3 ms·

> What functionally changes for our existential understanding of the universe? The anthropic principal becomes less compelling; to say nothing of the religious

> What functionally changes for our existential understanding of the universe? The anthropic principal becomes less compelling; to say nothing of the religious implications.

pfdietz 7y ago
No, because the origin of life on Mars would probably be the same event as on Earth, with life having been transferred by impact ejecta. It would not allow us to conclude that origin of life was common.
- dleslie 7y ago
  Perhaps, or perhaps it's different enough that it most likely developed independently.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    In which case, why haven't we seen it already on Earth? Life will have been transferred back and forth between Earth and Mars for billions of years.
jacquesm 7y ago
Religion will have absolutely no problem to adapt to new information and incorporate it as though it had always been there. This has happened time and again in the past to the point where the religions of old would have been in direct contradiction with even the most basic scientific knowledge if they didn't adapt. The funny thing is that the so-called holy books are full of stuff that no sane human would believe in. That doesn't stop a lot of people from doing just that when those books are creatively re-interpreted by intermediaries. Religion will last for a very long time into the future, forget about major lasting change on that front other than some rearguard action to ensure survival.
- dleslie 7y ago
  I did not intend to state the implications are the end of religion; simply that many faithful will alter their faith, in no small manner.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I highly doubt that. If the genetics, the silicon revolution, access to space imagery, quality education, the internet and science in general did not alter faith in a drastic way I don't think 'life on Mars' is going to do anything either unless it comes in the form of little green creatures.
    - dleslie 7y ago
      Curious that you don't recognize a significant shift in religious thought in the last century.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        What shift would that be? Until the 1970's or so it was getting better, since then it's gotten worse if anything. On the Christian side we have whole continents that are following some cliff notes' version of Christianity, mostly centered around money and some opportunistic politics. On the Islamic side a small group of fanatics has managed to divide the world in a way that seemed unthinkable 25 years ago and so on.
    - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
      Yup. It's like how many religious people differentiate between "evolution" and "microevolution," with the latter (basically) encompassing whatever evolution happens to have been experimentally witnessed, no matter how drastic. Generally anything involving bacteria gets lumped into this latter category.
mindcrime 7y ago
Nah... religious people don't depend on reason, logic, evidence, etc. They can (and will) always absorb any new discovery and incorporate it into their belief systems in such a way that it doesn't invalidate anything they already believe. Some people think Christians would have a hard time with extra-Terran life because the Bible doesn't mention any life other than the life here, and therefore any such life would arguably be free from the weight of Original Sin, yada yada yada. But I'm pretty sure if life on another planet was discovered (even intelligent life) they would just reinterpret the Biblical references that seem to refer to "Earth" as referring to "The Universe" and make "The Garden of Eden" a metaphor, and the flaming sword would become a supernova, blah, etc., yada, blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, approximately 0.0% of Christians would say "Hmm... the Bible is obviously incomplete and or inaccurate, so maybe the whole thing is a load of bollocks" or whatever. And I expect it would be about the same for every other faith.

> What functionally changes for our existential understanding of the universe? The anthropic principal becomes less compelling; to say nothing of the religious implications.

pfdietz 7y ago

No, because the origin of life on Mars would probably be the same event as on Earth, with life having been transferred by impact ejecta. It would not allow us to conclude that origin of life was common.

dleslie 7y ago
Perhaps, or perhaps it's different enough that it most likely developed independently.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  In which case, why haven't we seen it already on Earth? Life will have been transferred back and forth between Earth and Mars for billions of years.

jacquesm 7y ago

Religion will have absolutely no problem to adapt to new information and incorporate it as though it had always been there. This has happened time and again in the past to the point where the religions of old would have been in direct contradiction with even the most basic scientific knowledge if they didn't adapt. The funny thing is that the so-called holy books are full of stuff that no sane human would believe in. That doesn't stop a lot of people from doing just that when those books are creatively re-interpreted by intermediaries. Religion will last for a very long time into the future, forget about major lasting change on that front other than some rearguard action to ensure survival.

dleslie 7y ago
I did not intend to state the implications are the end of religion; simply that many faithful will alter their faith, in no small manner.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I highly doubt that. If the genetics, the silicon revolution, access to space imagery, quality education, the internet and science in general did not alter faith in a drastic way I don't think 'life on Mars' is going to do anything either unless it comes in the form of little green creatures.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    Curious that you don't recognize a significant shift in religious thought in the last century.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      What shift would that be? Until the 1970's or so it was getting better, since then it's gotten worse if anything. On the Christian side we have whole continents that are following some cliff notes' version of Christianity, mostly centered around money and some opportunistic politics. On the Islamic side a small group of fanatics has managed to divide the world in a way that seemed unthinkable 25 years ago and so on.
  - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
    Yup. It's like how many religious people differentiate between "evolution" and "microevolution," with the latter (basically) encompassing whatever evolution happens to have been experimentally witnessed, no matter how drastic. Generally anything involving bacteria gets lumped into this latter category.

mindcrime 7y ago

Nah... religious people don't depend on reason, logic, evidence, etc. They can (and will) always absorb any new discovery and incorporate it into their belief systems in such a way that it doesn't invalidate anything they already believe. Some people think Christians would have a hard time with extra-Terran life because the Bible doesn't mention any life other than the life here, and therefore any such life would arguably be free from the weight of Original Sin, yada yada yada. But I'm pretty sure if life on another planet was discovered (even intelligent life) they would just reinterpret the Biblical references that seem to refer to "Earth" as referring to "The Universe" and make "The Garden of Eden" a metaphor, and the flaming sword would become a supernova, blah, etc., yada, blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, approximately 0.0% of Christians would say "Hmm... the Bible is obviously incomplete and or inaccurate, so maybe the whole thing is a load of bollocks" or whatever. And I expect it would be about the same for every other faith.