…with the James Web Telescope looking for sources of artificial light to identify potential intelligent life, and the news this week of Perseverance searching for microbial life on Mars it feels like we are getting closer to a major discovery. But what - if anything - would it mean for the religions on Earth if life is proven to exist out there?

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So, fun fact, St Augustine, who is considered one of the Church Fathers, explicitly argued that if the ‘Antipodes’ (i.e., southern continents not connected to Europe, Asia or Africa) actually existed and had humans living there, that would prove the Gospel was untrue.

    The reason for this is as follows: Christians of his era believed that the reason God had allowed the Romans to destroy the Second Temple and push the Jews into exile was to prepare the men of all nations (as understood at the time) for the coming of the Gospel. The idea was that the Jews had taken the Old Testament, and the prophecies of the Messiah therein, across the whole world. Augustine argues that if the Antipodes contained human beings who had never had any kind of contact with Jews, and therefore no contact with the OT, and no contact with Christians, and therefore no contact with the New Testament, either, that must mean the Gospels are false. Why? Because there’s no conceivable reason that a just God would have deprived entire civilisations of the chance of redemption.

    Of course, we now know that at the time Augustine was writing (4th-5th century AD), there were literally millions of people who had never had the slightest contact with the Jews or Christians and, furthermore, wouldn’t do so for another millennium. So, per Augustine’s argument, all those millions were condemned to Hell (the concept of Purgatory didn’t exist at this point, but condemning them all to no chance of Heaven, just because they were unfortunate to be born a long way away from Jersualem, is clearly also unjust). Either God is incredibly unjust and unmerciful, which means the Gospels are untrue, OR the Good News wasn’t actually spread to all men, which must also mean that they’re not true.

    The upshot of this is that one of the Church Fathers has, in retrospect, irrefutably argued that the Gospels are untrue. The amount of special pleading required to make out that, actually, the Maori or the Easter Islanders or [insert any other uncontacted peoples here] had an opportunity to accept Christ and somehow missed it entirely is far beyond any sane interpretation of the evidence.

    Now, as you might have noticed, this hasn’t stopped people from believing in the Gospels. I don’t see why the discovery of life on another world would dislodge people from a belief that is transparently false when nothing else has.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember being taught that Jesus presented himself to the rest of the world after his resurrection and that beyond that ‘the rocks testify’ and that all man is without excuse.

      It always bothered me, even before I began deconstructing, and was one of a few things that never set well with me.

      I’m surprised that in all my study of Augustine I never saw this about him before.

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I always kind of respected the Mormons for at least trying to reconcile the existence of the Native Americans with the New Testament, beyond ‘the rocks testify’, but they also inadvertently showed how absurd the whole idea was by stretching every kind of evidence (biblical, linguistic, genetic, archaeological, etc.) so much to make it work! And of course even that didn’t seem to account for the Polynesians and… well, everyone else.

        I was always especially fond of the idea that Jesus revealed himself to the Aztecs and they somehow got so confused that they ended up worshipping a giant feathered snake instead.

    • baked_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thing is, information like this won’t get to everyone, but close to everyone will hear about finding life elsewhere

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair point. I thought for a long time that the fact that Christianity simply couldn’t have spread over the globe for a millennium and a half after Christ’s death was a slam dunk argument against its core tenets, though. I cited Augustine here because I thought it was quite funny when I found out that one of the Church Fathers inadvertently agreed with me! It proved to me that my argument wasn’t a case of me indulging in special pleading or anything like that: it really is a good argument.

        Fact is though that all of us, Christian or not, religious or not, find difficulties when it comes to justifying our core beliefs. We constantly adjust to take in new information without really letting it get at our fundamental ideas. I don’t see why discovering alien life would be any different for most people.

    • laurelinae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for this brief history lesson! I had never heard of St. Augustine and his treatise.

      How do you think his argument fares now that the concept of purgatory exists?

  • eldopgergan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    Religion would change if religious people learn to look beyond 6 feet in front of them, but I guess that’s less possible than proof of extraterrestrial life.

    • curiosityLynx@kglitch.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not all religious people are the Westborough Baptists, rabid creationists, prosperity gospel followers and massive hypocrites you know personally. Nor are the rest all militant fundamentalists who think terrorism is a good idea.

      There are Jains, parts of the Salvation Army and many more that are perfectly reasonable and don’t go against anything science has to say. Because at the end of the day, religions and science have very little overlap, as most religious beliefs can neither be proven nor disproven.

      • eldopgergan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree and disagree as well.

        Religion as it is refers to a way of life. Ideally what your way of life is should not change with what others do or not do.

        But realistically, what we have seen is that religion lets people justify their own shortcomings just because they are part of a secret group and then force their “way of life” on others.

        At the same time, holding onto a single “way of life” is intrinsically prone to mistakes, since we are never given complete knowledge about everything and will never have it. We need to change constantly to be better versions of ourselves.

        If there are people who believe in something greater than them, and are prepared to change if they have the necessary proof, then I’m afraid I can’t call them religious. I’d call them spiritual.

    • dub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea im not too optimistic that this would do anything for most true believers

  • Chadarius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Will proof of aliens change the brainwashed ultra religious? Not a chance. Hell, there are flatearthers and election deniers. I don’t expect much from about 30% of our population.

  • ModdedPhones@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same as every other times when science have disproven religions fairytales. They adapt. God also made those lifeforms

  • Religion will just claim God made aliens, too.

    Or that they’re a test for the faithful. The way some do about dinosaur fossils.

    I am also fully convinced that religious people could scientifically discover God and not believe it’s actually God, so…

    • Cursive1576@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, stories in some religious are so vague that they can be applied to any thing. Some of them are vague enough that religious leaders will have no trouble just telling their followers that existence of aliens was already told in them.

    • Cursive1576@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, stories in some religious texts are so vague that they can be applied to any thing. Some of them are vague enough that religious leaders will have no trouble just telling their followers that existence of aliens was already told in them.

    • Wilziac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pope Francis has already said that if intelligent life is found, that they would also be considered children of God, so you’re right on your first point.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To expand on this, every stretch will be made to re-enforce their beliefs.

      Aliens are bipedal? Intelligent design!

      Aliens have mouths? intelligent design!

    • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve already seen religious people mixing christianity with ancient alien theory, claiming the aliens are really fallen angels, demons or nephilim, some woukd probably persist in this

  • MrFlamey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Religions are unlikely to change substantially, I imagine they’ll just find some way to explain the existence of aliens that fits their existing scriptures and world view.

    There will be new religions that pop up as a result though, for sure.

  • fische_stix@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing. As long as people are scared of dying and other people are willing to profit from it, religion has a home

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    In general I think it would just give religions a new group to hate. They would be “Creatures not of God, but of the Devil Himself” in the same way that Christians think of other religions as born of the Canaanites and influenced by Satan.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did other advances in human knowledge change them?

    Most of them still think the universe was made in 6 days by a bearded toga dude in the sky and if you are gay you are going to magical underground fire place.

    • anteaters@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where did you get that idea from? Even the pope accepts evolution and the big bang as creation history. Religion accepts scientific truth all the time, they just attach “… because of god” to everything.

      • scytale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yup, and they’ll say the same if extraterrestrial life is discovered - that god created them, because he created the universe.

      • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, in fact many scientists were and are genuinely religious and did their research in accordance to their belief, not in opposition. Now that used to be more true than today, but you can bend a lot in “yeah, that’s also part of what God made” or straight-up just push mistakes on humans. “Yeah, we misunderstood God there”.

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The entire point of abrahamic religions is to never change.

      You think they never changed?

      What do you think Christmas is and where it came from?

      • SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Christmas was placed around the winter solistice to make conversion of ‘pagans’ easier in an "oh my god! you have a holiday then? so do I! what a coincidence! we should totally bump religions’’ manner.

        But in the context of change, with respect to the fundamentals of the faith, Christmas is about as relevant to the religion as seasonal events in MMOs are to end game content. Christianity has many different flavours around the world depending on what local beliefs were absorbed. Just have a look at church calendars from different countries and see what saints are celebrated year round.

        Arguing change in abrahamic religions, you probably would have had a bit more success discussing the great schism of 1054 or the protestant reformation, but even those keep the same basic belief system of existence of god, him having a son, existence of a heaven and a hell and such (fun fact - there’s no purgatory in the teachings of the catholic orthodox church - the full name for eastern orthodoxy).

        Or, looking at other abrahamic religions you could argue that people that practice judaism have a saying along the lines that 3 rabbis have 4 opinions on a topic - an indicator of constant change in the world’a first monotheistic religion.

        • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair points. I originally had the shism in my comment, but decided to keep it simple with a single example.

          It might not be enough for you, but I do think the argument that “The entire point of abrahamic religions is to never change.” is so weak, that it can be disproven with a single argument out of many.

          I would also not dismiss the importance of Christmas. Might I remind you of the legandary Christmas Truce in World War I? Christmas was so important to these people that it managed to be a bridge between two fighting forces where people on individual points of the front stopped killing each other even for just a bit.

        • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, letting people keep their rituals is generally a smart move. The romans did it too, just went over and said most of the time “yeah, your traditions are valid, they are part of our religion too, so keep trucking on”. Takes a lot of explosive pressure away when occupying other cultures, since religion is really really powerful and can be easily used to organize against occupiers.

    • Lumberjacked@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Abrahamic religions cover Judaism (more than 2000 years), Islam (less than 2000 years), Christianity and a bunch of smaller off shoots.

      I’m not sure where you’re getting that the point of abrahamic religions is to never change. Every few hundred years in Christianity there’s a huge shift. Right now, there some very loud and influential people who are trying to go back to 1950s Christianity but event that is very different than 150CE Christianity.