Mars' so called life

February 16, 2005 2:21 PM

A pair of NASA scientiststold a group of space officials at a private meeting here that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars. Spirit has also recently taken a very intriguing photo. Of course this is just making things official, since we've known the truth for years.
posted by jikel_morten (85 comments total)

Yahoo!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2005

Poor Bowie, now he can't keep asking "Is there life on Mars?"
posted by riffola at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2005

And I for one welcome...
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:38 PM on February 16, 2005

Wow. Today, eh? This is news.

Maybe we should watch where we're stepping while we're there...
posted by soyjoy at 2:39 PM on February 16, 2005

Well, they say it's an impression left by their spectrometer in the dust left by their driller.
posted by delmoi at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2005

delmoi: I see they've got to you already... I can hear them, in my building, pounding on doors... maybe if I hide myself and the laptop under the bed... they're here, inside the apartment... oh no! one just shined his flashlight under here! I must hit post before aaaaaaaaaargh...
posted by Kattullus at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2005

Nature's holding off on publishing it until May, which means that while it's likely very intriguing, it isn't jump-up-and-down-yay-there's-life-on-Mars obvious. If it were definitive proof, it would be in tomorrow's issue.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:50 PM on February 16, 2005

Try the first link, delmoi. Methane a'poppin'!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:53 PM on February 16, 2005

Regardless of the evidence of the lichen-like photo (or the as yet unexplained "rotini" image further down), would anybody here really be surprised at a definitive finding of some kind of life on Mars? I mean, I'd understand joy, but surprise?

Not me.
posted by mediareport at 2:56 PM on February 16, 2005

Holy nuts! I would so volunteer to go to Mars tomorrow - even for a one-way trip.
posted by crazy finger at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2005

If there is life on Mars, then the myth of terrestrial exceptionalism is officially dispelled. What is the point of debating Genesis if it's been proven to be a non-unique phenomenon?

So yeah, this has immense implications if true.
posted by norm at 3:05 PM on February 16, 2005

would anybody here really be surprised at a definitive finding of some kind of life on Mars?

I'd be surprised if someone found Sentient Life on Mars-- sentient life with a variety of Gods. I'm thinking that would mess up a few agendas here on Earth. Or at least cause the missionaries to storm Mission Control and start firing off a few rockets to spread The Good News.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:06 PM on February 16, 2005

Also, what norm said.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 3:07 PM on February 16, 2005

I'm happy with one-celled methane eating critters. It's still huge.
posted by jokeefe at 3:08 PM on February 16, 2005

If there is life on Mars, then the myth of terrestrial exceptionalism is officially dispelled. What is the point of debating Genesis if it's been proven to be a non-unique phenomenon?

Exactly. I've been waiting oh so patiently for this. Please, please be true.
posted by rooftop secrets at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2005

I looked at that picture and my first thought was, that looks like something that lives on the bottom of the sea. Wow.

But we may have contaminated the Martian biosphere with bacteria that arrived on our various probes.

Has Earth already given Mars a Venereal disease?
posted by orthogonality at 3:17 PM on February 16, 2005

Cool, maybe we could divide Mars up into different areas of influence, and teach them to be like us.
posted by R. Mutt at 3:26 PM on February 16, 2005

I'm confused by some of the comments regarding life found on Mars. I’m taking them as; If plant life is found on Mars, it proves the Bible wrong.
As a Christian I was raised that Dinosaurs roamed the Earth before man.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:33 PM on February 16, 2005

There are dinosaurs in the bible?
posted by R. Mutt at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005

If there is life on Mars, then the myth of terrestrial exceptionalism is officially dispelled. What is the point of debating Genesis if it's been proven to be a non-unique phenomenon?

Exactly. I've been waiting oh so patiently for this. Please, please be true.

Sorry to say this, rooftop secrets, but I don't think it'll take long for the fundies to find a way around it. I hope that I'm wrong in that, but I think that these are people well skilled in tweaking their doctrinal fantasies to suit the "needs" of the moment.
posted by jokeefe at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005

jokeefe: It's probably methane farting critters.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005

I suppose that's the luxury of an omnipotent deity in a vague text...
posted by rooftop secrets at 3:38 PM on February 16, 2005

Fundies are already in complete denial over Earth's own geological history. Adding denial about Martian areological history would be easy for them. Before long, I'll bet at least one fundie stands up and says that Vallis Marineris was caused by Noah's great flood.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 3:38 PM on February 16, 2005

Life in the universe, even intelligent life, wont change anything for the creationists, imo. There is plenty of earthly evidence that disproves creationism. The creationists, when backed into a corner always have the 'the devil planted it' ace up their sleeve. What e.t. life may do is shake a few of them up to the point where they are able to question dogma that they've been too stubborn or naive to question until that point.
posted by jikel_morten at 3:41 PM on February 16, 2005

You cant reason someone out of something that he didn't reason himself into. (Swift?)
posted by R. Mutt at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2005

Interplanetary Flood is a good band/album name.
posted by rooftop secrets at 3:43 PM on February 16, 2005

You cant reason someone out of something that he didn't reason himself into. (Swift?)

I just have to say that that is a fucking great quote. I can't believe I've never come across it before. Thank R. Mutt :)
posted by jikel_morten at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2005

If the life being discovered on Mars is pretty much a Martian lichen then I don't think the religious types are going to really see that as dispelling the myth of terrestrial exceptionalism.

It would do it for me but I'm an athiest. Now if the lichen had lasers on its head or if it had a head, that would be something.

Anyone expecting to find sentient life on Mars might want to email me about a lovely bridge I've got for sale that goes from San Francisco to Marin.
posted by fenriq at 3:52 PM on February 16, 2005

Not all religious folks would have a negative reaction to the news. Mormon theology, to take one example, says that life definitely exists on other planets, and that the Bible is the revealed truth to life on Earth as it applies to humans.

(Googling around, I also found this page about the alleged relationship between Mormonism and the 1997 movie "Contact", which was a neat read, though a bit zany.)

And look on the bright side: missionary zeal could drive the construction of a lot of spaceships. God came in only second to money as the main reasons Europeans came to the New World. Maybe we'll finally get to explore the galaxy, but paid for by fundamentalists' tithing rather than government taxation.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:55 PM on February 16, 2005

. There are dinosaurs in the bible?
Man who are you, mimeograph.

No, the Bible is too small to hold their bones, but youi can find them dead in the ground as fosiles. Also the word “dinasor” was invented in 1841, so again, “no.”

Never read in the Bible that man was the first creature on earth either. Remember the Bible has been translated from its original translation, Hebrew (the Old Testament) and koine Greek (the New Testament) which today seen in English is missing better context and translation. Anyway I'm not here to defend the fundies, but spouting off your unknown beliefs of Christian is asshat of you all, like the fundies. Next you will be telling me I don’t believe in modern science or we landed on the moon. Without flight and space travel the majority of the family I grew up with would have had to find other careers.

Here is a reference of a living dinosaurs in the Bible, Job 40:15-24 .
posted by thomcatspike at 4:00 PM on February 16, 2005

So nobody here ever read C.S. Lewis' Cosmic Trilogy? Even he believed in Aliens, or wrote about them anyway.
posted by hughbot at 4:04 PM on February 16, 2005

No, the Bible is too small to hold their bones, but you can find them dead in the ground as fossils. Also the word “dinosaur” was invented in 1841, so again, “no.”
posted by thomcatspike at 4:04 PM on February 16, 2005

*loquacious shares water with some of the lichen-like things*
posted by loquacious at 4:06 PM on February 16, 2005

Water brother...
posted by rooftop secrets at 4:21 PM on February 16, 2005

Sorry I derailed the thread, yet there was no link to Christians believing no life existed on Mars in the post. Just your opinion or print that you ffind defending your All label.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:22 PM on February 16, 2005

Sorry I derailed the thread, yet there was no link to Christians believing no life existed on Mars in the post. Just your opinion or print that you find defending your All label.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:23 PM on February 16, 2005

Has Earth already given Mars a Venereal disease?

if true, then maybe Mars needs women more than ever!

but seriously, i want to approach this with an assload of skepticism, but yeah, i also really really hope that it's true.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 4:26 PM on February 16, 2005

hughbot: Lewis also wrote about magical closets and talking lions. The alien life in The Space Trilogy is allegorical.
posted by cloeburner at 4:33 PM on February 16, 2005

How does finding life on Mars negate Genesis? It just means the Creator, seeded life elsewhere as well. As it is, only the most simplistic of earthlings think that the story of creation is dependent upon a several thousand-year time-line, or that the bible is to be taken literally.

Sorry boys and girls, but finding extraterrestrials isn't the end of religion--sorry to disappoint you.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:36 PM on February 16, 2005

Just your opinion or print that you find defending your All label.

???

I am, what you might call, a fundie. I fundamentally believe that God is not going to get tko'd in the 10th round by some space lichen. The people who are shaking in their boots haven't the testicular fortitude to stand up and say, "My God is stronger than science, because my God set in place the laws that compose science." Rather, they see science as an enemy of God. Because, you know, God is like a sick little kitten that must be sheltered from the powers of nature. Right.

I think methane-sucking Martian squid-dinosaurs would be the epitome of the mystery that is God's creation. And nit-picking your translation of the Book of Genesis isn't going to solve this one for the false prophets. They don't need a new translation, they need a heart transplant. Their ignorance and literalism will forever prevent them from understanding some of the most important lessons of scripture.

Besides, only an idiot would believe that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years- *smited*
posted by Baby_Balrog at 4:42 PM on February 16, 2005

I wish it was Ray Bradbury's Mars. How I'd like to wander by the canals and through those gardens and live in a hillside villa. *sigh*. Reality sucks.
posted by jokeefe at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2005

Heh. Yeah. What ParisParamus said.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2005

Bravo.

Or that the Seven Days of Creation are literally 7 days. (Or, even that 7 days was always the equivalent of 24 hours x 7)
posted by ParisParamus at 4:45 PM on February 16, 2005

spouting off your unknown beliefs of Christian is asshat of you all, like the fundies.

Too true, tcs, but they aren't about to stop.

Exciting post; I join the Mars-hopers...
posted by languagehat at 4:57 PM on February 16, 2005

If there is life on Mars what we need to know is have they recieved Jesus as their savior? And if not, how fast can we get missionaires to the fourth planet to save them before they burn in hell?
posted by uftheory at 4:57 PM on February 16, 2005

spouting off your unknown beliefs of Christian...

Actually I had to sit through 12 years of Catholic school,
4 years as an altar boy, ...
posted by R. Mutt at 5:03 PM on February 16, 2005

Mars, fuck yeah!
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:15 PM on February 16, 2005

I know: The methane is coming from the long suspected Giant Martian Farting Squid, which lives in the frozen oceans below the desert sands. I, for one, look forward to introducing the chili pepper to the red planet. With sufficient capsacin induced methane production we can create a greenhouse layer that will warm the planet, melt the oceans, and free the giant farting squids froms their icy doom. Or something. So say we all.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 5:26 PM on February 16, 2005

My God is stronger than science, because my God set in place the laws that compose science." Rather, they see science as an enemy of God.

Well, a problem with that is you're putting your idea of some sort of "God" into the same arena of science, which is nonsensical, as the two share nothing. One is a method, one is a story.

My Dad's an astronomer (Univ of Colorado), and he doesn't care about God at all. I certainly don't care. My friends don't care. Yet every now and again a Goddite will bumrush us and say, "You're an enemy of God!" as above.

Look, it benefits your story to push it into science, into Mars, into paleontology, because it gives your story some sense of legitimacy. But, give it a rest. It's Harry Potter + Jewish history, and it's past my bedtime.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 5:48 PM on February 16, 2005

Mean Mr. Bucket. God created science. And you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:54 PM on February 16, 2005

(But he didn't create meanness: that's the absence of God)
posted by ParisParamus at 5:55 PM on February 16, 2005

*highfives Mean Mr. Bucket*
posted by papakwanz at 6:03 PM on February 16, 2005

But Paris, did God create the need to fill the absence of knowledge with himself too?
posted by R. Mutt at 6:03 PM on February 16, 2005

Mr. ParisParamus I always love it when folks declare what God did or didn't do. Or what God does or does not think. It really is charming. We are such a vain little race of idiots, I do declare.
posted by filchyboy at 6:34 PM on February 16, 2005

And look on the bright side: missionary zeal could drive the construction of a lot of spaceships. God came in only second to money as the main reasons Europeans came to the New World. Maybe we'll finally get to explore the galaxy, but paid for by fundamentalists' tithing rather than government taxation.

Maria Doria Russell's wonderful novel The Sparrow is about this. When evidence of extraterrestrial life is discovered, The Jesuits send a ship since none of the cash-strapped governments can afford to. The book's plot relies heavily on linguistics and although it's a bit unlikely, it's a quite satisfying read.
posted by Hubajube at 6:36 PM on February 16, 2005

I don't think it'll take long for the fundies to find a way around it.

I fail to see how extraterrestrial life somehow negates the argument that we (humans) are particularly special creations of the Big Guy. I mean, I realize there are lots of crazies that think the Earth is just a few thousand years, but the majority of religious folk have already accepted extinction, dinosaurs and the lot... why is life on Mars that much different than life on Antarctica? Maybe God didn't tell us about the whole Mars thing because he didn't want us to know.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:45 PM on February 16, 2005

Paris and Balrog--totally. I'm a chemist and a Catholic and have no problem accepting both science and God. At first it was hard for me to understand why people think the two are enemies. But then I realized this is the fault of the Fundamentalist Christians who actually SAY they are enemies and really believe this to be true. I don't understand why they say this, it doesn't have to be true at ALL. It makes perfect sense to me that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and I have the hardest time understanding why that's so hard to grasp for the "fundies". Everyone, please don't lump every single person who believes in God into the same category as these people. To me, it just shows how amazing God is that science, nature, space, our world, are so complex. I mean, isn't evolution and the human species' ability to adapt just amazing? I mean let's face it, those who love science and those who love God and think they are mutually exclusive at least have that sense of awe in common...and it's actually awe about the same thing! There really is life out there somewhere, and I hope it's on Mars, but either way it will only strengthen my belief in God, not shake it.
posted by rio at 6:45 PM on February 16, 2005

Both the existence and nonexistence of an entity beyond human comprehension are entirely unprovable, by definition of it being beyond human comprehension. Therefore, it is a senseless debate and will go nowhere.

Furthermore, I see no reason to doubt the existence of such an entity based on life on another planet. Again, because it operates beyond human comprehension, the seemingly unexplainable (to some) merely adds to the grandeur.

And, back to the topic, man, I hope it's lichen. Super-intelligent lichen. That will tell me what to do with my life. Or at least buy me lunch.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:55 PM on February 16, 2005

Way to go norm, does everything have to be about Jesus? Don't worry everyone, there's plenty of athiestic, amoral, cynical scientists out there who will never admit to life on Mars. Science advances one funeral at a time...
posted by spaceviking at 7:00 PM on February 16, 2005

does everything have to be about Jesus?

Well no, but it was brought up and inevitably of course.

The Bible contains nothing that would be contradicted by the existence of life on Mars or elsewhere.

The Bible is for people, for humans. Jesus's message is aimed straight at the human heart.

Personally, I say who know's what's out there, and if you believe God created the universe (in whatever time period), then what's difficult about believing he may have created others too?

Here's something: in the book of John, Jesus says 'I am the good shepherd...' '... I lay my life down for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also...'.

Now, most folks will say he was referring to Jewish and non-Jewish people which may be entirely true but I dunno, makes me wonder sometimes...
posted by scheptech at 7:09 PM on February 16, 2005

Man, is it ALWAYS possible to predict exactly what ParisParamus will say?
posted by borkingchikapa at 7:26 PM on February 16, 2005

Can Mathowie setup a Paypal thing to collect money to build a (Mormon) Mission on Mars?
posted by crazy finger at 7:29 PM on February 16, 2005

(But he didn't create meanness: that's the absence of God)

I thought God was omnipresent.
posted by Frankieist at 7:40 PM on February 16, 2005

Sheesh, I'm sorry I used the off-the-cuff nickname "fundies". I had reservations about it when I posted, but what the hell. Just to excuse my small part, as it may be, in this particular tennis match, let me rephrase that: "dogmatic literalist interpreters of the Bible, who view their role in American society as a missionary one, and who are as politically involved as they claim to be religiously pure."

Nothing to see here, move on. I'm placing my bets on the methane farting lichen, myself.
posted by jokeefe at 9:24 PM on February 16, 2005

It's not lichen! The lichen are the enemy! Bow to the almighty Giant Farting Squid!
posted by Captain Ligntning at 10:51 PM on February 16, 2005

And look on the bright side: missionary zeal could drive the construction of a lot of spaceships. This is a funny idea to me. We must bring Jesus to the heathen Martian lichen!
posted by louigi at 12:46 AM on February 17, 2005

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one...

But still... they come!
posted by ralphyk at 4:17 AM on February 17, 2005

Cloeburner (and others) ...

Here's some C.S. Lewis where he talks expressly about life on other planets.

When the doctor at a post-mortem diagnoses posion, pointing to the state of the dead man's organs, his argument is rational because he has a clear idea of that opposite state in which the organs would have been found if no poison were present. In the same way, if we use the vastness of space and the smallness of earth to disprove the existence of God, we ought to have a clear idea of the sort of universe we should expect if God did exist. But have we? Whatever space may be in itself — and, of course, some moderns think it finite — we certainly perceive it as three-dimensional, and to three-dimensional space we can conceive no boundaries. By the very forms of our perceptions, therefore, we must feel as if we lived somewhere in infinite space.

If we discovered no objects in this infinite space except those which are of use to man (our own sun and moon), then this vast emptiness would certainly be used as a strong argument against the existence of God. If we discover other bodies, they must be habitable or inhabitable: and the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are used as grounds for rejecting Christianity. If the universe is teeming with life, this, we are told, reduces to absurdity the Christian claim — or what is thought to be the Christian claim — that man is unique, and the Christian doctrine that to this one planet God came down and was incarnate for us men and for our salvation. If, on the other hand, the earth is really unique, then that proves that life is only an accidental by-product in the universe, and so again disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to please. We treat God as the police treat a man when he is arrested, whatever He does will be used in evidence against Him.

— from Dogma and the Universe

He talks, in that same essay, about the questions raised above about missionaries and whatnot to other planets. I won't bother typing all that up, but he basically says: The point isn't evangelism for evangelism's sake. Note: Nobody's preaching at dogs and cats. The point is redemption. If God exists, and if God created these creatures, and if they fell away from God, then what would God do to redeem them? Christians believe that Jesus died to redeem mankind. Lewis also notes that the idea of redemption through Christ's death is, quite likely, peculiar to humans. Redemption via another method, for another species, might be completely different than death on a cross. Which is good, because it's tough to nail lichen to anything.
posted by Alt F4 at 4:40 AM on February 17, 2005

A Case of Conscience.
Religion in Science Fiction.
The Universal Christ.

I hope it's lichen. Super-intelligent lichen. That will tell me what to do with my life. Or at least buy me lunch.

Well, lunch with a lichen can be unsatisfactory. You get light and maybe a little water. Just try telling them that photosynthesis isn't for everyone -- they don't want to hear it.
posted by languagehat at 8:29 AM on February 17, 2005

you know, i was under the impression that there were millions -- if not billions -- of people who didn't believe in the god of abraham, some of them, in fact, worshipping entities that predate and possibly informed the worship of that deity.

yet, here mefi is discussing the implications of life in mars vis-a-vis the bible as if the judeao-christian mythos is the source of truth for all sentient beings in the universe.

if there is life elsewhere in the universe, i really hope it's intelligent and on equal footing with us weapons-wise when we meet up with it. otherwise, i fear our species will do to extraterrestrials what various groups here on the pale blue dot have been doing for centuries to other groups that look and behave differently than themselves: killing them, taking their land, and justifying it in the name of some supernatural (or abstract) entity or another.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:36 AM on February 17, 2005

Mars, Bitches!!!


No seriously, Every step that humanity moves away from an anthropocentric worldview is, in my humble opinion, a good step.
posted by Freen at 8:52 AM on February 17, 2005

A friend at NASA writes:

As my colleagues and I always say: Mars could sneeze and the whole world would tune in to watch.

The Earth is warming and spiraling into an enormous feedback loop that may render life within 20 miles of coastline 'aquatic' within this century... and people turn their heads.

I hadn't heard a word about this until you [wrote]. My 'expert' opinion is that it would be much more widely reported if it held any water (pun intended). Any geologist will tell you that this image essentially means nothing until you can show some kind of relative relationship. It has to compare to something. Or show some sort of existing pattern that corresponds to (or conflicts with) the surrounding morphology. Otherwise it is just a single picture.

As far as the methane thing goes... who knows? I think it's a viable theory. But that's all it is at this point - a theory. They are looking at a by-product of life on this planet, not life on that planet. Again, a viable theory. But the fact that it is being reported before the paper has even been submitted is not a good sign. That says that they jumped the gun, in my opinion. This 'private' meeting obvioiusly wasn't very private. It seems like just another case of someone trying to get there first.
posted by jokeefe at 9:46 AM on February 17, 2005

Life on Mars confirms that HINDUISM is the One True Religion.

I can't believe there are people in this thread proposing that this discovery somehow validates the Christian religion. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:11 AM on February 17, 2005

LOL bearded man in the clouds made us LOL.
posted by basicchannel at 3:59 PM on February 17, 2005

I'm guessing that the discovery of life on Mars would be a pretty big blow to Jainism, as there would be one less planet Jainists could go to where harming living creatures would be impossible.

All matters of science eventually relate to Jainism.
posted by Bugbread at 4:10 PM on February 17, 2005

fff - I don't think you were talking about me, but just to clarify, I wasn't saying that this or any other discovery would validate the Christian religion. Just that these discoveries wouldn't invalidate Christianity. That claim would be equally dumb.
posted by Alt F4 at 4:29 PM on February 17, 2005

Freen: Anthropocentric Worldview?? I think you're just...just being...Earthocentric! Yeah, typical of your ilk. We've only just begun saying "hello" to our new Martian brethren, and you're already claiming superiority for "our" planet! I for one will welcome our new lichen masters! That's right. I went there.

Basicchannel: As far as I can tell, NOONE in this thread has made the claim that a "bearded man in the clouds made us." I think your attempts to degrade the enlightened opinions of the very few outspoken Christians in this discussion to some childish, paternalistic, creationist farce is just that: childish. What paris and I are getting at (speaking out of place on Paris' behalf) is that God is the prime mover, and any natural phenomena exist as a product of God's original actions. Therefor, enlightened Christians can rejoice in scientific progress, because it only serves to heighten and enhance our awareness of the beauty and awful mystery of God's creation.
You probably won't find a scientist in the world who can empirically rule out an "act of God" playing some role in the creation of the universe. Even vacuum genesis and the strong anthropic principle depend, at some degree, on outside energy or action. (I'm pre-law, admittedly a bit out of my league here).

Please don't reduce Christianity to "bearded man in the clouds." That isn't what it's about, at least not for many of us.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:33 PM on February 17, 2005

What paris and I are getting at (speaking out of place on Paris' behalf) is that God is the prime mover, and any natural phenomena exist as a product of God's original actions.

If that's the position you want to take, then that's absolutely fine, but you must accept the fact that you're making an assumption, and not one with the support of any amount of evidence.

Therefor, enlightened Christians can rejoice in scientific progress, because it only serves to heighten and enhance our awareness of the beauty and awful mystery of God's creation.

How can you enjoy the fruits of science, with it's rigor, structure, transparency, process...etc, while simultaneously worshipping a man, Jesus Christ, whose very existance is debatable? I mean, doesn't that seem intellectually incongruous, if not absurd, to you?
posted by jikel_morten at 9:22 PM on February 17, 2005

jikel_morten:

For me, at least, there's no incongruity at all. Rigor, structure, transparency and process are all very well and good, and they cover a certain sphere of human experience. But it certainly doesn't cover all of it.

If you're going to claim that anything that opposes rigor and structure and process is bad, you're throwing out that other half of human experience, the one that includes literature and art and music and film. The half that includes emotions and love and awe at just sitting outside and staring at the skyscrapers in New York or a field that stretches for miles underneath a blue sky or . . . and so on.

Whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed (though I think he did, by the way) isn't important. It's the ideals that his character embodies that are important--of tolerance, of acceptance, of constantly striving to be better than you actually are. Not to mention that it's a hell of a story.

To dismiss Christianity as "intellectually non-righteous" is to dismiss 2000 years of extremely detailed inspection of the Bible and, beyond that, the application of Aristotelian logic to the universe. To dismiss it is to ignore the important role that it played in setting the stage for our current world of science and technology, the settling of the New World and the very urge to document the universe that God created in as precise terms as possible. Aside from the obvious differences in terms of starting presumptions, physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology are the same endeavor that went on eight hundred years ago in Thomas Aquinas's study.

People who dismiss the religious as "stupid" are no worse in my mind then the fundamentalists who tell me I'm going to hell because I think that gay marriage and birth control are good things. In both cases there's an intolerance that stems from being unable to question your own values and presumptions about the world. You're welcome to your views about science's logic and rigor being the most important things in life to you, but don't think that the culture and emotions that you enjoy on a daily basis is any less "incongruous" with science than religion and spirituality are.

(/fed up with blind anti-religious zeal as much as with the other kind)
posted by thecaddy at 10:34 PM on February 17, 2005

Well said, thecaddy.
posted by Vidiot at 11:38 PM on February 17, 2005

For those who are interested in the topic of Christianity+ET=???, I'd really recommend this book. It took some time to read, but it's incredibly interesting. You won't believe the heights the debate was taken to, touching on whether there was a single incarnation of Jesus, or one for each inhabited world, whether the denizens of other worlds are "higher" or "lower" in the Great Chain of Being than us, Swedenborg and Ezekiel... not to mention all the material on the scientific methods employed. It's really an great book.

On a related note, Ray Bradbury has written many stories about the impact of the discovery of extraterrestrial life on religion, like "Christus Apollo" which was set to music by Jerry Goldsmith and "The Fire Balloons," one of my favorites. It concerns some priests who go to Mars to try and convert some glowing ball-like entities who instead enlighten the priests.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:56 AM on February 18, 2005

thomcatspike,

" . . . the Bible is too small to hold their bones" is a seriously cool turn of phrase.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:57 AM on February 18, 2005

For me, at least, there's no incongruity at all. Rigor, structure, transparency and process are all very well and good, and they cover a certain sphere of human experience. But it certainly doesn't cover all of it.

Well I believe it does, in the sense that everything is physics.

If you're going to claim that anything that opposes rigor and structure and process is bad, you're throwing out that other half of human experience, the one that includes literature and art and music and film.

I'm not going to claim that at all. This isn't science vs. art. This is science and reasoning vs. believeing something or claiming something without evidence, proof or legitimate cause. Wanting something is not the same as having something.

Whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed (though I think he did, by the way) isn't important. It's the ideals that his character embodies that are important--of tolerance, of acceptance, of constantly striving to be better than you actually are. Not to mention that it's a hell of a story.

I agree with all that, except for the hell of a story part. I believe the story may have become cliche by the time it had been written (not sure about that though, it may be an urban legend regarding the similarities of all the human-deities born of virgins, crucified, resurrection...etc. I honestly can't recall.

People who dismiss the religious as "stupid" are no worse in my mind then the fundamentalists...

I didn't do that, did I? I mean that wasn't my intention and I apologize if I did give you that impression.

You're welcome to your views about science's logic and rigor being the most important things in life to you...

Not what I said at all. A rather unfair remark.
posted by jikel_morten at 10:46 AM on February 18, 2005

And.....

NASA STATEMENT ON FALSE CLAIM OF EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON MARS

News reports on February 16, 2005, that NASA scientists from Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., have found strong evidence that life may exist on Mars are incorrect.

NASA does not have any observational data from any current Mars missions that supports this claim. The work by the scientists mentioned in the reports cannot be used to directly infer anything about life on Mars, but may help formulate the strategy for how to search for martian life. Their research concerns extreme environments on Earth as analogs of possible environments on Mars. No research paper has been submitted by them to any scientific journal asserting martian life.

That's all she wrote.
posted by jokeefe at 3:37 PM on February 18, 2005

jokeefe: Well, there goes my free photosynthesised lunch. I'll just have to wait 'till dawn, then ...
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:58 PM on February 18, 2005