Friday, June 13, 2008

How would Christian react to aliens?


ooooooooooweeeeeee does Shaun know how to drop a bomb in the middle of a blog! Dr. Saunders sends in an article from Wired.com that asks the question of how the religious community would react to visitors from another world. The Vatican's chief astronomer says the Catholic Church would welcome them as brothers. hummmmmmm.... isn't this the same church that imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth revolves around the sun?

In the article: many observers assert that aliens would be bad for believers. Jill Tarter, director of the Center for SETI Research, once wrote that finding intelligent other-worldly life "will be inconsistent with the existence of God or at least organized religions." Now that sentiment is fairly common of those outside Christianity.

Theologians respond: Since God created the universe, he would have created aliens, too. And far from being weakened by contact, Christianity would adapt. Its doctrines would be interpreted anew, the aliens greeted with open arms.

The article is an honest look at how Christians might view alien visitors and how their religion might adapt. Excellent questions are brought up like, how does Christ himself fit into the picture? What is the meaning of this visit to our race at that time?

The article is heady and thought provoking if nothing else. Worth a read.

Click here for the complete Wired.com article

3 comments:

S.M.D. said...

And therein lies the problem with organized religion: it's inconsistent because it must adapt to new information. If we looked back through the ages of organized religion we'll see it has been proven wrong over and over and over again, and the religion is forced to change. I just have problems with that :P

Paul said...

It should go without saying that a phenom outside the observers world view is an instant inconsistency. To describe the even, one must use agreed upon metaphors. It's these "interpretations" that then become aural or written history. It is not much of a stretch to say then that the observed and recorded event are possibly two completely different events over any significant amount of time. What am I trying to say? Anyone that takes a 3 thousand year old oft retold document as the literal truth is setting themselves up for failure. Plus this works both ways. Our own version of history is often treated like inviolate religious dogma - every bit resistant to change. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, the person who will benefit the most may be the one who is willing to modify his paradigm.

Shaun said...

God I have no problem with, but millenia of organised madness parading as grotesque fairy tales, yes indeed.

On the subject of organised religion, I would hope that other 'intelligent' lifeforms in the universe would choose to think for themselves (and, for our sake, be rather more tolerant)...