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.'"
Normal folks think of aliens as being extraterrestrial. In this case, it's probably a study of non-Catholics.
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.
Current Catholic theology is the result of about 1500 years where some of the most powerful minds of occident contributed to build a quite solid intellectual building. It might be based on nonsenses but still it's internal coherence and its resistance to foreign attacks is quite good.
"extremely alien-looking aliens would be hard to fit with the idea that God 'made man in his own image'"
Surely it would be a problem for those too literalist (the ones that really believe the universe was built in six days, Noah's ark, Metusellah living 600 years, etc.) but for Catholics, God's image has nothing to be with having two arms or five and two heads or breathing liquid methane; it's about self identity and the thought of our own transcendence so probably any intelligent alien (non self-concious non-intelligent alien life pose no problem) would still fit the definition.
"Jesus Christ's role as savior would be confused"
Minor problem: Rome would say that each intelligent species would take its own path towards or against salvation and that's all. Regarding the heaven chores (angels and all that stuff) they are both real things and methapores of the relationship with divinity and you are done.
"would other worlds have their own Christ-figures, or would Earth's Christ be universal?"
Both stanzas are true at the same time. Literally that would be no problem for Catholic church, after all its God is one and three at the same time; logically it's still not a big problem: the path to redemption (or the lack of) would be tied to the local History of those aliens; they either don't need redeption (rationally that could be the case, of course I don't think Rome would accept that; they would be out of job), or they found their own path or they came to know about us so they can learn about Christ and share our own redemption (they know *now* that Christ did die for them to so their souls can be saved etc.).
"says Father Jose Funes, a Jesuit astronomer "
Of course, it had to be a Jesuit. Quite clever folks, those Jesuits.
"The multiple incarnations is a heresy in Catholicism"
Yes. But since God is uber-everything (almighty, omniscient...) it's easy to acomodate the idea that there are a lot of different ways for a mere mortal to be made in God's image (and even real reincarnations might be accepted by Catholics if aliens are involved; they'd just say that it's no "real" incarnation but kind of larval state: just as a worm and a butterfly seem very different but they still are the same individual you might incarnate on an alien or the other way around and still being accepted as being the same individual -that wouldn't be too hard a problem for Catholics: Christ showed us there was live beyond human death, etc.).
It's been 425 years since Bruno argued in De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi (Italian; use Google translate) that the universe was infinite and contained innumerable stars, with countless planets around them, some containing life.
He was pretty far ahead of his time... far enough ahead that in 1600 the Church had him burned at the stake. Good to see they're getting round to considering his ideas, albeit a little bit belatedly.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
As a protestant, you, your pope, and all his cardinals can all fuck off.
Or maybe someone on this other planet 2,000 thousand years ago compiled a bunch of thousand-year-old stories and attributed the result to the creator of the Universe. Then over the next 500 years or so a group of people schemed to get to the top of their society by carefully editing the stories, leaving out whole books of it and only including what they could use. Then they controlled their world for the next 1,000 years or so by using careful doses of applying the resulting book and torturing and killing people who disagreed with them. Then some people finally started waking up and learning to think for themselves and maybe the original people who were oppressed by the holders of the book have now ascended to the top of the societal pyramid and are terrified of not having oppressors and tyrants telling them what to do, so they vote and influence policy to try and force everybody under the rule of that original book again, which in the meantime has lost all of its meaning and can be interpreted to mean anything at all. Just saying. This is just the kind of thing that could happen on an alien world in a bad Sci Fi plot, isn't it?
'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.
It's rather trivial to "prove" any random claim when you don't have to bother with the same rigorous criteria for what constitutes valid proof.
Thus, religions appear to have lots of "answers" that science doesn't have. Of course, unlike science, no one - even within the same religion - can come to agreement about the details of those answers, just that they're there.
see a Text Widget
I did find it interesting in the summary that the Catholic priest was positing multiple creations on multiple earths, while the theoretical physicist was insisting that was heresy to Catholics. I think I'll trust the priest on what's heresy and what's not to Catholics.
While people like to bag on the Catholic church for its persecution of scientists hundreds of years ago, in its acceptance of evolution, and williningness to cnoser things like the role of alien life, it's actually among the most progressive religion around in the realm of the sciences. Unfortuntaley, that typically doesn't fit in with critics' political world-view, so it's conveniently ignored.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
You're implying that life, itself, is not entirely meaningless. It could very well be a meaningless computation. I propose that life itself is, in fact, 100% devoid of any inherit worth.
Now, hold on, put down your pitchfork and torches. I'm not advocating hedonism or "killing people 'cause their lives aren't worth anything." I said "inherit" worth. We, as a species, can attribute meaning into things. I wouldn't say "being alive is magical," as you would put it. Rather, I would say that we don't know what it's like to be anything other than alive. Thus, we can use the time we have to apply meaning of our own. Do what makes you happy, to a reasonable extent. Expand your mind. So what if your dream of constructing the largest scale model of The Taj Mahal using gum drops seems like a waste of time to someone else?
My basic point is, people search for meaning in life. That's why we have religion. We want to be given a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning instead of just putting a gun in our mouths and ending it. But "meaning" is a totally human created concept. As such, it cannot be found, only made. Thus, I feel any attempt to "find" meaning through spirituality is merely a false hope. People take it as the shortest route, but never truly arrive.