We’re going to need a bigger Popemobile.
6 Likes
I’m not so much irked as puzzled that a) NASA thinks anybody at all needs to be consulted in case people have an adverse reaction to news of intelligent life which we’ve collectively already been considering for hundreds of years through film and literature, and b) that those people who might need consideration are those with a religious belief.
What’s more, it’s almost certain that any announcement about extraterrestrial life will refer to beings we can’t see, and can only vaguely receive any communications from. It’s not like little green men will suddenly be at our doorstep. So, again, why the big fuss? We’ve already had announcements about life forms (bacterial spores?) on Mars, and there was no need to study any large groups of humans in advance of those announcements.
Sure, there will always be a small handful of people who make a big deal about it, and those people will probably be on the religious fringe (no surprise there), but do you really think those folks will be the ones calmly listening to a priest telling them not to worry about it? I’d say the vast majority of religious people will take it in stride, just as anybody else would.
Exploring aliens via fiction and having an actual first contact situation is entirely different (though, of course fiction can be helpful in understanding what it might look like and what it might mean for humanity). And yes, a large percentage of the population SHOULD be thought about with regards to such an event, even if you think they’re dumb idiots.
This isn’t rocket surgery. First contact would be groundbreaking and being actually democratic and consulting people who live on this earth too is something that very much SHOULD happen.
7 Likes
Of course people have converted religions over the centuries. But I think it’s safe to say that most people who start out with one religion don’t easily convert to another.
As for many humans converting to an alien religion, I don’t think that would happen, either, at least not on any significant scale. No to mention that any announcement of extra-terrestrial life would almost certainly not include any details of those aliens’ religion.
Ok, so if atheists are no better or worse than theists, why doesn’t NASA want to consult them, too? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should. I’m asking, if they are consulting religious leaders, why not consult non-religious leaders? After all, aliens would affect us all.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, or religions trying to convert others. I was asking whether religious leaders might be concerned that atheists, when confronted with proof of extraterrestrial life, would suddenly convert to Earth-based religion.
Oh god, won’t somebody think of the atheists!?
6 Likes
Totally on topic, too…
6 Likes
Houston, we have too many believers, over. Please advise.
6 Likes
I mean, maybe this is just me, but isn’t it a fair assumption that the default state of NASA is to try and be neutral, analytical and so on, basically what Ms. average atheist would likely expect? In that case, just like many atheists I personally know, it is an extremely good idea to research the views of those with different beliefs to make sure their own beliefs (or lack thereof), or stance of neutrality, isn’t blinding them to the wider realities of humankind?
I don’t think atheist underrepresentation here is really a thing when we’re talking about the default stance of NASA.
10 Likes
That’s a very broad statement that doesn’t hold up well to historical scrutiny… given that the entire population of Europe once practiced other religions and were converted to Christianity… if people didn’t convert en masse at some point, there would be no Christanity, Islam, or Buddhism.
Why not? What’s your reasoning for that? Given that people have converted in the past? But after reading the OP, that doesn’t seem to be what the primary focus is… Here is a blog post that has a short discussion on what the theologian in question has been interested in thinking about:
https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/researchareas/newsandimpact/astrobiology
Maybe not initially, no. But if we go back and look at fictional universes, we can see that it’s a more complicated question. I think the case of DS9, where the Bajorans have a faith based in the existence of non-corporeal aliens that don’t experience linear time (hence they can “predict” the future for the Bajorans). In that case, Sisko was a prophesized figure and became an adherent to the faith later on. There is no reason why that can’t happen in reality, given a sustained engagement after a first contact.
Not what I said. I’m talking about a particular movement in the atheists community who’ve basically just recreated hostile forms of faith based on a eurocentric model. It’s clear that many of that group are more hostile to some faiths than to others - Catholics and Muslims are considered far lesser than Angelicans, for example. Let’s not even get into the NA misogyny, warmongering, or racism… And members of the NA also go after other non-theists who they don’t see as “pure” enough.
Given that many people who are scientists are also atheists, I would assume that they have. In fact, they don’t really need to consult a group like the New Atheists, because many of the scientists who work for NASA are either atheists themselves or are secular enough in mindset to work on these issues, there is no need to go to an outside group to consult them. Someone upthread (in fact, @Mercenary_Garage mentioned it) noted how in the past NASA has consulted sci-fi writers… I do believe that maybe there was a similar move under the Obama administration. So, literally no one is leaving non-religious or secular people out of the equation here. It’s the default assumption in fact.
Some might. Others won’t. I don’t think that’s the point of the whole exercise under consideration though. Ignore large segments of the population because you think their idiots is not particularly helpful.
And it might surprise you to learn that some religions are not theist at all - some forms of Buddhism. The more recent chaplain of Harvard is in fact an atheist…
They are an entirely secular organization. 
8 Likes
That sounds like a church that ought to collapse!
4 Likes
They perpetuated the prosperity gospel BS, so sho’ you right.
I remember once questioning some of them about the possibility of life on other planets and how that might impact their beliefs; long story short, they had no capacity for even having that kind of honest conversation with a teen… and they immediately just devolved back into meaningless church-speak.
I stopped going to that church not too long thereafter.
7 Likes
A wise choice… if a religious leader can’t meet the flock with thoughtful engagement on just about any topic, or at least an honest “I don’t know” they’re not really doing a great job of trying to support their members.
7 Likes
11 posts were split to a new topic: The fluidity of faith
Before anyone gets too worked up about what NASA did or didn’t do, a little fact-checking might help to clarify the situation:
1 Like
But yeah, I useful corrective on what is actually happening, which is NASA is consulting an academic theology department about issues that they study. So a typical Tuesday in any big institution that gives a shit about humanity as it actually exists.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
