

How Possibilities of Life Elsewhere Might Alter Held Notions of Faith - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/how-possibilities-of-life-elsewhere-might-alter-held-notions-of-gaith.html?ref=science&_r=0

======
russnewcomer
An interesting article, perhaps, but Mr. Overbye clearly presents just a
surface look at Catholic theology and thought processes about extra
terrestrial life, mixed with his apparent skepticism [shown in the form of
Clarke's story] about the morality or rationality of such a worldview. No real
depth, no apparent ability to see the theological equivalence, in this case,
between someone in a remote uncontacted tribe in the Amazon and an extra
terrestrial, and a host of further issues that I frequently see in someone who
seems to subscribe to Stephen J Gould's 'non-overlapping magesteria' ideals.
Kind of feels like a short Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone article on a complex
technological topic.

If Clarke's story ideas are tantalizing to the reader, I would suggest reading
Perelandra by C.S. Lewis for a [admittedly dated] view from the other side of
the equation. (I know of no similarly posited and argued Catholic story, so my
apologies for suggesting a strongly Protestant one after the Catholic points
in the article).

~~~
kej
> I would suggest reading Perelandra

People should read _Out of the Silent Planet_ first, and then _Perelandra_.
The third book in the series is also good, but goes in a different direction
and doesn't really touch on the relationship between the Christian God and
extraterrestrial life.

------
j0e1
We know far too little to answer the question. If there are other beings in
the universe, it is only about Adam and the human race that any information is
given in the Bible. I suppose it is plausible to have other created
beings(with free will) who never fell in to sin and thus didn't need to
redeemed.

------
_sword
It seems like it would be very fun to have a chat with Guy Consolmagno:

“One incarnation seems absurd but not inconsistent with the data,” he said by
phone from Florida, where he was watching manatees.

There is no data, I pointed out.

“Exactly!” he responded, laughing.

~~~
hobs
He seems like a very interesting person, but it always confuses me when
someone so steeped in science chooses the unknown.

When you say things like “That’s not the kind of god I’m happy with", I wonder
why you would choose an organized religion with all the strings attached in
terms of dogma?

~~~
lukeholder
The way I think about it is, if God created the earth, and placed us all
together - then why shouldn't we try to meet the measure of our creation
together as a team?

~~~
JasonFruit
That's a statement I like the sound of, but I'm not quite sure what you mean
by it. Care to elaborate?

~~~
lukeholder
Organised religion is seen as full of dogma and inefficiencies, but people
organising themselves for the benefit of all within the organisation might be
the primary reason we are all together sharing the this earthly experience -
to progress _together_ \- to help each other. Spiritually as _solely_ personal
internal pursuit may conflict with the reality we are sharing a common earthly
experience, born into families and tribes that we are emotionally/spiritually
bonded to.

------
strange_orange
I wonder if any of these theologians will ever change the direction of their
logic. It's funny that things like this are said, “How could he be God and
leave extraterrestrials in sin?”, and not "if there are extraterrestrials, is
there really a god?". What's the point on logically arguing from a position of
faith anyway? Doesn't that defeat the point? Maybe we should just stop
believing the stories of people who quite clearly tripped during a fasting
high (or similar) in the desert over 2000 years ago.

~~~
krapp
> It's funny that things like this are said, “How could he be God and leave
> extraterrestrials in sin?”, and not "if there are extraterrestrials, is
> there really a god?"

I think you miss the point of religion if you think that's even on the table.
Once you decide to take it literally, the preeminence of the supernatural by
definition can't be questioned, it's a given. The only variable is the way
reality can be reinterpreted to satisify dogma.

I think that religion can have a great deal of value as a cultural and
mythological framework, but to me, wondering whether aliens suffer from
original sin makes as much sense as wondering whether the Great Dragon eats
their suns as well as ours each night.

Human religion is a human invention, and humans aren't even a rounding error
at the scale of the universe. Billions and billions of stars and billions and
billions of galaxies (as Carl Sagan apparently never said.) It's the height of
arrogance to assume the superstitions of a few apes on an insignificant rock
on an insignificant planet should mean anything to anyone but themselves.

~~~
phamilton
> The only variable is the way reality can be reinterpreted to satisify dogma.

> Human religion is a human invention

My personal belief is more along the lines of "Human religion is a human
interpretation". I believe God exists and his reach is bigger than just our
little planet here. However, I do not believe we are (yet) able to comprehend
how everything fits together. I believe a correct understanding will require
advances in both science and theology. Our current understanding is therefore
very human centric because that's a limitation in our knowledge.

~~~
krapp
I prefer to think of religion as an attempt to interpret oneself rather than
interpret the divine. Although there are plenty of religions for which that's
a distinction without a difference.

------
ekianjo
Not sure this question was worth a full blown article in the NY times. It's
fairly obvious religion makes only sense in a human context, and on Earth.
Unless we find humans elsewhere (which is pretty unlikely, there is no
specific reason why an intelligent being would have to be a primate on another
planet), the question does not make much sense.

~~~
nsxwolf
Why does religion make sense only to humans, and not other intelligent life
forms?

~~~
ekianjo
Because religion is a human creation, and all our holy texts are very human
centric (and barely regard animals as anything else than food, while we now
know that tons of animals have a great deal of consciousness and emotions
similar to humans).

EDIT: Just to make things clear, I'm not saying that God does not exist, but
what I'm saying is that the system derived from that belief (i.e. religion) is
very much created by humans and for humans.

~~~
hyp0
Buddhism includes reincarnation as animals

~~~
ekianjo
I was waiting for that one. But animals are just vessels for humans souls
while waiting for another reincarnation, as far as I understand. So animals
are not given much soul on their own.

~~~
_sword
If I recall correctly (and this depends somewhat on the school of Buddhism),
all sentient beings are thought to have the potential to attain enlightenment
by virtue of possessing Buddha nature. People can be reborn as animals and
animals can be reborn as people. As I recall there isn't really the concept of
animals being "containers." Instead, they're sentient beings that could be
people from past lives or could be animals progressing through the cycles of
death and rebirth.

~~~
ekianjo
So why are not all Buddhists vegetarian then ?

~~~
_sword
It depends on the school of Buddhism. What I wrote about mostly comes from my
readings of Mahayana Buddhist texts. As I recall, Mahayana Buddhism generally
requires a vegetarian diet. I don't remember Theravada thought as well, but a
quick search online is telling me that it allows meat eating but with a number
of rules (and differing interpretations of those rules).

"In three cases meat may not be eaten by a monk if he has : (1) seen (2)
heard, or (3) suspected that the meat has been especially acquired for him by
killing an animal (i.e. the animal has been killed specifically for the monk).
This rule is called the Rule of Tikotiparisuddha (Pure in Three Ways).

However, the meat of the following ten beings is forbidden to be eaten by the
monks : human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and
hyena. (Vinaya, Mahavagga, Book 4)"

[http://www.dhammasara.webs.com/JivakaSutta.html](http://www.dhammasara.webs.com/JivakaSutta.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism#Views_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism#Views_of_different_schools)

------
JasonFruit
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.

That being said, this whole conversation is academic: we haven't seen any
evidence of life beyond Earth. If we do, we'll be able to have this
conversation in a more useful way than the mere speculation that's available
to us now.

~~~
rjuyal
"evidence of life beyond Earth". I sometimes think GOD is/was actually an
extraterrestrial body. It/He came to earth when humans were apes ( or simply
say human were not that intelligent as this extraterrestrial body was ). At
that time humans decided to call him almighty for obvious reasons. That was
the seed for a theory about GOD. Later on humans created lots of religions and
lots of imaginary GODs as per their convenience. ( Now we have enough GODs and
religions to fight with. And discuss my GOD is better/powerful than yours. You
will not goto 'heaven' ( some imaginary place or may be another planet ) if
you will not follow my religion ).

------
taylorlapeyre
I'm always surprised by how scientifically minded and educated the Jesuits
are.

~~~
hawleyal
Theologins created the first universities, no?

------
kr4
Also of interest to readers: read about lokas [0].

As per the Indian philosophy every gross being has a subtle energy (prana)
body [1] which is the same in whichever loka you go after death.

You can experience this subtle form with yoga. It's also said that with years
of yoga practice you can master subtle body and you can travel into other
lokas in this lifetime with your subtle body (while the gross remains here on
bhuloka in the still posture)

1]
[http://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/hinduism-14-lokas-...](http://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/hinduism-14-lokas-
quantum-mutiverse-study/)

2]
[http://www.sahajayoga.org/ChakrasAndSubtleBody/](http://www.sahajayoga.org/ChakrasAndSubtleBody/)

------
dean
I'm sure these people would laugh at a discussion of how-many-angels-can-
dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin, but this is just an updated-for-the-space-age
version of that discussion.

~~~
dragonwriter
I think most of them would -- while still seeing the value in considering the
topic -- recognize that it is in the same category of exploration of the
implications of religious doctrines through hypotheticals that seem pointless
from an external context as the "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-
pin" discussion.

------
michaelsbradley
For a serious-minded treatment grounded in a Thomistic framework see _Aquinas
on Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life_ :

[http://www.unav.es/cryf/extraterrestriallife.html](http://www.unav.es/cryf/extraterrestriallife.html)

------
palmer_eldritch
"Pope Francis suggested in a homily in May that he would baptize Martians if
they landed in St. Peter’s Square and asked for it."

Forget about astronauts or reality shows participants. Let's send catholic
priests to Mars.

~~~
irishcoffee
Whats the difference between sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, age
discrimination, and religious discrimination?

~~~
netrus
Not to defend OP, but to answer your question: I'd say you have far more
choice concerning your religion than in your sexual orientation, race or age -
at least in the Western Society, where you are free to go
Christian->Atheist->Muslim, if you want to.

~~~
irishcoffee
So you're saying its ok to have bigoted opinions about things people choose?
Honest question.

~~~
Elrac
Your question may be honest, but you may not be aware how strongly you loaded
it with your use of the word "bigoted." In looking through definitions, I came
across words like "extreme," "unwilling to change," "prejudiced," "unfair,"
and "intolerant." You seem to be trying to propose that being opposed to one
religion (or all) is an extreme position - which I think is debatable in view
of just how many people fit this bill. Is this position prejudiced if it's
based on thorough examination and reasoning? If people come by this position
based on evidence and reason, do you have a reason to believe they could never
be convinced they're mistaken? Finally, is there something wrong with being
intolerant of intolerance, oppression and violence?

People compare social institutions, technologies and ideas all the time. And
people develop opinions on them; some are viewed as better than others. This
is the social learning process which has taken us (more or less) from cave
dwelling, widespread violence, ignorance, slavery and "an eye for an eye" to
the foundations modern societies rest on, more or less to everyone's approval.
You wouldn't be trying to use a knee-jerk negative word to discourage, for
religions, the kind of discussion which has stood us in good stead in many
other areas of social discourse?

I hope you won't be too offended by this literally shitty analogy that was the
first to come to my mind: Imagine a modern society just like ours, but in
which people choose to do without toilets. Nobody talks about it much, it's
just what they've always done, and they're unwilling to break with tradition
in this respect. It's common practice to do your "business" in the street
gutter, next to the curb. There's a daily removal service, and a 3x daily
deodorizing service, and they reduce the associated problems. Still, this
society has an unusual rate of some infectious diseases, and especially in the
summer, deodorizing just doesn't seem to keep up. Here's a different society
with a different choice on how to do things.

Would you be bigoted if you criticized this society for the pursuit of this
practice? If you feel it's important to accept the choices of other groups,
would you be willing to live in such a society? Would you think it wrong to at
least try to talk to those folks about improving their lives by re-thinking
their stance on indoor plumbing?

I think I still owe you the answer to your question. So: Yes, I think it's OK
to critically examine all ideas, and choices, including religious ones, and to
raise those objections we feel are in order. Why on Earth not?

~~~
irishcoffee
> You seem to be trying to propose that being opposed to one religion (or all)
> is an extreme position - which I think is debatable in view of just how many
> people fit this bill.

If a person has devoted themselves to a specific religion, and they have not
(and do not intend) in any way interrupt, impede, or inconvenience their
fellow man, I don't see the debate. The Westboro baptist church is/are as
fucked up as the 9/11 bombers. Believe whatever you want. Acting on it in a
way that hurts fellow humans, completely different debate.

> You wouldn't be trying to use a knee-jerk negative word to discourage, for
> religions, the kind of discussion which has stood us in good stead in many
> other areas of social discourse?

You're picking on a word. I used it for a purpose: to make anyone who read the
reply think about why religion is some special-case group of people we're all
"allowed" to discriminate against. I could use your exact same argument to
argue that its OK to discriminate against conservatives, liberals, Lakers
fans, lawyers, women, the disabled, men, children, ect. Pick a group,
substitute "religion" in your argument for whatever you'd like.

> I hope you won't be too offended by this literally shitty analogy that was
> the first to come to my mind: Imagine a modern society just like ours, but
> in which people choose to do without toilets. Nobody talks about it much,
> it's just what they've always done, and they're unwilling to break with
> tradition in this respect. It's common practice to do your "business" in the
> street gutter, next to the curb. There's a daily removal service, and a 3x
> daily deodorizing service, and they reduce the associated problems. Still,
> this society has an unusual rate of some infectious diseases, and especially
> in the summer, deodorizing just doesn't seem to keep up. Here's a different
> society with a different choice on how to do things.

If you would like me to take the bait of comparing religious beliefs to
shitting in the street, I'm not going to bite.

> Would you be bigoted if you criticized this society for the pursuit of this
> practice? If you feel it's important to accept the choices of other groups,
> would you be willing to live in such a society? Would you think it wrong to
> at least try to talk to those folks about improving their lives by re-
> thinking their stance on indoor plumbing?

If you think comparing a thought/belief/idea to someone shitting on your front
lawn similar, again, this is a lost argument. Thoughts don't hurt people,
except maybe the thinker. Actions hurt people. Someone believing in Buddha
isn't comparable to someone shitting on your lawn. Honestly, wow.

> I think I still owe you the answer to your question. So: Yes, I think it's
> OK to critically examine all ideas, and choices, including religious ones,
> and to raise those objections we feel are in order. Why on Earth not?

I agree with you. Critically examining ideas is a fantastic idea. Critically
examining religion is a fantastic idea. Raising objections, no. Do you think
its OK to raise objections to gays/lesbians and the lifestyle they chose? if
course not. If someone is devoted to the islam religion, should I object to
their lifestyle? No, of course not.

You did not answer my question at all.

~~~
Elrac
You, on the other hand, have made it clear who's the religious bigot.

Raising objections to ideas is something you're opposed to, while hiding
behind the innate sexuality of gays and lesbians and pretending, as so many
religious bigots do, that it's a choice. You exemplify why it's a commendable
idea to oppose the misguided thinking of religions.

~~~
irishcoffee
One of my best friends is gay. The mother of my child runs an abortion fund
for women who can't afford abortions. I helped her set it up. Objecting to
personal beliefs is why the LGBT group was persecuted for so long.

Perhaps you don't like the abstract idea of discrimination, but discriminating
against religious groups is the same as discriminating against eskimos,
hindus, blacks, whites, etc.

~~~
Elrac
"Some of my best friends are black" is such a typical excuse from bigots that
it's become a popular satirical stereotype. Are you going to be treating us to
more typical bigot behavior while insisting others are the bigots?

If your best friend has any self-esteem, he won't let you get away with
spouting that demeaning garbage about homosexuality being a choice. So why are
you subjecting me to it?

You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll explain it: the color of skin a
person is born with is not his fault, and contrary to what you falsely believe
in, which sex a person is attracted to isn't either. But the set of values a
person makes his own is subject to parental and societal education - it's
nothing but ideas, and both societies and individuals can and do learn to walk
away from bad ideas and toward better ones.

You would like to see your religious ideas exempt from this process, for no
reason other than reluctance to let go of the privilege religion has unfairly
enjoyed for far too long. To which I say, "tough" \- you might as well get
used to it, because equality and reason aren't going to suffer your hissy fits
for very much longer.

------
valvar
or How to Completely Miss the Point.

~~~
xj9
If I may ask, what is the point you're referring to?

~~~
phkahler
>> If I may ask, what is the point you're referring to?

Perhaps as someone else pointed out, aliens could be a metaphor. There were
plenty of places here on earth that didn't get the message about god back in
the day. When that guy says "there is no data" he's ignoring a lot of history.
Replace planet with continent and you can see how God actually handled beings
in different places - he didn't.

------
explorigin
Ha, the number 2 slot on HN. The nerds must be bored before Christmas.

