What’s most fascinating to me is the certainly with which they believed that other worlds were inhabited. Horace Walpole, for example, even abandoning his faith over the theological difficulties it presented. Hundreds of years later, however, we’re left with the Fermi Paradox.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't demonstrate that other worlds aren't inhabited, just that our assumptions about infinite exponential growth and resource consumption and the inevitability of interstellar civilizations emerging as a function of intelligent life may not apply.
Firstly, an "earth centred" cosmology did not assume all things were made for man. It held the earth was a small part of the solar system, which in turn was surrounded by far larger (infinite?) heavens.
It is also worth thinking about what Medieval people place at the very centre of the earth, and therefore the exact centre of the universe.
She mentions some possible answers to why Christ came to earth. One possible answer is that HE did not only come to earth. Another is that other species are redeemed in different ways. Another is that they will hear of Christ from us.
> It is also worth thinking about what Medieval people place at the very centre of the earth, and therefore the exact centre of the universe.
You mean Satan, as depicted in Dante's Inferno, yes? Certainly Satan thinks himself the center of the universe!
It seems to me (from summaries that I've read) that the Divine Comedy shows the one "center of the universe" at the bottom of hell to be a false center, the real center being at the peak of heaven, outside of the physical order altogether, in the depths of the Trinity's interrelations.
> Firstly, an "earth centred" cosmology did not assume all things were made for man.
Well, this one has sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole. In a previous life I was in relatively close academic proximity to Patricia Fara (author of OP). I doubt she'd make such a claim lightly. So I started chasing citations.
OP states at the start of the "Analogy and Conjecture" section:
> Earth-centred cosmologies had assumed that the universe had been designed specifically for human beings, but Newtonian modernisers deemed that it was only ‘according to the old vulgar Opinion, that all things were made for man’.
This passage looks to be carried over from a 2004 paper written by Fara [0]. The quotation "all things were made for man" is attributed to William Derham - an English clergyman, scientist, and contemporary of Newton - in a text titled "Astro-Theology" [1]. Derham's own reference for this is in fact another of his own texts titled "Physico-Theology" [2], in which he states:
> This was no very eafy queſtion to be anſwered by fuch as held, that all things were made for man ; as moſt of the ancients did ; as Ariftotle, Seneca, Cicero, and Pliny ( to name only fome of the chief) . And Cicero cites it as the celebrated Chryfippus's opinion, Præclarè enim Chryfippus, cætera nata eſſe bo- minum causâ, & deorum. " For Chryfippus rightly judged that all things were created for man and for the Gods."-De fin. bon. & mal. 1. 3. And in his De Nat. Deor. 1. 2. fin. he ſeri- riouſly proves the world itſelf to have been made for the Gods and man, and all things in the world to have been made and contrived for the benefit of man (parata , & inventa ad fructum hominum, are his words ) . So Pliny in his preface to his 7th book faith, Nature made all things for man ; but then he makes a doubt, whether the fhewed herſelf a more indulgent parent, or cruel ftep-mother, as in book iv. chap. 12. note 2. But fince the works of God have been more diſcovered, and the limits of the Univerfe have been found to be of infinitely greater extent than the ancients ſuppoſed them ; this narrow opinion hath been exploded. And the anfwer will be found cafy to theſe queſtions, Why fo many ufelefs creatures ? In the Heavens, Why fo many fix'd ftars, and the greateſt part of them ſcarce vifible ? Why fuch fyftems of planets, as in Jupiter, Saturn, & c. ( See my Aftro-Theology. ) In the earth and waters, Why fo many creatures of no ufe to man ?
It looks to me like Derham makes a pretty good case here for Fara's claim, at least in "most" of the ancient cosmologies.
Very partially. The first book of the Old Testament is mostly retellings of existing myths.
I agree clay tablets tell us about the origins of civilisation - but TBF she is writing about the "enlightenment". However, it clearly had multiple causes, including political and economic ones as well as new discoveries.
Absolutely. I was just referring to the invention of writing which is based on current understanding was done by Sumerians. It raises many questions in me, how did we end up with such a sophisticated language (and many other things like the sexagesimal number system for example).
The Bible is hardly based on the clay tables. Genesis, the first book of Moses, tells the story of the flood, which the Sumerian refer to as Gilgamesh.
The idea that other worlds would be your deal breaker on Christianity is strange. They were fine with two continents needing over a millennium to first hear about Jesus, but a plurality of worlds would be "irreconcilable."
Maybe they couldn't imagine space travel ever being possible?
> They were fine with two continents needing over a millennium to first hear about Jesus, but a plurality of worlds would be "irreconcilable."
I think there's many ways to think about this.
First, the place where Christ was supposed to have been born is "special". Clearly he (or god) chose to be born in some continent and not another. Now multiply to... how many planets are there in the universe? What's the chance that Earth in particular was a special planet to be born in?
Second, I think the tale of Christianity is meant to be both unique and universal. It's not "this is the shape it happens to have taken in our world", it's meant to be "this is the shape it universally takes" (e.g. "love one another [...]", what if aliens are biologically incapable of love? What if they are a hive mind? Etc). The lessons are meant to be for the cosmos. This excludes all other worlds, or at the very least it'd require a fundamental revision of what Christianity means.
Third, look at the time frames. How long did it take from Christ being born to natives in other continents being "saved"? Very little given the time life (not even human life) has existed on Earth. So if we're going with the "missionary" hypothesis, i.e. that people of Earth are supposed to evangelize to aliens all over the universe, how long is this going to take? Is this even technologically possible before the universe ends? Does this mean some aliens are doomed no matter what, because they live so far from us they'll never get to hear about Jesus?
I'm an atheist but I can see some sort of religion being created that encompasses all of the universe. It would have to be different to Christianity though. I think this is why these thinkers thought the "multiple worlds" hypothesis was at odds with their religion.
> First, the place where Christ was supposed to have been born is "special". Clearly he (or god) chose to be born in some continent and not another. Now multiply to... how many planets are there in the universe? What's the chance that Earth in particular was a special planet to be born in?
Some discussion:
> When asked how aliens could be redeemed, [Vatican Observatory head] Father Funes referred to the Gospel parable of the lost sheep. Aliens, he speculated, could already be redeemed because they could have remained in full friendship with God, while the human race “could be precisely the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd.”
> But what if they were sinners like us? Father Funes replied that just as Jesus is believed to have come to save mankind, so he was sure that they, “in some way, would have the chance to enjoy God’s mercy.”
[…]
> The question has also been debated within the Church since the Middle Ages and was discussed by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, whose fictional “Space Trilogy” featured extraterrestrial beings.
Thanks for the reply! Upvoted your comment because it's genuine discussion.
I have to say I disagree though, or rather, I find Funes unconvincing (hey, a fellow Argentine!). First, it's just his personal opinion and not that of the Vatican or any official dogma, and I have no doubt individual Christians can still believe regardless of whatever happens in the cosmos. I think the "Enlightenment" perspective from the article is more about deeply thinking about the consequences and whether the idea of the Christian god is compatible with intelligent life in multiple planets.
I think Funes' line of thought is a bit of hand waving, and essentially an "I choose to believe regardless". For example:
> Aliens, he speculated, could already be redeemed because they could have remained in full friendship with God, while the human race “could be precisely the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd.”
Well, yes... but the story of the original sin and humans needing redemption, us being "lost sheep", Christ dying "for our sins", etc, are all fundamental to Christianity. They are not an "accident", they ARE the religion. If you remove this aspect (e.g. because hypothetical aliens don't need redemption) then it turns into something entirely different. You cannot excise this from Christianity and still have it remain the same religion at a fundamental level.
Also, this humanizes aliens too much. What if the alien lifeform is a highly intelligent hive mind comprised of cannibalistic entities with no notion of the self (as we understand it)? Are they "already saved"? Or should they be redeemed? And how, exactly?
This is still an Earth- and human-centered point of view. I believe this is what all those philosophers considered at odds with the sentience on multiple worlds hypothesis.
I can see a different religion still being compatible with multiple worlds, but not Christianity.
What you say about Jesus' redemption being essential to Christianity is true. But you ask, what forms can this redemption take? Catholics like myself believe that Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless her whole life by cooperating with the graces God gave her at every moment. At what moment did Jesus' crucifixion "save" her? At the moment of her conception—which, mysteriously, occurs before the crucifixion in time. So Mary never fell, but was saved from falling from the very start, and continued to be saved every moment of her earthly life.
From her example it's no large leap to say that other rational animals might also have been saved precisely by being prevented from falling. Still Mary would retain the special privilege of being the Mother of God. But there is plenty of room in the hierarchy of being for other unfallen men below her.
As for hive minds and such, once we identify a will in the action of any set of material, that set of material should be recognized as a single person. The field of metaphysics will no doubt help us find the right times to apply the words "rational", "animal", "man", "human", etc. to any new and strange physical configurations we discover. The key will be finding the boundary between one single will and another, whether or not that corresponds to what we would call a "stable" "physical" boundary.
Particularly I don't think referring to a "notion of the self" helps the search for these things, since the Christian view is not that any animal's "notion of self" generates its intelligence, but that God Himself infuses intelligence where He wills, and any creature's "notion of self" at one time or another is merely a result, not the cause, of its intelligence—and I even think it's possible to have either one without the other.
If you've got the time and interest, check out Dr. Paul Thigpen's book Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith, a fantastic overview of the debate over extraterrestrial life in the context of Christian history. The author's thesis is that the existence or nonexistence of extraterrestrial life—in any of a multitude of forms—poses no threat to the Christian, and particularly Catholic, faith.
Space travel isn't currently possible. It ever becoming possible is pure speculation on your part. No man has ever left the Earth and set up shop elsewhere and lived. None. Zilch. It's science fiction.
Space travel is not science fiction. Living somewhere other than Earth permanently is science fiction.
Science fiction often becomes reality. There are companies, governments, and NGOs working on extraterrestrial habitation as we discuss this. While it will be expensive and make many rather unhappy, it will likely happen… assuming that humankind doesn’t annihilate itself first.
Yes, in the same way that affordable flying cars are science fiction. The technology is known in theory; we just have (possibly insurmountable) political, financial, and legal hurdles to overcome before it will become possible.
Not really comparable. Flying cars are not technological fiction, they're just called helicopters, it's just that from a economic/ecology POV they make no sense.
It miht be science fiction but before the space race traveling to the moon was science fiction too. Yet we did not only travel to the moon but actually walk on it.
I don't have any doubts that at some point humanity will find a way to do interstellar travel. Though I doubt it will happen in our lifetime
But we have sent probes to other worlds? What is science fiction about this?
A manned mission to Mars is entirely feasible with current technology. In fact I'd argue it'd have been feasible with 1980s technology, it was simply costly. If we (we as in humankind) wanted, we could have a base on Mars for some time now.
Who is to say what our capabilities will be in 50 years? In 100 years?
A manned mission to another solar system is going to be very-very difficult, we'd need generational space ship/habitats. Note that difficult is not the same as impossible. Such a ship could be feasibly constructed with modern day technology, but it would be enormously costly so there was no motivation to do it.
I'd agree with your point that a mission to another galaxy is basically unimaginable with technology we can realistically theorize about today. We'd need extremely exotic physics which are unlikely to be doable ever.
> But we have sent probes to other worlds? What is science fiction about this?
Probes aren't space travel for humans.
> A manned mission to Mars is entirely feasible with current technology.
As no manned missions to Mars have ever proven this conjecture, it is still entirely speculation on your part.
> A manned mission to another solar system is going to be very-very difficult, we'd need generational space ship/habitats. Note that difficult is not the same as impossible.
No, it is impossible. Humans cannot survive in space that long. Never have, currently can't, and there's no precedent to assume it ever becomes possible. Pure speculation on your part.
Sometimes Science Fiction is confused with Fantasy, but as far as it means "fiction about things that are scientifically possible but don't exist" I'd say traveling to other planets is SF. Traveling to other worlds (ie. interstellar) is fantasy. And living on other planets (terraforming) or outer space is somewhere in the middle: technically not impossible but very undesirable without major future tech.
There are people living in space stations right now? Are you saying rockets are fake or do you mean that we don't have any permanent habitats on other planets?
They are not living in space, they are temporary visitors on an unstable structure that requires constant resupply from Earth, absent of which they will all die and the structure falls back to Earth and is destroyed. Even with indefinite resupply, astronauts have to return to Earth for health reasons, because our bodies did not evolve / were not designed for space. Astronauts get irradiated and lose reproductive fertility.
I can't really find where your line for "space travel" is. Humans on earth need resupply from other parts of earth, the bases on Antarctica are about equally as unhospitable towards humans, not to mention cruise ships where some people live aboard for years at a time.
Heck, my own house is an unsustainable habitat that requires constant resupply.
odd to say Newton wrote nothing about "celestial" life when the volme of his esoteric work outweighs his scientific work by orders of magnitude. aliens don't really break any theologies either, as the idea of people being vehicles for God's ethics vs. that of the rest of nature tracks across most of them.
I love alien theories because they are the perfect example of a critical theory that provides a post-hoc explanation to literally everything as the logic of the idea. Astrology is another one, conspiracy theories about a malignant state is another, dialictic materialism and its transhumanist descendents just happen to be the prevailing one, simulation theory is an emergent one.
whats nice about the aliens one is that if there were aliens among us, the implications about how we must seem to other beings on earth is an analogy, and it asks us to consider how we would hope for our own stewards to behave toward us and what ethical ownership should be.
Sometimes reading things like this from the Enlightenment period, I wonder how humans can move backwards so much. Within last 100 years we developed atom bomb, went to moon and yet we can still have the current anti-science religious radicals in the US. They can be driving a car full of technical marvels, and have an iPhone, but still believe in creationism and that the earth is 6000 years old.
Then, see article like this, and realize, people were having some pretty advanced ideas in the 1800's.
Humanity has not moved backwards. Just more people vulnerable to certain kinds of memes have the ability to publish them to a big audience. Even if we have billions of people believing nonsense, we still have billions moving forward.
That, but also with the vast amount of information at our fingertips, we are finding out how big and complex our societies and world really is. It is too much for some to handle and process, so they like to boil it down into simple terms that make sense to them. Hence, conspiracy theories and memes.
I wonder how much articles like this are popping up as the hive mind of humanity becomes aware of the phenomenon that exceeds our physics watching us as years of government suppression finally cracks. Watching Lue Elizondo going on the daily show with his clinical understatement being met by the interviewer yelling "you're talking about fucking aliens man!"
Its been wild to me to see people start to grapple with the evidence. Good to know the thought of life elsewhere has a long pedigree.
Seems like the article is making fun of these claims more than anything.
> The plurality of worlds debates provided wonderful opportunities to make definitive pronouncements without the inconvenience of providing solid evidence: after all, it was impossible to be proved wrong.
Almost all (all?) ideas in the article are philosophical arguments from Enlightenment thinkers. I wouldn't call this "evidence" for the existence or absence of aliens.
What evidence is there of aliens that people are starting to grapple with?
What’s most fascinating to me is the certainly with which they believed that other worlds were inhabited. Horace Walpole, for example, even abandoning his faith over the theological difficulties it presented. Hundreds of years later, however, we’re left with the Fermi Paradox.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't demonstrate that other worlds aren't inhabited, just that our assumptions about infinite exponential growth and resource consumption and the inevitability of interstellar civilizations emerging as a function of intelligent life may not apply.
This is full of distortions and omissions.
Firstly, an "earth centred" cosmology did not assume all things were made for man. It held the earth was a small part of the solar system, which in turn was surrounded by far larger (infinite?) heavens.
It is also worth thinking about what Medieval people place at the very centre of the earth, and therefore the exact centre of the universe.
She mentions some possible answers to why Christ came to earth. One possible answer is that HE did not only come to earth. Another is that other species are redeemed in different ways. Another is that they will hear of Christ from us.
> It is also worth thinking about what Medieval people place at the very centre of the earth, and therefore the exact centre of the universe.
You mean Satan, as depicted in Dante's Inferno, yes? Certainly Satan thinks himself the center of the universe!
It seems to me (from summaries that I've read) that the Divine Comedy shows the one "center of the universe" at the bottom of hell to be a false center, the real center being at the peak of heaven, outside of the physical order altogether, in the depths of the Trinity's interrelations.
> Firstly, an "earth centred" cosmology did not assume all things were made for man.
Well, this one has sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole. In a previous life I was in relatively close academic proximity to Patricia Fara (author of OP). I doubt she'd make such a claim lightly. So I started chasing citations.
OP states at the start of the "Analogy and Conjecture" section:
> Earth-centred cosmologies had assumed that the universe had been designed specifically for human beings, but Newtonian modernisers deemed that it was only ‘according to the old vulgar Opinion, that all things were made for man’.
This passage looks to be carried over from a 2004 paper written by Fara [0]. The quotation "all things were made for man" is attributed to William Derham - an English clergyman, scientist, and contemporary of Newton - in a text titled "Astro-Theology" [1]. Derham's own reference for this is in fact another of his own texts titled "Physico-Theology" [2], in which he states:
> This was no very eafy queſtion to be anſwered by fuch as held, that all things were made for man ; as moſt of the ancients did ; as Ariftotle, Seneca, Cicero, and Pliny ( to name only fome of the chief) . And Cicero cites it as the celebrated Chryfippus's opinion, Præclarè enim Chryfippus, cætera nata eſſe bo- minum causâ, & deorum. " For Chryfippus rightly judged that all things were created for man and for the Gods."-De fin. bon. & mal. 1. 3. And in his De Nat. Deor. 1. 2. fin. he ſeri- riouſly proves the world itſelf to have been made for the Gods and man, and all things in the world to have been made and contrived for the benefit of man (parata , & inventa ad fructum hominum, are his words ) . So Pliny in his preface to his 7th book faith, Nature made all things for man ; but then he makes a doubt, whether the fhewed herſelf a more indulgent parent, or cruel ftep-mother, as in book iv. chap. 12. note 2. But fince the works of God have been more diſcovered, and the limits of the Univerfe have been found to be of infinitely greater extent than the ancients ſuppoſed them ; this narrow opinion hath been exploded. And the anfwer will be found cafy to theſe queſtions, Why fo many ufelefs creatures ? In the Heavens, Why fo many fix'd ftars, and the greateſt part of them ſcarce vifible ? Why fuch fyftems of planets, as in Jupiter, Saturn, & c. ( See my Aftro-Theology. ) In the earth and waters, Why fo many creatures of no ufe to man ?
It looks to me like Derham makes a pretty good case here for Fara's claim, at least in "most" of the ancient cosmologies.
[0] "Heavenly bodies: Newtonianism, natural theology and the plurality of worlds debate in the eighteenth century", p.149. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2004JHA....35..143...
[1] "Astro-theology Or a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from a Survey of the Heavens", Book 2, Chap 2, p.18. https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&hl=fr&id=GpjG22...
[2] "Physico-theology Or, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from His Works of Creation", Book 2, Chap 6, p.5. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Physico_theology/Ouk_...
[flagged]
"We gave him this big box of chocolates when he first arrived. Why? What'd you guys do?"
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20081124.gif
I thought of that too! Love it.
The version I like best is:
Aliens arrive on earth and visit various people. The first religious leader they meet is the Pope "Do you know our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?".
"Yes, he comes by every few years".
"Every few years? We have been waiting two thousand years for him to come back!"
"Maybe he does not like your chocolates"
"What do chocolates have to do with it?"
"When he first visited us we gave him a big box of chocolates. What did you do?"
I think the Sumerian clay tablets (that is the bible is partially based of) reveal a lot more about the origins of human civilizations.
Very partially. The first book of the Old Testament is mostly retellings of existing myths.
I agree clay tablets tell us about the origins of civilisation - but TBF she is writing about the "enlightenment". However, it clearly had multiple causes, including political and economic ones as well as new discoveries.
Absolutely. I was just referring to the invention of writing which is based on current understanding was done by Sumerians. It raises many questions in me, how did we end up with such a sophisticated language (and many other things like the sexagesimal number system for example).
The Bible is hardly based on the clay tables. Genesis, the first book of Moses, tells the story of the flood, which the Sumerian refer to as Gilgamesh.
AFAIK the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Bible by thousands of years.
"There must be some more land somewhere", a very old idea.
The idea that other worlds would be your deal breaker on Christianity is strange. They were fine with two continents needing over a millennium to first hear about Jesus, but a plurality of worlds would be "irreconcilable."
Maybe they couldn't imagine space travel ever being possible?
> The idea that other worlds would be your deal breaker on Christianity is strange.
"Vatican Holds Conference on Extraterrestrial Life":
* https://www.universetoday.com/44713/vatican-holds-conference...
* https://phys.org/news/2009-11-vatican-extra-terrestrial-life...
* https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican-discusses-extraterres...
See also the book Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?, co-authored by the director of the Vatican Observatory (Br. Guy Consolmagno, SJ):
* https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228109/would-you-ba...
If only Horace Walpole had lived another 212 years and been Catholic. Then he might not have considered them irreconcilable.
> They were fine with two continents needing over a millennium to first hear about Jesus, but a plurality of worlds would be "irreconcilable."
I think there's many ways to think about this.
First, the place where Christ was supposed to have been born is "special". Clearly he (or god) chose to be born in some continent and not another. Now multiply to... how many planets are there in the universe? What's the chance that Earth in particular was a special planet to be born in?
Second, I think the tale of Christianity is meant to be both unique and universal. It's not "this is the shape it happens to have taken in our world", it's meant to be "this is the shape it universally takes" (e.g. "love one another [...]", what if aliens are biologically incapable of love? What if they are a hive mind? Etc). The lessons are meant to be for the cosmos. This excludes all other worlds, or at the very least it'd require a fundamental revision of what Christianity means.
Third, look at the time frames. How long did it take from Christ being born to natives in other continents being "saved"? Very little given the time life (not even human life) has existed on Earth. So if we're going with the "missionary" hypothesis, i.e. that people of Earth are supposed to evangelize to aliens all over the universe, how long is this going to take? Is this even technologically possible before the universe ends? Does this mean some aliens are doomed no matter what, because they live so far from us they'll never get to hear about Jesus?
I'm an atheist but I can see some sort of religion being created that encompasses all of the universe. It would have to be different to Christianity though. I think this is why these thinkers thought the "multiple worlds" hypothesis was at odds with their religion.
> First, the place where Christ was supposed to have been born is "special". Clearly he (or god) chose to be born in some continent and not another. Now multiply to... how many planets are there in the universe? What's the chance that Earth in particular was a special planet to be born in?
Some discussion:
> When asked how aliens could be redeemed, [Vatican Observatory head] Father Funes referred to the Gospel parable of the lost sheep. Aliens, he speculated, could already be redeemed because they could have remained in full friendship with God, while the human race “could be precisely the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd.”
> But what if they were sinners like us? Father Funes replied that just as Jesus is believed to have come to save mankind, so he was sure that they, “in some way, would have the chance to enjoy God’s mercy.”
[…]
> The question has also been debated within the Church since the Middle Ages and was discussed by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, whose fictional “Space Trilogy” featured extraterrestrial beings.
* https://www.ncregister.com/news/alien-life-out-there
Thanks for the reply! Upvoted your comment because it's genuine discussion.
I have to say I disagree though, or rather, I find Funes unconvincing (hey, a fellow Argentine!). First, it's just his personal opinion and not that of the Vatican or any official dogma, and I have no doubt individual Christians can still believe regardless of whatever happens in the cosmos. I think the "Enlightenment" perspective from the article is more about deeply thinking about the consequences and whether the idea of the Christian god is compatible with intelligent life in multiple planets.
I think Funes' line of thought is a bit of hand waving, and essentially an "I choose to believe regardless". For example:
> Aliens, he speculated, could already be redeemed because they could have remained in full friendship with God, while the human race “could be precisely the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd.”
Well, yes... but the story of the original sin and humans needing redemption, us being "lost sheep", Christ dying "for our sins", etc, are all fundamental to Christianity. They are not an "accident", they ARE the religion. If you remove this aspect (e.g. because hypothetical aliens don't need redemption) then it turns into something entirely different. You cannot excise this from Christianity and still have it remain the same religion at a fundamental level.
Also, this humanizes aliens too much. What if the alien lifeform is a highly intelligent hive mind comprised of cannibalistic entities with no notion of the self (as we understand it)? Are they "already saved"? Or should they be redeemed? And how, exactly?
This is still an Earth- and human-centered point of view. I believe this is what all those philosophers considered at odds with the sentience on multiple worlds hypothesis.
I can see a different religion still being compatible with multiple worlds, but not Christianity.
What you say about Jesus' redemption being essential to Christianity is true. But you ask, what forms can this redemption take? Catholics like myself believe that Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless her whole life by cooperating with the graces God gave her at every moment. At what moment did Jesus' crucifixion "save" her? At the moment of her conception—which, mysteriously, occurs before the crucifixion in time. So Mary never fell, but was saved from falling from the very start, and continued to be saved every moment of her earthly life.
From her example it's no large leap to say that other rational animals might also have been saved precisely by being prevented from falling. Still Mary would retain the special privilege of being the Mother of God. But there is plenty of room in the hierarchy of being for other unfallen men below her.
As for hive minds and such, once we identify a will in the action of any set of material, that set of material should be recognized as a single person. The field of metaphysics will no doubt help us find the right times to apply the words "rational", "animal", "man", "human", etc. to any new and strange physical configurations we discover. The key will be finding the boundary between one single will and another, whether or not that corresponds to what we would call a "stable" "physical" boundary.
Particularly I don't think referring to a "notion of the self" helps the search for these things, since the Christian view is not that any animal's "notion of self" generates its intelligence, but that God Himself infuses intelligence where He wills, and any creature's "notion of self" at one time or another is merely a result, not the cause, of its intelligence—and I even think it's possible to have either one without the other.
If you've got the time and interest, check out Dr. Paul Thigpen's book Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith, a fantastic overview of the debate over extraterrestrial life in the context of Christian history. The author's thesis is that the existence or nonexistence of extraterrestrial life—in any of a multitude of forms—poses no threat to the Christian, and particularly Catholic, faith.
Space travel isn't currently possible. It ever becoming possible is pure speculation on your part. No man has ever left the Earth and set up shop elsewhere and lived. None. Zilch. It's science fiction.
Space travel is not science fiction. Living somewhere other than Earth permanently is science fiction.
Science fiction often becomes reality. There are companies, governments, and NGOs working on extraterrestrial habitation as we discuss this. While it will be expensive and make many rather unhappy, it will likely happen… assuming that humankind doesn’t annihilate itself first.
Yes, in the same way that affordable flying cars are science fiction. The technology is known in theory; we just have (possibly insurmountable) political, financial, and legal hurdles to overcome before it will become possible.
Not really comparable. Flying cars are not technological fiction, they're just called helicopters, it's just that from a economic/ecology POV they make no sense.
Space travel between worlds is SF.
It miht be science fiction but before the space race traveling to the moon was science fiction too. Yet we did not only travel to the moon but actually walk on it.
I don't have any doubts that at some point humanity will find a way to do interstellar travel. Though I doubt it will happen in our lifetime
But we have sent probes to other worlds? What is science fiction about this?
A manned mission to Mars is entirely feasible with current technology. In fact I'd argue it'd have been feasible with 1980s technology, it was simply costly. If we (we as in humankind) wanted, we could have a base on Mars for some time now.
Who is to say what our capabilities will be in 50 years? In 100 years?
A manned mission to another solar system is going to be very-very difficult, we'd need generational space ship/habitats. Note that difficult is not the same as impossible. Such a ship could be feasibly constructed with modern day technology, but it would be enormously costly so there was no motivation to do it.
I'd agree with your point that a mission to another galaxy is basically unimaginable with technology we can realistically theorize about today. We'd need extremely exotic physics which are unlikely to be doable ever.
> But we have sent probes to other worlds? What is science fiction about this?
Probes aren't space travel for humans.
> A manned mission to Mars is entirely feasible with current technology.
As no manned missions to Mars have ever proven this conjecture, it is still entirely speculation on your part.
> A manned mission to another solar system is going to be very-very difficult, we'd need generational space ship/habitats. Note that difficult is not the same as impossible.
No, it is impossible. Humans cannot survive in space that long. Never have, currently can't, and there's no precedent to assume it ever becomes possible. Pure speculation on your part.
Sometimes Science Fiction is confused with Fantasy, but as far as it means "fiction about things that are scientifically possible but don't exist" I'd say traveling to other planets is SF. Traveling to other worlds (ie. interstellar) is fantasy. And living on other planets (terraforming) or outer space is somewhere in the middle: technically not impossible but very undesirable without major future tech.
Fans of space colonization are encouraged to read: a City on Mars by Weinersmiths, https://www.acityonmars.com/
There are people living in space stations right now? Are you saying rockets are fake or do you mean that we don't have any permanent habitats on other planets?
E.g. https://whoisinspace.com/
They are not living in space, they are temporary visitors on an unstable structure that requires constant resupply from Earth, absent of which they will all die and the structure falls back to Earth and is destroyed. Even with indefinite resupply, astronauts have to return to Earth for health reasons, because our bodies did not evolve / were not designed for space. Astronauts get irradiated and lose reproductive fertility.
I can't really find where your line for "space travel" is. Humans on earth need resupply from other parts of earth, the bases on Antarctica are about equally as unhospitable towards humans, not to mention cruise ships where some people live aboard for years at a time.
Heck, my own house is an unsustainable habitat that requires constant resupply.
We are lose reproductive fertility on earth too.
odd to say Newton wrote nothing about "celestial" life when the volme of his esoteric work outweighs his scientific work by orders of magnitude. aliens don't really break any theologies either, as the idea of people being vehicles for God's ethics vs. that of the rest of nature tracks across most of them.
I love alien theories because they are the perfect example of a critical theory that provides a post-hoc explanation to literally everything as the logic of the idea. Astrology is another one, conspiracy theories about a malignant state is another, dialictic materialism and its transhumanist descendents just happen to be the prevailing one, simulation theory is an emergent one.
whats nice about the aliens one is that if there were aliens among us, the implications about how we must seem to other beings on earth is an analogy, and it asks us to consider how we would hope for our own stewards to behave toward us and what ethical ownership should be.
Sometimes reading things like this from the Enlightenment period, I wonder how humans can move backwards so much. Within last 100 years we developed atom bomb, went to moon and yet we can still have the current anti-science religious radicals in the US. They can be driving a car full of technical marvels, and have an iPhone, but still believe in creationism and that the earth is 6000 years old.
Then, see article like this, and realize, people were having some pretty advanced ideas in the 1800's.
Humanity has not moved backwards. Just more people vulnerable to certain kinds of memes have the ability to publish them to a big audience. Even if we have billions of people believing nonsense, we still have billions moving forward.
> people vulnerable to certain kinds of memes
That, but also with the vast amount of information at our fingertips, we are finding out how big and complex our societies and world really is. It is too much for some to handle and process, so they like to boil it down into simple terms that make sense to them. Hence, conspiracy theories and memes.
I worry about when the line gets crossed, when there are more non-science group and outweighs the making-progress group.
I'm just surprised that in the modern world, it isn't 99%-1%.
In US it is more like 45%(burn the witches) -to- 55%(yeah, I'll take a measles vaccine so my kids don't die).
[dead]
Disappointed, I thought this was going to be about the window manager. /s
I wonder how much articles like this are popping up as the hive mind of humanity becomes aware of the phenomenon that exceeds our physics watching us as years of government suppression finally cracks. Watching Lue Elizondo going on the daily show with his clinical understatement being met by the interviewer yelling "you're talking about fucking aliens man!"
Its been wild to me to see people start to grapple with the evidence. Good to know the thought of life elsewhere has a long pedigree.
Seems like the article is making fun of these claims more than anything.
> The plurality of worlds debates provided wonderful opportunities to make definitive pronouncements without the inconvenience of providing solid evidence: after all, it was impossible to be proved wrong.
Almost all (all?) ideas in the article are philosophical arguments from Enlightenment thinkers. I wouldn't call this "evidence" for the existence or absence of aliens.
What evidence is there of aliens that people are starting to grapple with?