Rethinking the solar system
March 17, 2015 7:09 AM Subscribe
With the discovery of life beneath the Ross Ice Shelf, the abundance of water in our solar system and a huge salty ocean under Ganymede's ice, scientists are rethinking the possibilities of life on other worlds.
Okay, folks.
What if there's life on Mars?
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Landing on the lifeless Moon? No problem. Landing on a possibly living world? That's a whole new ethical dilemma.
posted by eriko at 7:57 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
What if there's life on Mars?
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Landing on the lifeless Moon? No problem. Landing on a possibly living world? That's a whole new ethical dilemma.
posted by eriko at 7:57 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was a great Sky & Telescope astrobiology article about this a few months ago. (Unfortunately S&T's website is in the 1990s and the article is not available on line.) It's not just that there's liquid water all over the solar system, it's also that there's a significant amount of thermal energy available. Almost all earth life is photosynthesis-based, and the odds for that in some outer moon are very very low. The sun's dim out there and most of the liquid water is under a thick sheet of ice or rock. But we keep finding these odd little deep-ocean biomes near thermal vents on Earth, where the only significant energy input is heat. That's not too different from Enceladus or Ganymede.
It still seems incredibly unlikely to me. But it's such a fascinating question, whether the organized biochemistry of life is a common thing or a rare thing. It's neat that we have a few other nearby bodies that are somewhat independent experiments. (Somewhat, because meteorites containing microbes are a popular theory for spreading life between bodies.)
posted by Nelson at 8:00 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
It still seems incredibly unlikely to me. But it's such a fascinating question, whether the organized biochemistry of life is a common thing or a rare thing. It's neat that we have a few other nearby bodies that are somewhat independent experiments. (Somewhat, because meteorites containing microbes are a popular theory for spreading life between bodies.)
posted by Nelson at 8:00 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's a whole new ethical dilemma.COSPAR has given some thought to this.
posted by despues at 8:07 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Yes, Probably Not, Almost Certainly, Almost Certainly.
Humans gonna human.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:10 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, Probably Not, Almost Certainly, Almost Certainly.
Humans gonna human.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:10 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
What if we'd be going back there? And from there had already come visitors to here?
posted by chavenet at 8:23 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
What if we'd be going back there? And from there had already come visitors to here?
posted by chavenet at 8:23 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA.
NOT TO MENTION GANYMEDE...
OH, AND ENCELADUS...
AND MAYBE CERES...
AND, UH...
HECK, YOU PROBABLY SHOULD JUST LEAVE EARTH ALONE, TOO, NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME NICE REAL ESTATE JUST UP THE ORION ARM.
YEAH, HERE IT IS.
TRY GLIESE 581c.
THAT ONE SHOULD BE FINE FOR YOU GUYS.
posted by General Tonic at 8:24 AM on March 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
NOT TO MENTION GANYMEDE...
OH, AND ENCELADUS...
AND MAYBE CERES...
AND, UH...
HECK, YOU PROBABLY SHOULD JUST LEAVE EARTH ALONE, TOO, NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME NICE REAL ESTATE JUST UP THE ORION ARM.
YEAH, HERE IT IS.
TRY GLIESE 581c.
THAT ONE SHOULD BE FINE FOR YOU GUYS.
posted by General Tonic at 8:24 AM on March 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
What if we'd be going back there? And from there had already come visitors to here?
Yep. Or those organisms are from the same batch that seeded Earth from outside the solar system, but they didn't flourish as well there?
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:39 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yep. Or those organisms are from the same batch that seeded Earth from outside the solar system, but they didn't flourish as well there?
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:39 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Seems to me like the last question is the most important for us. I don't think the collective ego of humanity is ready to deal with proof that we're not actually that special. The religious backlash is terrifying to contemplate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seems to me like the last question is the most important for us. I don't think the collective ego of humanity is ready to deal with proof that we're not actually that special. The religious backlash is terrifying to contemplate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not just that there's liquid water all over the solar system, it's also that there's a significant amount of thermal energy available.
Yeah, the idea of Goldilocks zone may have to be changed from the macro level of solar system, to the micro level of an individual planetary body. Which will be based on its particular characteristics.
I also wonder if the gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn are so mini solar systems of sorts with their properties that add to the likelihood of habitable bodies.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the idea of Goldilocks zone may have to be changed from the macro level of solar system, to the micro level of an individual planetary body. Which will be based on its particular characteristics.
I also wonder if the gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn are so mini solar systems of sorts with their properties that add to the likelihood of habitable bodies.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:55 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Seems to me like the last question is the most important for us. I don't think the collective ego of humanity is ready to deal with proof that we're not actually that special. The religious backlash is terrifying to contemplate.
I think the Collective Humanity can handle it. The religious fundamentalists will have to get over it but that alone is no reason not to proceed.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:56 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the Collective Humanity can handle it. The religious fundamentalists will have to get over it but that alone is no reason not to proceed.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:56 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The religious backlash is terrifying to contemplate.
This is a fairly common SciFi trope, but I'm always a little puzzled by it. Is there any evidence to suggest that any of the world's major religions have taken hard line positions on the existence of life on other planets? This seems to me the sort of thing that even a profound fundamentalist could roll with quite easily: "yes, God said be fruitful and multiply--and He was obviously spreading that injunction to the universe at large."
The Bible is simply ignorant of the nature of the stars and the planets, which saves it from saying anything much one way or the other about them. I can't think of any Biblical text which precludes the possibility of life on other planets and I'd be surprised if there were anything in the Koran on the subject.
posted by yoink at 8:58 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is a fairly common SciFi trope, but I'm always a little puzzled by it. Is there any evidence to suggest that any of the world's major religions have taken hard line positions on the existence of life on other planets? This seems to me the sort of thing that even a profound fundamentalist could roll with quite easily: "yes, God said be fruitful and multiply--and He was obviously spreading that injunction to the universe at large."
The Bible is simply ignorant of the nature of the stars and the planets, which saves it from saying anything much one way or the other about them. I can't think of any Biblical text which precludes the possibility of life on other planets and I'd be surprised if there were anything in the Koran on the subject.
posted by yoink at 8:58 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I like to imagine a planetary system like a hydro thermal vent in deep oceans. An oasis of energy and resources in a vast desert.
We are little crustaceans surrounding our vent and wondering if there are other species at other vents.
The key thing is, even if we are able to see/infer life around other stars, its gonna be a long while before we can communicate with or reach them.
Even in our solar system, its gonna be at least 30 years before we can conclusively prove whether we have life on Europa or Ganymede or Enceladus or any other body.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
We are little crustaceans surrounding our vent and wondering if there are other species at other vents.
The key thing is, even if we are able to see/infer life around other stars, its gonna be a long while before we can communicate with or reach them.
Even in our solar system, its gonna be at least 30 years before we can conclusively prove whether we have life on Europa or Ganymede or Enceladus or any other body.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm just laying the groundwork but hopefully next week I'll be ready to go public - "swim in the oceans of Gannymeade!" An elit team of ten lucky contestants will get to brave the hardships and life changing challenges in being the first people to swim the moons of Jupiter!"
posted by From Bklyn at 9:04 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by From Bklyn at 9:04 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
This seems to me the sort of thing that even a profound fundamentalist could roll with quite easily: "yes, God said be fruitful and multiply--and He was obviously spreading that injunction to the universe at large."
I don't think so. I think your average Unitarian would be able to go there. Fire-and-brimstone types, I suspect, would freak out about no longer being special--God creating Man in His own image, etc. I'd imagine that there would be fewer problems in Buddhism, Hinduism (and, well, Raelism I suppose) than there would be in the fundamentalist parts of the monotheistic religions. I mean, these are people who deny evolution FFS. Life existing elsewhere would probably give them a nasty shock, and those shocks tend to get responded to violently.
I mean, people kill each other every day over religion; exterminating non-terrestrial life would be a no brainer for those sorts, I think, which is one of the more profoundly worrying possibilities.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:41 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think so. I think your average Unitarian would be able to go there. Fire-and-brimstone types, I suspect, would freak out about no longer being special--God creating Man in His own image, etc. I'd imagine that there would be fewer problems in Buddhism, Hinduism (and, well, Raelism I suppose) than there would be in the fundamentalist parts of the monotheistic religions. I mean, these are people who deny evolution FFS. Life existing elsewhere would probably give them a nasty shock, and those shocks tend to get responded to violently.
I mean, people kill each other every day over religion; exterminating non-terrestrial life would be a no brainer for those sorts, I think, which is one of the more profoundly worrying possibilities.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:41 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Matthew McConaughey's character in Contact, lying to congress about the success of the mission, with a sly wink to Jodie that he knew it was all true.
Man, that bugged the hell out of me.
posted by adept256 at 9:48 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Man, that bugged the hell out of me.
posted by adept256 at 9:48 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
What if there's life on Mars?
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Funny how different people think. My first thought is not if "what if that life is dangerous to us"; but "what if we are dangerous to that life?" Generally when we go to new places we fuck them up a lot worse than they fuck us up.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:50 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Do we dare go there? Would it be right? Would it be dangerous for those who go? Would it be dangerous for the entire human race?
Funny how different people think. My first thought is not if "what if that life is dangerous to us"; but "what if we are dangerous to that life?" Generally when we go to new places we fuck them up a lot worse than they fuck us up.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:50 AM on March 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
TheLittlePrince: Even in our solar system, its gonna be at least 30 years before we can conclusively prove whether we have life on Europa or Ganymede or Enceladus or any other body.
At least? Even without any particular inside info, I'd bet against that. And I'd bet on simple (but recognizably biological) lifeforms being ... not uncommon.
Also, don't forget that the solar system has substantial cross-contamination, with rocks blasted out of gravity wells by giant impacts making their way to other planets on surprisingly short timescales (by solar system standards, i.e. millions instead of 100s of millions of years). We already have rocks from Mars (famously so) and it seems likely that rocks from Earth would have made their way to Venus and Mars, at least. Did they carry hitchhikers? If we find unicellular life on Mars, and if it is RNA based, and if it also uses left-handed sugars, that would be a pretty good smoking gun.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:09 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
At least? Even without any particular inside info, I'd bet against that. And I'd bet on simple (but recognizably biological) lifeforms being ... not uncommon.
Also, don't forget that the solar system has substantial cross-contamination, with rocks blasted out of gravity wells by giant impacts making their way to other planets on surprisingly short timescales (by solar system standards, i.e. millions instead of 100s of millions of years). We already have rocks from Mars (famously so) and it seems likely that rocks from Earth would have made their way to Venus and Mars, at least. Did they carry hitchhikers? If we find unicellular life on Mars, and if it is RNA based, and if it also uses left-handed sugars, that would be a pretty good smoking gun.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:09 AM on March 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fire-and-brimstone types, I suspect, would freak out about no longer being special--God creating Man in His own image, etc.
But they're not freaked out by the fact that ants exist and don't look like us. Why should they be freaked out by the fact that there are microbes that don't look like us on Mars?
I assume what you're actually talking about is finding sentient life elsewhere? I don't think anyone's suggesting that that is likely to happen on other bodies in our solar system, however.
As to whether the discovery of sentient life elsewhere would trouble the religious, I don't really see why it should. That is, God creating man in his image is not generally understood to by the religious to mean that God is (except in his incarnation as Jesus) simply a homo sapiens sapiens. If we encounter aliens with six legs and two heads but whose intelligences are sufficiently similar to ours to allow for cross-cultural translation, I suspect most religions will be happy to say that those beings are "made in God's image" too, to the extent that they are moral, reasoning individuals. If their intelligence is sufficiently unlike us that we cannot communicate meaningfully then they will occupy, for the religious, something like the position whales or monkeys occupy now: not beings with eternal souls (and therefore not "made in God's image"), but part of His creation. Again, this seems like a really minor theological challenge compared to, say, the existence of suffering in a world created by a supposedly loving God.
posted by yoink at 10:11 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
But they're not freaked out by the fact that ants exist and don't look like us. Why should they be freaked out by the fact that there are microbes that don't look like us on Mars?
I assume what you're actually talking about is finding sentient life elsewhere? I don't think anyone's suggesting that that is likely to happen on other bodies in our solar system, however.
As to whether the discovery of sentient life elsewhere would trouble the religious, I don't really see why it should. That is, God creating man in his image is not generally understood to by the religious to mean that God is (except in his incarnation as Jesus) simply a homo sapiens sapiens. If we encounter aliens with six legs and two heads but whose intelligences are sufficiently similar to ours to allow for cross-cultural translation, I suspect most religions will be happy to say that those beings are "made in God's image" too, to the extent that they are moral, reasoning individuals. If their intelligence is sufficiently unlike us that we cannot communicate meaningfully then they will occupy, for the religious, something like the position whales or monkeys occupy now: not beings with eternal souls (and therefore not "made in God's image"), but part of His creation. Again, this seems like a really minor theological challenge compared to, say, the existence of suffering in a world created by a supposedly loving God.
posted by yoink at 10:11 AM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I really have to agree with yoink. I would actually expect religions to be more capable of doublethink and other rationalizations useful for seamlessly integrating contradictory things into their worldview than anyone else.
They're total intellectual sluts who will let reality do them any which way. These days scientific prudishness is what's needed to tell God He doesn't play dice with the universe.
posted by XMLicious at 10:27 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
They're total intellectual sluts who will let reality do them any which way. These days scientific prudishness is what's needed to tell God He doesn't play dice with the universe.
posted by XMLicious at 10:27 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is there any evidence to suggest that any of the world's major religions have taken hard line positions on the existence of life on other planets?
Yes. This pretty much lines up with what I've been told by various Christians through my life.
He's kind of a vengeful and exclusive God, and brooks no competition.
posted by sneebler at 10:29 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes. This pretty much lines up with what I've been told by various Christians through my life.
He's kind of a vengeful and exclusive God, and brooks no competition.
posted by sneebler at 10:29 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
From that article:
"Ham has made the argument that search for alien life and habitable planets is pointless because God uniquely created Earth and the life on it"
Those would be exactly the evolution-denying fundamentalists I'm talking about.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:33 AM on March 17, 2015
"Ham has made the argument that search for alien life and habitable planets is pointless because God uniquely created Earth and the life on it"
Those would be exactly the evolution-denying fundamentalists I'm talking about.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:33 AM on March 17, 2015
Yes. This pretty much lines up with what I've been told by various Christians through my life.
He's kind of a vengeful and exclusive God, and brooks no competition.
Did you read your own link? It cites precisely one US evangelical who has a strong position that there can be no life elsewhere than Earth (Ken Ham), and it makes the point that Catholics, by and large, see no problem with the idea: "Rev Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, has said not believing aliens could exist would be 'putting limits on the creative freedom of God'."
posted by yoink at 10:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
He's kind of a vengeful and exclusive God, and brooks no competition.
Did you read your own link? It cites precisely one US evangelical who has a strong position that there can be no life elsewhere than Earth (Ken Ham), and it makes the point that Catholics, by and large, see no problem with the idea: "Rev Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, has said not believing aliens could exist would be 'putting limits on the creative freedom of God'."
posted by yoink at 10:33 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the people wondering if it would be dangerous to the entire human race have been reading too much Michael Crichton. It would be fine.
I'm also in strong disagreement with those who think it would be unethical to land on a living world. It would not only be ethical, it would be awesome.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm also in strong disagreement with those who think it would be unethical to land on a living world. It would not only be ethical, it would be awesome.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It cites precisely one US evangelical
Ken Ham is Australian.
posted by adept256 at 10:57 AM on March 17, 2015
Ken Ham is Australian.
posted by adept256 at 10:57 AM on March 17, 2015
You can see the human capacity to rationalize even evangelical life in Australia doesn't pose an existential crisis to US-centric modes of thought. Finding some microbes in Ganymede wouldn't harm geocentric modes of thought either.
posted by Drastic at 11:11 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by Drastic at 11:11 AM on March 17, 2015
Ken Ham may be from Australia, but he's in charge of the Creation 'Museum' in Kentucky.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:13 AM on March 17, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:13 AM on March 17, 2015
I'm with George_Spiggott; the ethical and practical concerns about life on other planetary bodies is if it exists, how do we avoid screwing it up when we investigate? There's been a fair amount of work on trying to avoid contamination in exploratory efforts so far, with mixed results. Not just other planetary bodies but on Earth too; whenever we drill a new fossil lake for scientific purposes there's a lot of effort made to not contaminate it.
It's a bit discouraging that the discussion about this interesting new scientific result is hand-wringing over religion. People who confuse religion with science aren't worth the time of day. Some fundamentalist nutjobs will be upset, but presumably they won't have any meaningful influence. It's not like faith's going to power a competing spaceship to Europa.
posted by Nelson at 11:15 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's a bit discouraging that the discussion about this interesting new scientific result is hand-wringing over religion. People who confuse religion with science aren't worth the time of day. Some fundamentalist nutjobs will be upset, but presumably they won't have any meaningful influence. It's not like faith's going to power a competing spaceship to Europa.
posted by Nelson at 11:15 AM on March 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I would not worry about an alien virus attacking the human race any more than I'd worry about a shark attack while touring Death Valley.
What's interesting to consider is if life in the universe is common, but life protected merely by a thin gaseous atmosphere, magnetic field, and the asteroid-deflecting pull of nearby gas giants is uncommon.
However if the panspermia theory is correct, life would have a better chance of spreading to planets with relatively thin protective envelopes like Earth.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:02 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
What's interesting to consider is if life in the universe is common, but life protected merely by a thin gaseous atmosphere, magnetic field, and the asteroid-deflecting pull of nearby gas giants is uncommon.
However if the panspermia theory is correct, life would have a better chance of spreading to planets with relatively thin protective envelopes like Earth.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:02 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a bit discouraging that the discussion about this interesting new scientific result is hand-wringing over religion.
More than a bit. More than a bit.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on March 17, 2015
More than a bit. More than a bit.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on March 17, 2015
As despues said, people are definitely thinking about the contamination issue, both "will we contaminate other planets?" and "will other planets contaminate us?" "Planetary protection" is the term for it. (Astrobiology raises all kinds of interesting questions like this; the graduate astrobiology curriculum at University of Washington includes a required Astrobiology Ethics course.) Aside from the ethical concerns about contaminating other planets, a discovery of life elsewhere in the Solar System would have incalculable scientific value that could be destroyed if Earth microbes reached it. Unfortunately, eliminating every single microbe from something turns out to be a hard problem.
posted by fermion at 6:40 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by fermion at 6:40 PM on March 17, 2015
Nelson: ...Almost all earth life is photosynthesis-based, and the odds for that in some outer moon are very very low. The sun's dim out there and most of the liquid water is under a thick sheet of ice or rock. But we keep finding these odd little deep-ocean biomes near thermal vents on Earth, where the only significant energy input is heat. That's not too different from Enceladus or Ganymede.
I think the big question is how life first appeared on Earth. Did it evolve around deep ocean vents, or start out on the surface and then make its way into the rocks and under the seas? (Or has life appeared more than once in different places?) The very first self replicating molecules must have used chemical energy, because nothing else would be available to them, but would that be enough to spread all over the planet? Maybe. (It's pretty amazing how those tube worm communities can somehow migrate between different ocean vents when one shuts down and another starts up.) If life could spontaneously appear in deep ocean vents and then migrate all around the sea bottoms, then it might have appeared under Ganymeden seas as well.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:50 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the big question is how life first appeared on Earth. Did it evolve around deep ocean vents, or start out on the surface and then make its way into the rocks and under the seas? (Or has life appeared more than once in different places?) The very first self replicating molecules must have used chemical energy, because nothing else would be available to them, but would that be enough to spread all over the planet? Maybe. (It's pretty amazing how those tube worm communities can somehow migrate between different ocean vents when one shuts down and another starts up.) If life could spontaneously appear in deep ocean vents and then migrate all around the sea bottoms, then it might have appeared under Ganymeden seas as well.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:50 PM on March 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd imagine that there would be fewer problems in Buddhism, Hinduism (and, well, Raelism I suppose) than there would be in the fundamentalist parts of the monotheistic religions.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm aware of both Catholic1 and Jewish speculation about alien life. In fact, I recall a midrash that says something like "Kings mint coins in their image, and each one is the same. God made people in His image, and every one is different." That is, "in His image" has nothing to do with physical form.
1 "Many reacted negatively to the story, but surprisingly few educated Catholics were among them. One even sent James Blish a copy of the actual Church guidelines for dealing with extraterrestrials." What.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:46 PM on March 17, 2015
I'm not so sure about that. I'm aware of both Catholic1 and Jewish speculation about alien life. In fact, I recall a midrash that says something like "Kings mint coins in their image, and each one is the same. God made people in His image, and every one is different." That is, "in His image" has nothing to do with physical form.
1 "Many reacted negatively to the story, but surprisingly few educated Catholics were among them. One even sent James Blish a copy of the actual Church guidelines for dealing with extraterrestrials." What.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:46 PM on March 17, 2015
As not just an ex-Christian, but an ex-fundamentalist protestant creationist Christian, I'd like to explore some of the theological reasons why it's not unreasonable to think some people might have some real problems with discovering alien life, based on historical analogues.
So, one of the Big Old problems in many religions is the "problem of evil": why would a good, omnipotent, god create a flawed world with evil in it? It has about a zillion answers but in a lot of mainstream Christian thought for millennia, the major answer was centrality of original sin: in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God, thus introducing sin into a world that had been created perfect. This original sin made all of humanity, and all of creation, flawed. It's responsible for our vulnerability to temptation toward petty sins like cutting people off in traffic, and it's the fundamental reason why Jesus the Son of God had to take human form, be sacrificed, and ressurected. That act is central to Christianity—its anniversary party is coming soon—and original sin is the nexus of its entire reason. In traditional Christian thought.
Well, what if there was death in the world before Eden? Evolution says there was billions of years of viruses and sickness and whole species eating one another and dieing out; that's kinda evil and it's pre-Fall of Man. So some people stop right there and become young-Earth creationists: "Nope", they say, "no physical death prior to the Fall, evolution must be false." Others find ways to be more sophisticated; there are other solutions to the problem of evil, and original sin doesn't necessarily be the origin of physical death on Earth. But it's still an issue: some time back I was wondering about Catholics: their theology seems to still emphasize original sin pretty strongly but they're famous for supporting evolution. How specifically do they do it? Well with much sophistication, as you'd expect, but still emphasizing original sin, the fall, and its place in an actual time where the ancestors of all humans disobeyed God:
And I've read comments to that effect before: evolution can describe the history of life on Earth, but there's a firewall there between it and anything that's crucial to Catholic theology: "The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ." (paragraph 389 ibid.)
Sorry, this is getting long. I'll sum up the rest: if we discover life not on and not from Earth, it raises a theological challenge akin to evolution for those who think original sin includes physical death. If it's intelligent, it raises one for those who think it means spiritual death, which until recently was most of Christianity. I've even read arguments that we shouldn't seek other life in the universe because it may be in a state of pre-Fall grace and we would be "infecting" them with something practically Satanic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, part 2: I'll make this one shorter, too. But traditionally, other than some Universalists (who were heretics), you had to do something to be saved from sin. Exactly what was a point of conflict among Protestants, especially, when they appeared, but a common thread was that it was a moral imperative to spread the Good News to all nations. Everyone on Earth must have at least the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ. Otherwise it would be a really horrible deal to damn people to eternal torment in Hell for not believing something they never had a chance to in the first place. Before the Americas were discovered, this was all ok, because Christians had assumed the Apostles had wandered around all over the place and word had spread to all civilizations. Now, they learned, there were unreached savages.
It was frightening to some people: there must be a solution! There must be a way to recognize that a loving God would not damn people unjustly! One solution, like I said, was Universalism: death is not the end of your opportunity to accept Christ. Another is to look for wider travels of the Apostles—maybe they got here, too, or maybe Jesus himself appeared to the natives and oh, look, someone invented Mormonism. A third approach was just to keep spreading the Good News to all the Native Americans and trust that God had it under control.
Hence, all the early missionaries who were destroying native written materials and/or learning native languages in order to translate the Bible and preach to them.
So aliens: if they're intelligent, have they heard about their Lord and Savior? Is he their Lord and Savior? Is there a Betelgeusian slime-mold-squid Jesus who dried for their sins?
Wow, that really did turn into a book. Sorry. If I knew more history of theology I could go on longer about just how profound the discovery of the Americas was to some religious views.
posted by traveler_ at 11:10 PM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
So, one of the Big Old problems in many religions is the "problem of evil": why would a good, omnipotent, god create a flawed world with evil in it? It has about a zillion answers but in a lot of mainstream Christian thought for millennia, the major answer was centrality of original sin: in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God, thus introducing sin into a world that had been created perfect. This original sin made all of humanity, and all of creation, flawed. It's responsible for our vulnerability to temptation toward petty sins like cutting people off in traffic, and it's the fundamental reason why Jesus the Son of God had to take human form, be sacrificed, and ressurected. That act is central to Christianity—its anniversary party is coming soon—and original sin is the nexus of its entire reason. In traditional Christian thought.
Well, what if there was death in the world before Eden? Evolution says there was billions of years of viruses and sickness and whole species eating one another and dieing out; that's kinda evil and it's pre-Fall of Man. So some people stop right there and become young-Earth creationists: "Nope", they say, "no physical death prior to the Fall, evolution must be false." Others find ways to be more sophisticated; there are other solutions to the problem of evil, and original sin doesn't necessarily be the origin of physical death on Earth. But it's still an issue: some time back I was wondering about Catholics: their theology seems to still emphasize original sin pretty strongly but they're famous for supporting evolution. How specifically do they do it? Well with much sophistication, as you'd expect, but still emphasizing original sin, the fall, and its place in an actual time where the ancestors of all humans disobeyed God:
How to read the account of the Fall(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I don't know how to link it because it's in a weird reader interface, but I think "chapter 1, paragraph 390" is the cite.)
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
And I've read comments to that effect before: evolution can describe the history of life on Earth, but there's a firewall there between it and anything that's crucial to Catholic theology: "The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ." (paragraph 389 ibid.)
Sorry, this is getting long. I'll sum up the rest: if we discover life not on and not from Earth, it raises a theological challenge akin to evolution for those who think original sin includes physical death. If it's intelligent, it raises one for those who think it means spiritual death, which until recently was most of Christianity. I've even read arguments that we shouldn't seek other life in the universe because it may be in a state of pre-Fall grace and we would be "infecting" them with something practically Satanic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, part 2: I'll make this one shorter, too. But traditionally, other than some Universalists (who were heretics), you had to do something to be saved from sin. Exactly what was a point of conflict among Protestants, especially, when they appeared, but a common thread was that it was a moral imperative to spread the Good News to all nations. Everyone on Earth must have at least the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ. Otherwise it would be a really horrible deal to damn people to eternal torment in Hell for not believing something they never had a chance to in the first place. Before the Americas were discovered, this was all ok, because Christians had assumed the Apostles had wandered around all over the place and word had spread to all civilizations. Now, they learned, there were unreached savages.
It was frightening to some people: there must be a solution! There must be a way to recognize that a loving God would not damn people unjustly! One solution, like I said, was Universalism: death is not the end of your opportunity to accept Christ. Another is to look for wider travels of the Apostles—maybe they got here, too, or maybe Jesus himself appeared to the natives and oh, look, someone invented Mormonism. A third approach was just to keep spreading the Good News to all the Native Americans and trust that God had it under control.
Hence, all the early missionaries who were destroying native written materials and/or learning native languages in order to translate the Bible and preach to them.
So aliens: if they're intelligent, have they heard about their Lord and Savior? Is he their Lord and Savior? Is there a Betelgeusian slime-mold-squid Jesus who dried for their sins?
Wow, that really did turn into a book. Sorry. If I knew more history of theology I could go on longer about just how profound the discovery of the Americas was to some religious views.
posted by traveler_ at 11:10 PM on March 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ok, after some mulling I can give a short summary of my wall-o-text above: the Christian opposition to evolution, now a century-strong, shows a likely response to the discovery of non-Earth life. The Christian problem of the antipodes, theoretical for over a millennium until Columbus made it real, shows a possible response to the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life. It birthed religions and destroyed civilizations.
posted by traveler_ at 11:27 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by traveler_ at 11:27 PM on March 17, 2015
I've read a lot of theological SF&F and there seems to be a constant theme that non-humans may have souls, and if Fallen they may be saved, whether via Jesus or an alternative Incarnation. None the less, it seems a constant that they suppose the Fall was a unique event and, without contact with humanity, all beings are innocent.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:36 PM on March 17, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:36 PM on March 17, 2015
It birthed religions and destroyed civilizations.
OMIT NEEDLESS VERBICIDES.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on March 18, 2015
OMIT NEEDLESS VERBICIDES.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on March 18, 2015
the Christian opposition to evolution, now a century-strong, shows a likely response to the discovery of non-Earth life.
The discovery of life on other planets is rather different from the theory of evolution. You can't, by and large, confront people directly with evolution happening right in front of their noses. It's an interpretive argument based on a trail of evidence. If we find microbes wriggling around on Mars, your choices will be "NASA faked it" and succumbing to the evidence. I'm sure there will be conspiracy theory nutjobs, but most people will simply have to accept that the life on other planets does, actually exist. And, once they do, the theological arguments about the "impossibility" of that life will mostly just melt away, like the (far stronger in terms of Biblical foundation) arguments about a geocentric universe. In the end you just say "Huh, God moves in mysterious ways" and go on much as you were.
The Christian problem of the antipodes, theoretical for over a millennium until Columbus made it real, shows a possible response to the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
But this, too, is a perfect example of how easy it is, in practice, to abandon purely theoretical tenets about what God "must" have done in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Neither Judeism, Islam nor Christianity was shaken even a tiny bit by the discovery of "antipodean" peoples. There was no mass abandonment of the faith or cursing the lies of the Church fathers or anything like that. It was just "huh, look at all these people. Oh well, time to pull up our converting-panties and spread the word!" The same thing will happen if we discover "intelligent" aliens. There'll be no shortage of missionaries glad to have new fields to bring the joyful news to.
posted by yoink at 10:49 AM on March 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The discovery of life on other planets is rather different from the theory of evolution. You can't, by and large, confront people directly with evolution happening right in front of their noses. It's an interpretive argument based on a trail of evidence. If we find microbes wriggling around on Mars, your choices will be "NASA faked it" and succumbing to the evidence. I'm sure there will be conspiracy theory nutjobs, but most people will simply have to accept that the life on other planets does, actually exist. And, once they do, the theological arguments about the "impossibility" of that life will mostly just melt away, like the (far stronger in terms of Biblical foundation) arguments about a geocentric universe. In the end you just say "Huh, God moves in mysterious ways" and go on much as you were.
The Christian problem of the antipodes, theoretical for over a millennium until Columbus made it real, shows a possible response to the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
But this, too, is a perfect example of how easy it is, in practice, to abandon purely theoretical tenets about what God "must" have done in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Neither Judeism, Islam nor Christianity was shaken even a tiny bit by the discovery of "antipodean" peoples. There was no mass abandonment of the faith or cursing the lies of the Church fathers or anything like that. It was just "huh, look at all these people. Oh well, time to pull up our converting-panties and spread the word!" The same thing will happen if we discover "intelligent" aliens. There'll be no shortage of missionaries glad to have new fields to bring the joyful news to.
posted by yoink at 10:49 AM on March 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
...a Betelgeusian slime-mold-squid Jesus who dried for their sins?
Nice. You win one internet.
posted by General Tonic at 11:49 AM on March 18, 2015
Nice. You win one internet.
posted by General Tonic at 11:49 AM on March 18, 2015
« Older "I'm concerned that if you wait 'til you have... | Yam cake for everybody! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
NOT TO MENTION GANYMEDE...
OH, AND ENCELADUS...
AND MAYBE CERES...
AND, UH...
posted by y2karl at 7:41 AM on March 17, 2015 [17 favorites]