How Possibilities of Life Elsewhere Might Alter Held Notions of Faith | Hacker News Reader

How Possibilities of Life Elsewhere Might Alter Held Notions of Faith

nytimes.com

46 pointsdnetesn60 comments

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).

I'd think Chesterton would have had something to say about it but I'm having a hard time finding any references. I would posit that there's some relevant material in The Everlasting Man, though.

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

I've known lots of people who are both religious and scientifically oriented, and none of them have seemed to view religion as "choosing the unknown", but more as not abandoning as irrelevant that about which understanding through empiricism is not viable.

> 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?

Er, when he says that, he says it about a particular science-fiction account, not about what a particular real world religion believes, so I don't see how those things even relate. Why would not liking the picture painted by a particular piece of science fiction put you off of organized religion in general, particularly an organized religion whose doctrines do not demand the account proposed in that piece of science fiction?

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.

> 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.

Those people in the article don't sound very dogmatic to me (except maybe the pope).

That depends on your interpretation.

Assuming that there might be other gods on other worlds sounds rational, even reasonable. I think Voltaire(?) even wrote a short story about how human religions might look to aliens[0], although at the time, the prevalent interpretation was far more dogmatic than what the article describes.

But even working from the premise that there would even be a relationship between aliens and the Christian God to discover, to me, seems incredibly dogmatic.

[0] I thought it was called Mondomegas, but apparently, Google's never heard of it.

> 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.

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.

Interesting read on people fasting in deserts and caves: Multiverse, relativity and quantum theory [0]. Alan Watts, a professor, graduate school dean and research fellow of Harvard University, drew heavily on the insights of Vedanta. Watts became well known in the 1960s as a pioneer in bringing Eastern philosophy to the West. He wrote:

“To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas, ( A kalpa is about 4,320,000 years). The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological applications of this knowledge arises from the circumstance that technology is but one of innumerable ways of applying it.”

0] http://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/hinduism-14-lokas-...

From a macro point of view, the best we can hope for is that enough of each successive generation's secular bunch procreates and instills their own values unto their progeny. There's still an alarming number of millienials that are either leaning toward believing in an Abrahamic faith or outright identify as a member of said faiths.

> 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?".

For a theologian, the existence of God is a defining premise in the same sense as the existence of an external universe governed by consistent laws discoverable through empirical processes is for scientist. As soon as you abandon the former premise, you are no longer operating as a theologian just as when you abandon the latter, you are no longer operating as a scientist.

> What's the point on logically arguing from a position of faith anyway? Doesn't that defeat the point?

No. The point of faith (in a general sense) is not to defy reason. Faith may contrast with empiricism, but the point at which they fundamentally diverge is not in the application of reason.

> What's the point on logically arguing from a position of faith anyway? Doesn't that defeat the point?

What point is that? On the contrary - it is necessary for certain "beliefs" be exempt from doubt in order for any logical discourse to be possible in the first place.

When historians are trying to reconcile contradictions in ancient texts in order to better understand history, it makes little sense (for most people) to say "I wonder if any of these historians will ever change the direction of their logic. It's funny that things like this are said 'How to reconcile those contradictions?", and not 'if contradictions exist, is it possible that none of it happened, and the entire universe along with everything in it appeared 5 minutes ago?' ".

It isn't too hard to imagine that some people think of religion and the existence of god in the same way as others do about - for example - philosophical realism. It seems to "defeat the point" only because your "point" is drastically different from that of those people.

I recommend reading Wittgenstein's On Certainty [1] for a much more sophisticated treatment of similar ideas.

[1] - http://www.amazon.com/On-Certainty-English-German-Edition/dp...

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.

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

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.

Buddhism includes reincarnation as animals

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.

Put another way: "animals are vessels for souls while waiting for reincarnation". It now applies to everything souls (possibly) reincarnate into, while still being true. I think that viewed in this way, it is obvious that the Buddhist concept of a soul is not human centric. The soul would be an entity trying to escape a cycle of reincarnation (and one of the potential candidates for reincarnation is a human). Aliens could fit right in there as just another vessel.

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.

So why are not all Buddhists vegetarian then ?

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism#Views_of...

This is only our perception. Other creatures could have created their own mythology.

Yeah, and their alien mythology would be alien-centric just like our religion is human centric.

Indeed, and it's interesting to speculate what the similarities and differences would be. Since they will likely also have evolved in a Darwinian way, I think there will be more similarities than differences.

Although, like the article says, if they have evolved further and especially if they uploaded their minds into computers, it might have become something rather different.

I would say that religion is cultural, and doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

I think he was referring to our human religions that we came up with.

It might make sense in a human context if God has a physical (immortal) human body.

What do you mean exactly ? How would it make sense?

If the Human form is divinely inherited from a physical immortal/exalted Human (God), then assuming there are other Humans on other planets would not be a stretch as OP suggested.

I see what you mean. But that would go against much of what we know about Evolution and Natural Selection.

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.

"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 ).

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

Theologins created the first universities, no?

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-...

2] http://www.sahajayoga.org/ChakrasAndSubtleBody/

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.

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.

For a serious-minded treatment grounded in a Thomistic framework see Aquinas on Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life:

http://www.unav.es/cryf/extraterrestriallife.html

"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.

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

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.

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

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

"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.

or How to Completely Miss the Point.

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

>> 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.

That religious truth and religious dogma are not the same.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com