From wiki entry on original sin. I found this rather fascinating...
In an interview entitled "Aliens Are My Brother", granted to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Father Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, stated: "In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists"; "intelligent beings, created by God may exist in outer space" and "some aliens could even be free from original sin" concluding "there could be (other beings) who remained in full friendship with their creator".[42] And on 5 March 2009, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, another astronomer working at the Vatican Observatory, told the BBC, in relation to the search for Earth-like worlds about to be embarked upon by the Kepler Space telescope, that "we Jesuits are actively involved in the search for Earth-like planets. The idea that there could be other intelligent creatures made by God in a relationship with God is not contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian thought. The Bible has many references to, or descriptions of, non-human intelligent beings; after all, that's what angels are. Our cousins on other planets may even have their own salvation story – including other examples of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. We are open to whatever the Universe has for us."[43]
Comments
Mind you, aliens are bound to have their own religions on their planets - vestigial cultural artefacts that organisations can exploit to gain authoritarian power. They'll recognise the God-based greeting from a Vatican astronomer/ambassador for what it is, and smile knowingly.
"Ooookaaay," they'll say. "Say, is there anyone else there we can talk to? Maybe whoever built your equipment, perhaps?"
It's not going to stop me!
Bit of a laugh if they turn out to be more closely related to earth plants than animals though.
Religion is consciousness searching for the meaning of its own existence. I don't find that unnatural at all.
Regards, Paul.
The more one studies quantum mechanics the more weird you realise it is. Nature's secrets are far from plumbed, whichever direction you look. And that includes secrets pertaining to biological evolution: Darwin didn't know anything about genes and DNA, and there's a lot that we still don't know; that only future generations will know.
Regards, Paul.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1356
Online here.
Perhaps the correct perspective is that q-m is natural and normal, and that our mindset, evolved in a large scale classical way, is weird.
If you were translating the bible into an alien language you would have reasonable grounds to interpret "Man" as "one of us" or "people" rather than referring to a specific species. There would seem to be a fair chance that anyone who could read it would be able to stretch the interpretation to refer to themselves.
Then again theres a whole lot of stuff it doesn't mention. Guinea-pigs for example. Glaciers. Set theory. Why mention aliens to trouble our poor little brains?
Not so sure religion is a necessary outcome. Philosophy perhaps, but I would not take theism or even supernaturalism as inevitable. There appear to be people who have no real interest in introspection so why not a whole species?
It's not just quantum mechanics that stretches our imagination. Wherever you look in science: cosmology, biology, neuroscience; they are all frontiers. Surely, the one thing we've learnt from studying nature, is that once you've uncovered one mystery another one lies underneath.
Nature's layers seem to be truly endless, yet we seem compelled to believe that we are always at the final layer.
Regards, Paul.
Every human culture has religion, so I think, yes, it is inevitable.
I don't necessarily equate religion with ignorance and stupidity - it has many different faces.
As for a belief in the transcendent, that has many faces as well. There is a strong tendency to put all religion and all religious believers in the same mould - that is fruit cake. I don't agree with that approach. Religion doesn't have to be theistic, but that doesn't make theists superior to atheists, or vice versa.
Regards, Paul.
Well thats just it - every human culture. What about non-human intelligence? Well we've got chimps, dolphins, elephants and dogs to look at. Maybe there is a threshold of intelligence which they don't cross but on the other hand could it be that there are ways of being intelligent to the extent of having a memory, a society, a model of the world and possibly a theory of mind without evolving a religion?
At what point would you suggest that a philosophical system e.g. Epicureanism or humanism crosses the boundary into being a religion? (Funny if aliens turn out to be humanists!!)
Mourning chimps ok its a Fox thing but heres a bit from Huffington as well here.
Marginallly more respectable is a bit on
elephants in Newscientist
I'm not going to comment on other species 'religious' beliefs - if they believe in the transcendental, which requires an awareness of death, then we are unaware of it. I believe a lot of species are aware of death; they all seem to fear it; but it doesn't answer the question. And, yes, I know elephants mourn their dead, as do primates, and so do many species I've observed, including dogs and birds.
In answer to your question regarding philosophy, it becomes religious when it considers the transcendental, which all cultures have done at some time. When they ask the question: is there something beyond life on Earth, effectively.
No one can provide an answer, but it has never stopped the question being asked.
Regards, Paul.
Is that an accepted definition? It seems a bit too broad to me. I'm sure that many philosophers have seriously considered the transcendent and either declared it out of scope or decided it does not alter their ideas about how to live ones life.
(Ayer springs to mind.)
Yes, it is a broad definition. It's a common sense definition, effectively.
If it's 'out of scope' then one assumes that the philosopher doesn't think it necessary to consider.
And I agree: one doesn't need to consider the transcendental for 'ideas about how to live one's life'.
But you asked me at what point does philosophy become religion, and I gave you a 'common sense' response. There are others here, far better qualified than me to provide an answer, I'm sure, but that's mine.
Regards, Paul.
Look, really look: the article said the aliens may be free of original sin -- did even one of you bother to look that up to see what it meant? I mean in a real book, from a credible source.
It's not about religion, but it may have something to do with a previous news item that told us the very best most effective and economically viable ecology strategy is to remove the humans, citing the vast improvements in the natural ecologies where ever humans have excluded themselves (eg the no-mans land between North and South Korea. That there may be alien beings out there who, like many of our own aboriginal tribes, never sought to exploit, pervert and ravage their environment, is that so terribly hard to imagine?
On the other hand, Vernor Vinge wrote a story “Original Sin” about a species with more original sin than humans.
On the gripping hand, R. A. Lafferty wrote a story “Name of the Snake” in which the aliens had original sin but the sins were different.