Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and...
Alien: Greetings. We come in peace.
UN: Where do you come from?
Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away. Our world has no crime, no disease, no wars; we value learning as the pinnacle of achievement. We have been waiting 2,000 of your years for the moment when Humanity is ready for contact. We feel the time is right.
UN: Why are you here?
Alien: We came to be baptized. Praise Jesus!
or not...
Trolling is a art,
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Why doesn't he try to baptize a Ginger Kid instead, they are assumed to have no soul and there are a lot more of them then there are aliens.
Monstar L
Water could be extremely toxic to some life forms. You don't want to start out a first encounter on the wrong foot.
Christian: Welcome to Earth. Hey, you want to be baptized?
Alien: Sure!
Christian: Lean way back. Okay, here we go.
Alien: [tszzz]
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
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.
Even reading just the summary, the title does no justice to Consolmagno's response.
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?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
— no matter how many tentacles it has — has a soul. Ummm... The Flying Spaghetti Monster??
This seems very appropriate.
Other than the fact that none of your points are accurate, you had a very ontopic post.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This baptism thing has me confused. If every entity has a soul then why not baptize my dog? Is it because the dog has to ask or at a minimum be cabable of understanding what it means? Well then what about babies then. Is there baptizement meaningless until they reconfirm it later in life? Finally what about all the bacteria in my gut. Do we share a common soul?
If the sole criteria is that you have to be a sentient entity cable of accepting christ as your savior, at least potentially (to cover the baby loophole) then I suppose this ought to include Gorillas then since they are able to converse by sign language and thus have the potential for religious instruction.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
While the other attributes he lists are inherent in intelligent life, an alien intelligence may not necessarily anything resembling love. Most animals don't mate for life, or are even together more then a few hours. Many animals don't care for their children either.
Thus, gay people have no soul.
Love is not the same as sex or marriage. Love is presumably part of this but one who remains unmarried is still free to love.
Please note that I am not against gay marriage. Just pointing out your logic error.
O rly? That means he agrees with me that to indoctrinate and baptize children should be illegal and prosecuted. Yay!
Huh? What? Are you suggesting parents DON'T have the right to request this? I didn't realize that sprinkling water on a child's head was assault....
Now circumcision is another matter.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
Love and sexual attraction are two different things. Otherwise loving your kids would make one a pedophile.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
After all, apes seem to be more human than we've given them credit for, and certainly more self-aware than a human infant.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Pre-Fallen: Helpless, scared beings who scuttle around on their little island on a planet theeming with life, but they've yet to explore anything more than the few vegetables on their little island / "garden".
"Fallen": ;-)
Predators: Enslaving planet after planet, in order to expand its own agendas and territories. Pretty much stuck on the level of humanity the last 500 years.
Enlightened: Actively monitoring Earth, awaiting the moment humanity is ready for first contact on a global scale. Only allowed to help with short-lived abductions and contact with crazy people, who won't be believed ever. Yes, yes, I jest
In order to become enlightened, ironically, you have to "fall". If humanity never "fell", the bible, Jesus, everything would become meaningless. Wisdom cannot exist without failure, indeed, it totally depends on it.
Not that Christianity is my cup of tea, however, all religions have contributed alot to earth's spiritual development. Even when they fail tremendously, we can learn alot from that as well as when they "do good".
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Firesign Theatre:
"Domini, Domini, Domini. You are all Catholics now"
--
BMO
You mean it doesn't? AHH, I has been teh lied to!
No. The eating of flesh, and drinking of blood is quite clearly literal.
The Catholic Church is quite clear in its belief structure when it comes to communion. The stale bread, and wine, it is believed by the followers(or should be, or they arent really catholic) that this REALLY becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus, that they then proceed to 'cannibalize' every Sunday.
Eucharist
Anyone who has ever had closer contact to an animal knows that animals have very clearly a free will.
How do you test if something/someone has a soul?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
How do you figure "no free will"? I have 5 litter boxes in my house and it is up to the cats to decide which one to use at any instant. So they pee on the carpet! No free will indeed!
...I just came for the free beer.
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?
Interesting read, but something is conflicting. Behind Consolmagno is an orthodox cross, and not the papal cross. Anyone else notice this?
Exactly. Where does he think the term "herding cats" comes from? I'd argue they have a lot more intelligence than Terri Shiavo too.
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."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Of course, not everybody agrees with the nature of the eucharist - there's substantiation, trans-substantiation and consubstantiation, the list goes on. Not everybody takes it literally; no more than everybody believes that Mary was holy or not.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Don't confuse "I don't take them literally" with "they aren't meant to be taken literally".
Especially since they were and still are by many.
We could argue that the intent of "some" parts were parable even though they were taken literally. The intent is hard to discern. The Four Gospels and the Pauline epistles were certainly taken literally from the start (not that they all started at the same time) and without authorship issues of the epistles it's pretty obvious they were exactly meant to be taken literally. The Pentateuch has been taken literally despite it obviously (to modern criticism) being fictitious.
... is that the alien would like to know how the Pope's astronomer tastes with a little alfredo sauce.
when you add them up it's probably not a practical question
Seeing as how they are probabilities, shouldn't we be multiplying?
It depends on the problem.
If it's about events which cannot happen at the same time, but any of the event suffices, you have to add the probabilities up (e.g. the probability of a car being a Ford is the sum of the probability of it being a Model T, the probability of it being a Fiesta, etc. (you have to add up all the different Ford models' probabilities)).
If it's about independent events which both have to happen, you have to multiply (e.g. the probability of a meteorite hitting you is the probability of there being a meteorite coming down to earth, and the probability of you being at that place).
In all other cases, neither is correct.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The Catholic rape jokes got a lot less funny for me this weekend. I met a group of women who'd been raped by priests as children.
A more accurate headline might be "Pope's astronomer tries to divert attention from the paedophilia/homophobic/anti-woman/anti-contraception/nazi-atheist/third-world-Britain scandal during visit to UK".
Transubstantiation is the (largely Catholic; most Protestants don't believe this) that the communion wafer and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ upon consumption. This is why Catholics aren't really allowed to eat before mass if they intend to take communion. However, the heart of the matter is that the belief is one of literal transformation (although clearly unsubstantiated (no pun intended)). Eating human flesh, when one is oneself a human, is pretty much the definition of cannibalism. Drinking human blood falls in line with that, too, and wanders off in the direction of vampirism.
Rising from the dead is also a fairly zombie-like behavior. The reason that Christians traditionally can't be cremated and must be burred intact, a practice originally derived from Judaism for similar spiritual reasons, is the belief that after the second coming when God establishes a literal kingdom on earth, the souls collected in heaven will be put back in their bodies, and thus they, too, will literally rise from the dead.
Sure, the majority of people seem to have moved on from more medieval beliefs, but they are in fact "real" beliefs with theological underpinnings and thus mocking them is totally OK, since we're not making fun of Islam which is bad and naughty.
He lists the requirements for having a soul as:
- have intelligence
- free will
- freedom to love
- freedom to make decisions
Putting aliens to one side for the moment, as I don't think Lrrr is going to drop in on us tomorrow, I wonder how he feels about some intelligent animals.
Chimps, gorillas and other primates have been shown to fulfill these requirements to varying degrees. Dolphins have also. Would they baptize a dolphin? (How would you do that? Raise it out of water?)
I wondered if anyone ever asked Koko what gorillas think about a creator. Thanks to a Google search, I turned up this exchange:
Francine Patterson: "Who is God?"
Koko: "Me."
Patterson: "Who created the world?"
Koko: "Another woman."
(Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_12_131/ai_n8569017/?tag=content;col1 )
Somehow, I don't think Koko's religious outlook would gel with the Vatican's. ;-)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This sounds like almost every Clifford D. Simak story, plus a few other writers. I wish I could remember which one of them ran into the problem of trans-substantiation being mistaken for cannibalism :-)
... Insha' Allah.
Have gnu, will travel.
Who would have thought the Vatican's pet astronomer was such a fanboy?
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
How does an animal not have at least a glimmer of Free Will? They can certainly at least feign it pretty well.
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?
I suspect that it might start something more like this
Eifelheim by Michael Flynn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eifelheim_(novel)
All "pagan" means is "not Christian."
Instead of just posting a nonconstructive character attack and then running away, why not show him where his mockery was lacking? Come on man, you got me psyched up for some Hitchens-quality stinging ridicule; what are you bringing to the table on this one?
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
strawmen are fun!
Yes, and that idea (transubstantiation) is utterly rejected by mainstream protestantism.
Look at history. Whenever a "new world" was discovered within our own planet, missionaries came across the oceans to teach "the heathens" about their god, whether those godless barbarians wanted it or not.
People take a vast journey usually for one reason: Money. The church comes along because it's politically fortuitous to do so.
Chances are, any beings from outer space are going to be similarly motivated. They are going to come here to take our natural resources, make slaves of our people, and of course, convert us to their one true religion, whether we like it or not.
And unless we've got some hideous super-virus (like the common cold), but we don't get wiped out ourselves by their version of The Flu, their technology will be far more advanced, and therefore, they will rule this planet, and for the next 20 generations we'll all talk about how the green man is keeping us down.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Would it be better if it is symbolic cannibalism? I guess, but not much.
[...] we're not making fun of Islam which is bad and naughty.
Agreed: Islam is bad and naughty, but it's not them who we're making fun of today.
damned subordinate clauses... #commafail
However, the article was specifically about the Pope's astronomer and, therefore, Catholic views, so it wasn't an unreasonable point to make.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Part of the confusion may be in that most people follow normal definitions for the words "literally," and "figuratively." If you say that something literally becomes something else, then its behavior should match the new item. If not, then not. Not a big deal.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
And a lawyer has Free will and a body, but no Soul :P
>>do Catholics believe is it literally the body and blood of Christ?
Yes.
>>Does that mean they think if put to scientific tests the results would yield anything other than bread and wine?
No. Obviously. What's science got to do with faith? If a Catholic *needs* the former, he doesn't have the latter.
To mock Catholicism as believing in zombies and cannibalism is funny, perhaps, albeit at the snarky-guy-at-the-high-school-cafeteria-table level, but it's no more than word play. It's meant to make the Catholic feel weird and uneasy; the Monty-Python-reciter's equivalent of a medieval numerologist showing someone how the letters in their name add up to 666.
Catholics do believe they consume the Body and Blood of Christ; no, they are not, nor do they believe they are, cannibals. But, gosh durn it if that ain't a real knee-slapper. H'yuk Yuk.
The original dickheads to promote the notion that Christians were cannibals were the Roman pagan propagandists who were trying to stir up public dissent against the new religion and its practitioners. History has recorded how well that worked out for them. I'm confident that the Church, having outlasted the Roman Empire, will survive the juvenile puns of some Internet Tough Guys.
Is he assuming that any alien's that we meet had a similar fall, and need to be redeemed?
I'm no theological scholar but angels are reported to be an intelligent creation that predated humanity and they reportedly had their own fall as well. So there is precedent. Perhaps free will is likely to result in a fall given enough time?
:-)
Apparently with enough time anything can happen, even a fun philosophical discussion involving religion on slashdot.
It depends on what you mean by "really becomes". Surely "really becomes" in the way you use it means both substance and accident (to put in in Aristotelian terms), but the Church only teaches that the substances changes, not the accident.
It is not even essential to believe this to be a Catholic. Many Catholic theologians do not.
Transubstantiation is the (largely Catholic; most Protestants don't believe this) that the communion wafer and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ upon consumption.
I would suggest starting by reading about why Catholics specifically call it "transubstantiation", and not e.g. "transfiguration", and what the difference is.
He presents that caricature to show what it all sounds like to those of us who do not understand to them
.
Corrected that for you. Of course a caricature that is designed to sound ridiculous, sounds ridiculous. What does that prove? Creationists come up with equally good caricatures of evolution.
If you want to attack it, state it in accurate, neutral terms, and then argue rationally against it.
...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.
Haven't read the article yet, but I'm curious why there isn't more discussion on his comment about intelligent design:
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.
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
>>Anyone who tries to stand between you and your divinity is selling you shit.
Ah. So you're a Buddhist. To each his own.
I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and... Alien: Greetings. We come in peace. UN: Where do you come from? Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away. Our world has no crime, no disease, no wars; we value learning as the pinnacle of achievement. We have been waiting 2,000 of your years for the moment when Humanity is ready for contact. We feel the time is right. UN: Why are you here? Alien: We came to be baptized. Praise Jesus! or not...
I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and...
Alien: Greetings. We come in peace.
UN: Where do you come from?
Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away.
UN: Why are you here?
Alien: To escape religious persecution! Most of our galaxy are ZYZYZYYZ-ists and we dont' feel safe to practice the Tarvu religion. We came to be baptized on the planet of our many-tentacled prophet. Praise Tarvu!
http://www.tarvu.com/
It's so easy to join!
And yet none of that explained why Catholics aren't cannibals then. They are eating the body of a person, and yet you say, without reason or evidence, that they are not cannibals.
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.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Dr. Consolmagno spoke at our decidedly non-religious institute (The Scripps Research Institute) back in February. He often represents Europe in international astronomy meetings, including when they were deciding whether to demote Pluto. In his seminar, he gave us a preview of his book, The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican. It was mostly showing us pretty pictures in the book and telling us all sorts of interesting anecdotes from his experiences. He also covered a multitude of other topics, ranging from those of purely scientific concern (e.g. figuring out a way to determine the density of a meteorite) to historical controversies (e.g. the church and Galileo). It was one of the most interesting seminars I've attended this year. If given another chance to attend a seminar of his, I would gladly do so. In fact, if I were to know about it in advance, I might even buy a copy of his book for him to sign.
In my experience most caricatures of atheists and evolution created by creationists seem to revolve around satanic influence, "lulz they think they're monkeymen!1" comments and that those who think evolution or atheism make more sense than creationism are simply raging nutjobs who hate everyone and everything. Oh, and the "I'm atheist because it's cool to hate on Jeebuz" caricature which is followed by a rant about how when He(tm) returns he will send all that pesky atheist straight to a very literal lake of fire for not believing in a god (or the right god for that matter).
"Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving lord, for all those options." -- Bill Hicks
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I haven't read it entirely but does it mention anything about alien forms of life? I'm guessing not. Did God just leave it to us to decide how to deal with aliens? And how could He have forgotten to tell us about such a hugely important part of His creation? That all considering that there are forms of life outside of Earth, which I firmly belive there is because mathematically it sounds feasible.
Two dogs humping in the park have souls, but a slave doesn't. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.
I haven't read it entirely but does it mention anything about alien forms of life? I'm guessing not
Good guess care to try again? Perhaps the parts you and others don't read because they are difficult to understand have information on said life outside earth. But no one reads that part because we can't understand it's significance. I don't know either just a thought.
From what I have read it speaks in general enough terms to make this line of thought pointless.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Then he has an online journal, where he wrote about this:
http://brotherguy.livejournal.com/31731.html
My Journal
The only reason the Vatican is more conciliatory now is because of public opinion and secular governments. You can bet that if they were still in power like they used to, they'd still try to burn Darwinists adn Heliocentrists at the stake, and exterminate any alien life as demons. But the primary goal of the Vatican is to stay in power as much as possible, and to do that, they'll say whatever it takes in the current political climate. Even when they are seemingly against popular opinion (marriage, priests, gay rights, etc.), it's a calculated political strategy. Don't believe a word these people say; instead, look at their history.
Absolutely. Several years ago, I heard him talk on the prospects for finding more exoplanets in the future. He's a serious and highly competent scientist.
He also is a Jesuit monk. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
(And, he seemed like a heck of a nice Guy. Forgive the pun. :)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno
He is a Catholic so he can baptize in an emergency. And he is a priest so he can baptize in all cases.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
if they have souls is it correct to eat them?
Catholics eat the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ every Sunday!
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I, for one, welcome our baptized Alien overlords
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
It was nice and refreshing to see that some religious people are just trying to live their lifes like they see fit without making everyone else miserable.
If all the extremists, no matter what kind, were to be totally ignored, the world might be a better place.
Christians have problems with sex, period. All sex is bad and evil, and it should only be condoned (pun intended) when it will result in more christians being born.