Pope's Astronomer Would Love To Baptize an Alien

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Guardian reports that Guy Consolmagno, curator of the pope's meteorite collection and a trained astronomer and planetary scientist, says he would be 'delighted' if intelligent life was found among the stars. 'But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it — when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.' Consolmagno adds that the traditional definition of a soul was to have intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions. 'Any entity — no matter how many tentacles it has — has a soul.' Would he baptize an alien? 'Only if they asked.' Consolmagno dismisses the ideas of intelligent design as a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. 'The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning.'"

Comments

Good read

[MyLongNickName]

This, believe it or not, is a very good read. It brings up some interesting thoughts on science and how it interacts with religion. It shows that the stereotype of the church is against is untrue. It has some interesting observations on the Catholic church and its views on things.

But, this being Slashdot, I am afraid all we will see is a mindless trollfest.

Re:Good read

[IndustrialComplex]

I agree, and I'm glad that the Slashdot summary doesn't try to pick out sensationalist statements like a lot of other blogs have.

For example, the comment about the baptism. A lot of places phrased their summary in an attempt to suggest that he would be running around trying to baptise aliens at the earliest chance. I like that Slashdot included his actual statement which was a response to a question.

"Only if they asked." seems a perfectly fair and rational response to the question.

Re:Good read

[MozeeToby]

Actually the idea of baptizing an alien brings up some interesting theological questions. You have to remember why Christians get baptized in the first place: to remove original sin. You know, the sin of Adam and Eve eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. If you stop and think about that assuming that aliens can be baptized has a few problems to it.

Is he assuming that any alien's that we meet had a similar fall, and need to be redeemed? Or is he assuming that Adam and Eve's sin has somehow tainted the aliens across interstellar distance (after all, it is supposed to taint us across thousands of years of time, why not distance as well)? Or is he thinking that Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all intelligent beings (in a spiritual sense, I'm thinking along the lines of Adam and Eve being the first souls rather than the first humans)? Or did he just forget what the actual purpose of baptism was when a journalist asked him a question that he wasn't really prepared for?... yes, that seems most likely. Drat it all, I thought I was on to something here.

Re:Good read

[TheLink]

Many journalists and "wannabe journalists" are biased against religion, and/or they like to troll (to get more hits/views/purchases).

So they sensationalize stuff.

That's why Michael Reiss lost his job- the media kept claiming that he wanted to teach creationism in schools:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Reiss

With headlines like "Call for creationism in science" and "Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools"

Re:Good read

[MozeeToby]

If you consider Original Sin to be a nature that is anything less than perfect

But, according to theology, we were created perfect. It was only the actions of Adam and Eve, going against the will of God, that made us imperfect and requiring baptism. So if you're going to say that aliens are imperfect that would mean that they had a fall similar to humanity's.

That's fine, it answers the question as well as anything, though it does raise the question of why so many of God's sentient creatures chose to disobey him. To paraphrase a Douglas Adams quote: If he the type of guy to go around putting bricks under hats and waiting for people to kick them? Is he hiding in the corner of the garden just waiting for someone to eat that fruit so he can jump out and say "Aha!"?

Forever may be right

[suso]

As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it. Because no matter how much we discover and can explain of the universe, no matter how many other worlds and civilizations we discover. There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it. Probably every generation has had its share of people that thought that they were going to see the downfall of religion in their time.

Re:Forever may be right

[rash]

You might want to have a look at the downfall of atheistic communism, the rise of paganism in europe and the rise of christianity in asia.

Pre-Fallen?

[flogger]

I've loved the idea of Religion and Aliens. :-) Who knows, maybe Angels/spirits/demons are aliens. (Well they are alien to us, but maybe that are ET-type aliens.)

I recall having many long conversations with a priest about the possibility of the existence of Aliens. religiously speaking, one of the questions that intrigues me the most is are the aliens corrupted by "Original Sin?" What would society be like if we did not have this tendency to do "wrong" when now one was looking? What if the aliens do not have that tendency? What if they have never "eaten of the forbidden fruit?"

Are they Pre-Fallen or have they fallen?

• Pre-Fallen: THey are going to be nice and cure our cancer and help us in any way possible.
• Fallen: They are going to wipe us out and destroy us in a way that S. Hawkins is going to say, "I told you so."

Re:Pre-Fallen?

[maxwell demon]

I don't think we'd automatically attempt to wipe out and destroy any alien civilization we might come across

Judging from our behaviour down here on earth, I'm not so sure.

In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh Fail

[RobotRunAmok]

I realize that it's trendy to be anti-religion and all, but please... if you're going to jump on the bandwagon try to understand the teensiest background and minimum number of tenets of what it is you are trying to mock, lest you make all the hard-working, educated, clever and industrious atheists look bad.

What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"?

[melted]

What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor. Aliens might come here to baptize. And pray to god (if you believe) that they don't use the methods employed by crusaders and the Inquisition. ;-)

Then there's also the issue that the "god created Man in his own image". What if the aliens aren't anthropomorphic?

Reasonable atheists don't care

[fyngyrz]

What we care about are the constant invasions of the religious into our non-religious lives. Why can't I buy beer on Sunday? Why can't Linda and Gwen get married? For that matter, why can't Linda, Gwen, Melissa and Steve get married? Why is it expected that I put my hand on a bible in a courtroom? Why does my money say things I cannot possibly agree with (I don't trust in God, you see)? Why has my patriotism, as expressed by the pledge of allegiance, been hijacked into a totally false declaration of subservience "under god"? Why do my kids encounter religious dogma in public schools? Why am I forced to carry the tax load for the religious, when I in no way support their existence, outlook, dogma, or teachings?

If they want to dunk each other in the water, so what? That's not the problem. That's never been the problem. The problem is they don't limit their religion(s) to themselves. And in turn, that converts my general attitude from "don't care" to "religion is an obstacle to reasonable life."

article didn't define "entity"

[Anonymous Coward]

An octopus has tentacles; does it have a soul? Perhaps "An entity has a soul if it is intelligent enough, and of course if we can see that it is intelligent enough, it must therefore have a soul." Circular logic. Not to mention, such a definition would exclude unborn humans from having souls, and therefore abortion shouldn't be the issue that religions like Catholicism makes of it.

The most interesting thing about the idea that a soul starts to exist at conception is the logical conclusion that this can only be true if God personally makes one. That's because the process of egg-fertilization is purely a physical/biochemical reaction; anything that can be created by purely physical means can also be destroyed by purely physical means. So, if a soul is to exist immortally, then it cannot begin to exist as a result of a purely physical event such as egg-fertilization; an Act of God would be required, for the NON-physical soul to begin to exist.

Now, God is not an idiot. Will God create a soul for a fertilized egg that contains badly defective DNA and will never grow to term? Is God vindictive instead of Loving, that God will create a soul for a fetus that God knows (because knows everything) will be aborted, JUST so that the woman can then be condemned? And what of twins? Twins do not begin to exist until the fertilized egg "hatches" enough for a blastocyst to emerge; if the blastocyst breaks into two organisms while emerging, then twins (sometimes breaks into three, yielding triplets) are the result. WHEN does God create those extra souls??? Religion claims that souls begin to exist at egg-fertilization; Religions are stupidly ignorant about the actual facts. Then there are organisms called "chimeras", in which two separately-fertilized eggs sometimes merge and the result is just one human body. See the Discovery Health Channel show, "I am my own twin" for more information. Why would God create two souls at fertilization if God knows that a chimera will form?

Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask?

[kevinNCSU]

Jesus Christ this thread is painful, both parties in it need to learn how to read. Neither side said anything about the other limiting choice, the religious dude said any reasonable atheist wouldn't restrict that choice, and then the atheist dude made a comment like the christian dude said atheists were restricting choice and then the religious dude instead of explaining decided to be snippy back and now theres been like 8 replies over a non issue that everyone is in agreement over: Aliens can do whatever the fuck they want. Especially once they harvest our delicious kidneys.

Re:Seriously?

[perpenso]

...and that E.T. would be interested in such nonsense for anything other than anthropological reasons...

Given that science and religion can coexist and that science ultimately displacing religion is wishful thinking by some and not a law of nature(*), who is to say that aliens have no religion? They might.

(*) Going with the meme that all scientific discovery merely reveals the "mechanisms" of God's universe. Ie that the big bang, quantum mechanics, evolution, etc are just such "mechanisms". Given this last point I can not help but mention that the current cosmological theory of creation, the big bang, was developed by a catholic priest and that some prominent scientists dismissed the theory merely because it was developed by a priest. I think the relationship between an honest search for knowledge and belief/non-belief is not as simple as some believe.

Intelligent Design

[Chibi]

Haven't read the article yet, but I'm curious why there isn't more discussion on his comment about intelligent design:

Consolmagno dismisses the ideas of intelligent design as a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. 'The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning.'"

I know the general Slashdot community looks down on religion, but it'd be nice to see greater distinction between fundamentalists and Christians who are probably generally more in the moderate realm. Unfortunately, when most people hear "Christian," the automatic response is to think that the person is a fundamentalist.

Re:Let's take this out of context

[compro01]

Catholics (at least the local bunch of them, not sure if this is a global opinion) have no problem with homosexual people, only homosexual sex. Just remain celibate with your partner and you're golden.