Could the Vatican's Exploration of Alien Life Impact Religious Beliefs?

[rootX]

Why these guys are even doing all these things?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church has a great interest in science. My guess would be that in the interest of science, and in an effort to officially keep up with what we know, they are taking a public position that the notion of alien life is not contrary to Church doctrine.

Of course the UFO conspiracy theorists have a different interpretation.

 

[russ_watters]

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church has a great interest in science. My guess would be that in the interest of science, and in an effort to officially keep up with what we know, they are taking a public position that the notion of alien life is not contrary to Church doctrine.

That's roughly how I would put it, though I'd be a little more pointed and say that due to the decreasing popularity of religion, they want to remain ahead of the curve, if possible, to avoid embarassment and further loss of revenue. That's the main thrust of their interest in science - making sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end. It took them more than 300 years to accept Galileo and a lot of scientifically minded people will never let them live that one down. I don't have much near-term hope for their position on abortion/contraception, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Abortion and the like gets a little more dicey because it becomes a matter of the definition of life, which can be a matter of faith. And then there is a moral judgement made in addition to the facts. But over the last couple of centuries, I would guess... the church has made a real effort accept scientific theories at face value. Speaking as someone who attended a Catholic school for 8 years, I can say that math and science was a larger part of our curriculum than it was for the public schools. In fact, the primary reason that my parents wanted us to attend a Catholic school was that we would get a better education. It had very little to do with being Catholic. And not everyone in school was Catholic.

We studied evolution without any justification needed.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, and good idea making sure to announce this before the Phoenix returns any results. It would have been pretty awkward having to have this ephiphany after - god forbid - Phoenix digs up some bacteria. It's a good hedge.

 

[waht]

The irony is that currently there is no proof whatsoever of little green men. That's why this is an ill timed move by the Vatican to secure credibility.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Funny, what I see as accepting scientific fact you all see as butt-covering.

Did they modify the Gospel so as to avoid any contradictions? No. Of course not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First rule of thumb: Not all people of faith are uneducated idiots.

 

[g33kski11z]

Second rule of thumb: Don't double .. um, triple post.

But seriously, I would have to agree with you said on the Catholic school / better education thing. My Mom did the same for my brother and I {3rd & 4th grades}. Although, once she was divorced, we were kicked out of the church and school. .. Oh well.

I do however feel that they {the church} are just trying to "sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end" as Russ said.

 

[humanino]

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

From wiki (I'm sure most of you know that already, just posting for records, plus it's so funny I never get enough of it)

On February 15, 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today." Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views".

On 31 October 1992, Pope[/color][/size] John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary[/color][/size], as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

 

[mgb_phys]

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary,

If you've ever been involved in university teaching committees - that's quite a fast response to changing knowledge!

 

[BobG]

That's roughly how I would put it, though I'd be a little more pointed and say that due to the decreasing popularity of religion, they want to remain ahead of the curve, if possible, to avoid embarassment and further loss of revenue. That's the main thrust of their interest in science - making sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end. It took them more than 300 years to accept Galileo and a lot of scientifically minded people will never let them live that one down. I don't have much near-term hope for their position on abortion/contraception, though.

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

Actually, the problem for the church was that they didn't know he was right. Without an accurate estimate of how far away the stars were and no measurable parallax shifts in the position of the stars, scientists of the time were divided on whether Galileo was correct. The church's "position" was to definitely not take a position. What if they backed the wrong one?

Galileo's persecution was more because of his intermingling of religion into his attempts to sell his theories. Some felt he was trying to force the church to take a side (his side) in the argument. The Catholic church has always been open to science, but their desire to not "get bitten in the rear end" has always trumped their openess to science. Committing to a theory that's later proved wrong doesn't help the church's credibility.

Galileo's theories weren't completely correct, anyway. He was still affected by the idea of man being the center of the universe. He knew the Earth couldn't be the center of the universe, but he didn't move the center very far. He only moved it as far as the Sun. It took a lot longer for astronomers to realize our solar system was just one of many in our own galaxy, which was just one of many galaxies.

 

[TeTeC]

I don't want to engage in any debate, but there is something that seems unclear to me in this article :

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

Aren't the people who promote creationism also follow what the Vatican says ? Or is it just another branch of the religion which I am not aware of ?

 

[f95toli]

AFAIK most creationists are protestants, not catholics.
I might be wrong but evolution was as far as I remember accepted relatively quickly by the Catholic church; according to them there is no contradiction between evolution and the bible.

 

[TeTeC]

Okay, thank you. ;-)

 

[mgb_phys]

The catholic church has 'generally' been remarkably pro-science over the last couple of centuries, they employed a lot of smart people who knew they would look stupid if they kept denying things that were obviously true.
Galileo, like Bruno before him, got in the middle of some political in-fighting more than being a matyr for science and ironically at the time he was more strongly attacked by protestants who had a much more fundamental approach to scripture.

The vatican has almost started to step backward and become more conservative recently, the statement about Galileo from the current balconey jockey:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism."

 

[Moridin]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part2.html

"Those who assert that 'the Earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the Earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the Earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."

- John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

 

[russ_watters]

Funny, what I see as accepting scientific fact ...

Could you clarify what scientific fact, exactly, they are accepting? I don't see any mention of any scientific facts in the article in the OP.

 

[turbo]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory because it established a scientifically acceptable framework for a creation event, and in his mind, for a creator.

 

[mgb_phys]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory

Well one of their guys did invent it - Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest.

 

[turbo]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

 

[mgb_phys]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

Not a very helpfull attitude for a priest.
GoergeM> "Hey, boss - don't put too much faith in this, there is no real evidence yet."
Pope> "Can I remind you what business we are in ?"

;-)

 

[Holocene]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory because it established a scientifically acceptable framework for a creation event, and in his mind, for a creator.

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

It is very clear that Catholic church has acknowledged the many faults and failings contained within their teachings, but they have not admitted it. Instead, they "endorse" the latest science, and twist whatever they have to in order to make it compatible with a God.

Perhaps they day will come when they admit the virgin birth is a load of crap, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one.

 

[robertm]

Not a very helpfull attitude for a priest.
GoergeM> "Hey, boss - don't put too much faith in this, there is no real evidence yet."
Pope> "Can I remind you what business we are in ?"

;-)

Oh man... PRICELESS

 

[mgb_phys]

Oh man... PRICELESS

I'm going to hell - I know it!
What would the nuns at school think.

 

[turbo]

I'm going to hell - I know it!
What would the nuns at school think.

I'm not sure. The younger ones kissed me and the older ones whacked me with their heavy maple pointers...

 

[robertm]

I'm not sure. The younger ones kissed me and the older ones whacked me with their heavy maple pointers...

Whoa... all at the same time??

 

[turbo]

Whoa... all at the same time??

No, at different times.

 

[baywax]

Vatican says aliens could exist

Oh, I guess they finally looked in the mirror.

 

[Moridin]

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/

In the beginning — specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon — out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang. The bang was followed by cosmological inflation. God saw that the Big Bang was very big, too big for creatures that could worship him, so He created the earth. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created out of Quarks and other subatomic goodies) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[RocketSurgery]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

Wow this dude mustve been a master of Irony Theory as well.

 

[RocketSurgery]

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

It is very clear that Catholic church has acknowledged the many faults and failings contained within their teachings, but they have not admitted it. Instead, they "endorse" the latest science, and twist whatever they have to in order to make it compatible with a God.

Perhaps they day will come when they admit the virgin birth is a load of crap, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Nah its going to happen soon. They'll say they artificially inseminated Mary with God's sea men.

 

[BobG]

Nah its going to happen soon. They'll say they artificially inseminated Mary with God's sea men.

What!? So she's the woman that started the tradition of picking up sailors. I never knew that.

 

[shamrock5585]

i find religion to be a blanket over the eyes of society... it is based on no logic at all... all our beliefs, traditions, and customs have changed drastically in the past 100 years and we are constantly learning every day... so why does it make sense to follow blindly the beliefs of humans of over 2000 years ago which is based on no logic or science...

religion is good in a sense to ignorant people because some deranged people need guidlines to go by... I, myself see that i am an ethical person because i believe in working for the greater good and advancement of humanity... but ignorant people need the fear of god in them so that they have an ethical view on the world...

But if we want to talk about ignorance in religion we see that if god is our great creator and we all are his great children then why have we been killing each other throughout history in the name of religion... IF ANYTHING RELIGION HAS ONLY SLOWED OUR ADVANCEMENT IN SCIENCE! great philosophers of the past were affraid to express their actual view which may or may not have been correct because fear of the church. we have all these great religious books that different religious groups follow but who wrote them... some dude... not god... what race were adam and eve? if noah had to get two of every animal how did he get a kangaroo and a buffalo? and I've never seen a burning bush talk, but i have seen a crack head have a conversation with a wall before... its all just ignorance based on lack of logic from long ago

religion is a false truth with lack of backup so we rely on "faith" - but faith in what... some other people's beliefs? we need to accept that things that don't have an explanation can be explained, just not at the moment, and as a race we are looking for that TRUTH... Id rather spend my whole life looking for the right answer rather than accepting a false one

 

[shamrock5585]

Not a very helpfull attitude for a priest.
GoergeM> "Hey, boss - don't put too much faith in this, there is no real evidence yet."
Pope> "Can I remind you what business we are in ?"

;-)

awesome analogy by the way! haha

 

[seycyrus]

Some of the posters here are ridiculing aspects of religion by posing questions that could be answered by a quick skim through several books on the topic.

There HAVE been great religous thinkers, Contemporary as well as historical. Go read some of their works. Find something that isn't preachy. If you claim you can't, you aren't looking very hard.

Try C.S. Lewis, you know, the Narnia dude. His non-fiction discussions of ethics and beliefs, and many other topics are amazing. You won't be stunting your intellectual devolopment by reading his works.

If your "search for the truth" doesn't include even a cursory glance at the opposing point of view, your search isn't a search, it's a crusade.

 

[shamrock5585]

HAHA I've been going to church and sunday school my whole life... it makes me believe less and less because its all bullgarbage... i never said there was no such thing as an intellectual religous person i just said that many people that follow religion basically are ignorant and don't know what to believe in... funny how you say if you don't look at the other point of view its a CRUSADE... good word to use... i love irony...

original religious beliefs have been very wrong in explaining things and as we advance into the future religion has adapted to science to fill in the gaps with a bunch of bullgarbage until that can be proven wrong...

im saying if people just stopped accepting bullgarbage with no logic and look for an answer the world could be much more adnvanced than it is today... (what happened to our flying cars? ;-) )

Is it so hard to believe that when you die you don't actually go anywhere... i mean if your brain is organic and everything you do, feel, see, touch, and smell, is processed through your brain... when it rots away would you know it? you would cease to exist... most people can't get their mind around it so they say I am going to heaven yay... just like when you tell your kids santa is comin tonight... its more exciting than saying I am just gunna leave some presents under this tree for the morning...

another thing about the creation of life... its kinda hard to imagine what real randomness is... i mean is anything that humans do completely random... it does occur in nature... whos to say that some radiation didnt make some random garbage happen and somehow a self realizing organizm occurs.. maybe even a single cell... it could all evolve from there... atleast it has a little bit of logic to it... id rather believe in logic than some dude saying believe or you will go to hell? what I am gunna magically transport to the center of the earth... we proved magic doesn't exist a long time ago... the easter bunny doesn't either

 

[seycyrus]

HAHA I've been going to church and sunday school my whole life...

It is not my fault that your religous education was lacking. Or perhaps you were simply not the best student?

it makes me believe less and less because its all bullgarbage... i never said there was no such thing as an intellectual religous person i just said that many people that follow religion

Your words carry a certain amount of derision. Am I wrong in that assumption? I think not.

basically are ignorant and don't know what to believe in...

Strange that you make this claim when you don't know what the intellectual thinkers believe in.

funny how you say if you don't look at the other point of view its a CRUSADE... good word to use... i love irony...

I'm glad you liked the word. I put it their intentionally. Now perhaps you can apply the substance of the comment.

original religious beliefs have been very wrong in explaining things and as we advance into the future religion has adapted to science to fill in the gaps with a bunch of bullgarbage until that can be proven wrong...

The bible was not written as a scientific text. Next question?

im saying if people just stopped accepting bullgarbage with no logic and look for an answer the world could be much more adnvanced than it is today... (what happened to our flying cars? ;-) )

You are basing your views on what is believed by the beliefs expressed by the more "common man". Do you get your information of theories of physics and chemistry by asking joe schmoe on the street? I think not.

Is it so hard to believe that when you die you don't actually go anywhere...

I can make a bunch of predictions of after death scenarios, even without the existence of God. Science does not find this issue to be a priority.

another thing about the creation of life... its kinda hard to imagine what real randomness is... i mean is anything that humans do completely random... it does occur in nature... whos to say that some radiation didnt make some random garbage happen and somehow a self realizing organizm occurs.. maybe even a single cell... it could all evolve from there... atleast it has a little bit of logic to it... id rather believe in logic than some dude saying believe or you will go to hell? what I am gunna magically transport to the center of the earth... we proved magic doesn't exist a long time ago... the easter bunny doesn't either

Your thoughts are expressed in a pretty random fashion and again easily answered in an almost trivial way.

Why are you afraid of reading a book or two? At the very least it will enable you to express your objections to the matter in a coherent manner. I've read Russel and Dawkins...

 

[shamrock5585]

haha you have said nothing of relevance... you can disagree with me all you want but atleast say something with a point... you say i can be answered very trivially... so why don't you pull your head out of your ass and answer?

you state that you can make prediction of after death scenarios but yet just like many stubborn religous people you state that you can but yet you dont...

the bible wasnt a scientific text very true.. your a f ucking genius... so then why would we follow it in terms of creation or anything else for that matter? like i said... not based on logic

 

[seycyrus]

haha you have said nothing of relevance... you can disagree with me all you want but atleast say something with a point... you say i can be answered very trivially... so why don't you pull your head out of your ass and answer?

I did answer, go back to my post and reply to my points on a point by point basis.

you state that you can make prediction of after death scenarios but yet just like many stubborn religous people you state that you can but yet you dont...

Ok...

1) The memory space used to contain your account is erased after data is recorded. Your initial input data is then re-entered and the simulation is run again.

2) You take your place as a fully initiated member of the "Q" continuum.

3) ...

the bible wasnt a scientific text very true.. your a f ucking genius... so then why would we follow it in terms of creation or anything else for that matter? like i said... not based on logic

Who follows it in terms of creation? What exactly does that mean anyway?

 

[shamrock5585]

Ok...

1) The memory space used to contain your account is erased after data is recorded. Your initial input data is then re-entered and the simulation is run again.

2) You take your place as a fully initiated member of the "Q" continuum.?

haha so who is uploading and downloading the data? atleast my theory was complete! remember... magic no long exists haha

your theory is just the theory of heaven and hell except using scientific words


This is exactly why i hate talking about religion... complete abstract nonsense and its always incomplete...

 

[shamrock5585]

Who follows it in terms of creation? What exactly does that mean anyway?

i was trying to point out that if there is no basis on what it is written other than nonsense then why should people believe it? faith? haha

whenever you are coming up with an official document explaining theories and using knowledge it normally has a source of where the information came from... the bible doesn't even have an author and yet it is still revised from time to time haha wtf

 

[seycyrus]

i was trying to point out that if there is no basis on what it is written other than nonsense then why should people believe it? faith? haha

But you don't know if there is any basis, because you haven't read anything, but instead base your perceptions on what the crowd at walmart says.

I'm pointing out that if your knowledge of science is as deep as your knowledge of religion, then you are not qualified to discuss either.

 

[shamrock5585]

hahaha you crack me up... go back to church and get on your knees for father douche bag...

its great to be told i have no knowledge of science or religion by a guy who says I am wrong when I am just suggesting if something is possible and then, doesn't even give a reason for why i am wrong...

im gunna bet your pastor is your best friend...

ive read religous books and I've read many science books.. id rather not waste my time on things based on nothing...

critisize my credentials... I am a 5th year student in electromechanical engineering with a very deep understanding of physics, math and sciences... wtf are your credentials alter boy?

 

[baywax]

Its interesting to note, and ironic (as has been pointed out), that the church is an important reason science has been able to survive the last 2000 years. What discoveries that were made before and during those years were kept by the church in libraries that were unmatched by most other collections of knowledge. I'm not sure if the church hoarded the knowledge to keep the population in the dark about certain facts or if they were the good hearted archivers of knowledge they are often portrayed to be.

The last pope admitted that hell was a state of mind which stepped well out of the boundaries of traditional doctrine and into theoretical psychology. I don't remember him talking about UFOs or extraterrestrial congregations.

 

[seycyrus]

hahaha you crack me up... go back to church and get on your knees for father douche bag...

its great to be told i have no knowledge of science or religion by a guy who says I am wrong when I am just suggesting if something is possible and then, doesn't even give a reason for why i am wrong...

I explicitly questioned your refusal to examine the critical thinking of christian theologians in answering some of silly questions you asked.

ive read religous books and I've read many science books..

Which religous books? Your shallow objections suggested that you didn't digest the contents.

critisize my credentials... I am a 5th year student in electromechanical engineering with a very deep understanding of physics, math and sciences... wtf are your credentials alter boy?

I have a doctorate in solid state physics. Worked in superconductivity.

 

[shamrock5585]

The last pope admitted that hell was a state of mind which stepped well out of the boundaries of traditional doctrine and into theoretical psychology. I don't remember him talking about UFOs or extraterrestrial congregations.

another case of covering your ass... hell used to be real and actual until we figure out that oh yeah there aint some mystical place down underneath us... so then the church must come up with an explanation... fill in the cracks with some bull garbage

 

[seycyrus]

another case of covering your ass... hell used to be real and actual until we figure out that oh yeah there aint some mystical place down underneath us... so then the church must come up with an explanation... fill in the cracks with some bull garbage

Where in the bible does it say that hell is underneath us? Again, I'm sorry that your education, religous or otherwise, was so lacking.

 

[shamrock5585]

does the bible not describe the "deep firey pits of hell" that sounds like an explanation of a place to me rather than a state of mind... the bible has also been revised like i said to "cover the church's ass"

I have a doctorate in solid state physics. Worked in superconductivity.

you still have yet to make a solid point... you have stated nothing of useful knowledge.. all you have done is question my points... i never said i was completely right... i pointed out many flaws in religion and stated some points that i think are logic explanations for those gaps... you have contributed nothing to this conversation except the Diarrhea that has spewed from your mouth!