causes?
2) If you do decide to call the uncaused cause God, how do you jump from that to believing that God cares about you and listens to your prayers? Wouldn't that be like the flames of a forest fire praying to the lightning bolt that started the fire? Is the lightning bolt watching over His creation and deciding which flames get a happy afterlife?
3) Mathematically, you can have a function with periodic boundaries that depends only on itself without a beginning or end. If the Universe is mathematical and time is a characteristic of the Universe (not a supernatural clock existing outside the Universe), then the Universe could exist in a self-consistent state without any need for a beginning. Time is an illusion experienced by hunks of matter present within the Universe. The Universe, including all of time and all possible states, simply exists.
4) If you argue that what I have just describe as the Universe is actually God, then we need to have a long discussion about Baptism, Communion, Marriage, Sin, Heaven, and Hell.
How is the parent off topic? Christianity does not teach that being made in Christ's image means looking physically similar to Christ. It shows a lack of understanding in the announcement of one of the basic tenants of Christianity. It seems that the the modding down of the parent is due to an inherent bias among /. users. Sadly, things like this are slowly forcing me off /.
How do you know E=MC^2? Did you figure it out yourself, or did someone in authority tell you it was true?
I did calculate it myself when I was a sophomore in college. The mathematics of it actually aren't all that hard.
How do we know Abraham Lincoln was a president of the US? Did you see him become president? Or did you rely on the authority of some written documents to tell you that he was?
As evidence we have written history, photographic evidence, copious reliable documentation, archaeological evidence, birth records, and much more - most of which is available for you to peruse yourself. There is even DNA evidence from known descendants. Furthermore there is not a single claim to a supernatural act in any of the above and I can tell you exactly what evidence would be needed to disprove the claim that he was President.
How do we know Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome? Where you there or are you relying on documents the earliest of which come from around 1000AD?
See the above, minus the photographs and with fewer surviving records and other bits of evidence. Again, no supernatural claims exist with regard to the existence and historical record of Julius Caesar and I can tell you exactly what it would take to convince me that he was not actually the emperor of Rome.
How do you know that person A murdered person B even though you haven't found the murder weapon? Is it because you performed some scientific test to determine it or is it because the bag lady across the street and said she saw him enter the apartment just before it happened and the neighbor said he saw him leave with a bloody knife?
It depends on the nature of the evidence. If the "bag lady" also claims to have seen a ghost rising to heaven or some other supernatural act, her credibility is rightly going to be suspect. Witnesses alone are rarely enough to convict someone of a capital crime.
Religion has all the evidence that everything else we rely on has.
WRONG. Religion makes no falsifiable claims. There is no way I can disprove the assertion that Jesus Christ was the son of "God". I can accept the assertion or not but I can not disprove it. Science and history actually do make falsifiable claims. I can find evidence to disprove a theory or a historical narrative. It might not be easy to do so but it is possible and I can tell you exactly what evidence I would need to disprove a scientific or historical theory. The worst abuses of religon come when historical fact is conflated with religious dogma. Much of the evidence from 2000 years ago is of course lost so it makes it easier for the charlatans who sell religion to dupe the unscrupulous and naive.