4 ms·

> 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 multipl

> 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 https://www.ncregister.com/news/alien-life-out-there

the_af 2y ago
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.
- owendlamb 2y ago
  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.

the_af 2y ago

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.

owendlamb 2y ago
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.