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.'"
Except it may not be a good answer. There is more to life than what you can prove scientifically.
I live in my mom's basement, but I'm 15.
Oh, we can tell.
You know a lot of critics of the church like to hold Brunu up as an example of Catholic badness, but, the guy was a dick. When he wrote what he wrote, he wasn't just doing it to be some sort of a scientist, he was playing politics and trying to dick with the Pope. You don't dick with the Pope, or you get burned, that's the deal.
As it is, historically, it seems that the farther people get removed from the Catholic church, the more people get killed. Let's say, sure, that the Catholics killed a couple of dudes in the Inquisition. Cry me a river. But then, you get Protestants slaughtering people left and right in all the holy wars that followed, that they started, then, come the 19th century, you start to see the completely secular, and godless, communists, socialists and nazis all as supremely liberal groups, and they slaughtered people like ants.
This is my sig.
you think "invisible sky daddies, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns" are the same thing as looking at all the patterns repeated throughout nature and the universe and wondering why, or what we are supposed to do with it?
I love being lectured in logic by a person who ritually cannibalizes a god's zombified offspring because a talking snake tricked a mud-man's rib-wife with magic fruit.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
...First, I don't believe for a second that he's honestly arguing from a position of nonbelief,..
He wrote this essay as a believer, but he became one, because he HONESTLY examined the written evidence, a deposition as it were of the Gospels, the same way as evidence might be examined in a court of law. Before he examined the Gospels he was an unbeliever.
If witnesses testimony matches too closely, it may be evidence of collusion. The fact that there is some variation makes the witness all the more believable.
(...probably from Peter's memory...)
So what is wrong with that? Mark was just somebody that was taking Peter's deposition. Years later, Peter wrote this himself:
2Peter 1:16 For not having followed fables having been cunningly devised, but becoming eyewitnesses of the majesty of Jesus Christ, we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord.
2Peter 1:17 For He received honor and glory from God the Father, when was borne to Him a voice from the excellent glory, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
2Peter 1:18 And we heard this voice being borne from Heaven, being with Him in the holy mountain.
(..I saw blanket assertions that such inconsistencies don't impeach the overall accuracy and truthfulness of those writings...)
Even today, the account of several witnesses to an auto accident may differ in some minor details, but the account of the event itself remains consistent. There are indeed minor differences in the testimony of the Gospels, but the main story is remarkably consistent. In accounts of the resurrection we read that Jesus first appeared to women who testified to this. If the story had been a fabrication, the fabricators would have never brought up the testimony of women, because in that society, the testimony of a woman was worthless.
(...had faultless memories...)
Neither he or I believe that human memories are perfect. The gospels were written with different audiences and viewpoints in mind. Matthew wrote as a Jew to Jews. Mark portrays Jesus as a servant. There is no genealogy in Mark, because the pedigree of slaves was unimportant in those days. Luke a physician, portrays Jesus as the Son of Man, a human being. John portrays Jesus as the eternal self existent son of God.
(...their own holy writings...)
Each of these other writings were written by one or two people within one human lifetime. The Bible is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different authors, living in vastly different places and cultures, over a period of over 1500 years. Even so, these writings bear the hallmarks of a single author, God himself. Also, the Bible has been distributed and translated more than any other writing. Atheist Voltaire's houses is now a distribution center for millions of Bibles.
(...they believed and wanted to prove...)
In court, witnesses are generally accorded to be telling the truth which of course they believe, but they better not try to prove something or have an agenda. Similarly these eyewitnesses of the Gospels had no agenda, but were simply relating what they heard and saw.
(..."most perfect indifference on their part, whether they are believed or not"...)
This is simply Greenleaf's way of saying that the Gospel writers had no agenda, but simply wrote down what they experienced.
(...Gospel writers suffered and died...)
The difference here is that they suffered and died for what they saw and experienced, not what some teacher told them.
All theory is gray
...Faith is belief without reason...
Before I get into this, I would like to thank you for always being polite and spending an awful lot of time on this. I wish I could meet you personally sometime, but I guess that's not likely.
Maybe, instead of this public forum, you would like to send your reply to:
reasons@fhrsporthorses.com
I think in your definition of faith you have hit the crux of the matter. You see, biblical faith is NOT unreasonable. It is based on good historical evidence that would hold up in any law court. Faith and trust are like two sides of the same coin.
The apostle Paul makes an appeal to reason:
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, which is your REASONABLE service.
Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is that good and pleasing and perfect will of God.
The prophet Isaiah, speaking for God writes:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us REASON together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.
You are making a big mistake, if you are truly of the opinion that Christian faith is a leap in the dark. Tolkien, CS Lewis, Simon Greenleaf and Lee Strobel are a few of the people I have mentioned who have researched the Christian gospel. They all, as well as myself, have come to the conclusion that a Christian need not leave his brains at the church door, before entering.
Now, let me get into a few additional points of your post.
(..Argument from Authority..)
Do you really think that it is wrong to depend on and consult an authority, a source that is more knowledgeable about a given subject? The people of Jesus day recognized that he had authority, unlike their religious leaders. The people that heard him recognized this:
Mat 7:28 And it happened, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His doctrine.
Mat 7:29 For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Scientists quote each other all the time. Because Jesus was God, as well as human, he could not consult a higher authority because there is none. By his resurrection he showed that he had authority even over death itself. It is interesting that the narrative first includes women in the resurrection account, by which Christianity either stands or falls. The testimony of a woman in those days and that culture was worthless. If the accounts of the resurrection were a fabrication, the fabricators most certainly would not have included the testimony of women as a cornerstone of their story. It is therefore REASONABLE to conclude that their story has merit and should be looked at more closely. There are entire books written on that one subject. Here is a good one that costs only eight dollars. It is titled: "Who Moved the Stone?"
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0310295610
(... but hold a few irrational beliefs...)
The belief that Christian faith is a leap in the dark and therefore irrational, is irrational itself. Other than the power of suggestion and the placebo effect, I agree with you on homeopathy. The placebo effect is well established in medical science. The power of faith is greater than we generally give it credit for. An event in Jesus ministry illustrates this:
Mar 5:34 And He said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be whole from your plague.
Get your Bible out and read the whole passage so you can get the context of this.
(....millions of people believed that the Earth was flat...)
Other than a few sailors, this belief did not materially affect most people. This is not true of millions of Christians, who were deeply changed by Jesus Christ and his message. I am inc
All theory is gray
...All of these explanations are much more plausible ....
A court of law doesn't go by what's plausible, but what actually took place.
(... you assume that it's a trick...)
In court you don't assume, but provide evidence. YOU have to provide witnesses or other evidence. It is generally implausible for someone to rise from the dead, but the case of Jesus COULD be an exception. You could, if able, provide your own eyewitnesses who contradict the Gospels. Then the jury would have to decide whom to BELIEVE.
(...How many times has a court ever been convinced of a supernatural explanation...)
Courts are interested in evidence and testimony, not explanations.
(...What if ....)
Neither I nor courts are interested in "what if" questions. Courts deal with real events, almost always in the past..
(...Because they said so....)
But it is up to you, the opposition to bring evidence that shows the testimony, or in this case the deposition of the eyewitnesses is false.
(...Maybe specifically it DID happen to Jesus....)
That exactly is what the GOSPEL eyewitnesses assert. YOU, as the opposing party, must provide witnesses that actually were there as observers, who provide evidence that the Gospel witnesses are wrong. Remember, that the Gospel witnesses testify that they were there. You would also have to provide such eyewitnesses. Saying there is no supernatural will no fly in court.
For an essay on the evidence of the gospels look here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
It was written by one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He also wrote a big volume still used by lawyers and courts called "The Rules of Evidence". Before he researched the Gospels documents like a lawyer looks at testimony, he was an unbeliever, but came to believe after his examination of the gospel witnesses.
All theory is gray