AstroTheology: Religious Reflections on Extraterrestrial Life
Forms
Books with expanded discussions:
- Ted Peters, The Evolution of Terrestrial and
Extraterrestrial Life (Pandora 2008)
- Ted Peters and Martinez
HewlettR, Can You Believe in God and
Evolution? (Abingdon 2006)
Introduction
How
should theologians reflect on the religious implications of what seems to be
the imminent discovery of extraterrestrial life? Will it make a difference if
this extraterrestrial life is intelligent or not? Will it make a difference if
this extraterrestrial life form is superior to us, perhaps more intelligent
than we human earthlings?
In
order to ready the theologian to engage in such speculative reflection, we ask
theologians to partner with the scientists working in the relatively new and
exciting field of astrobiology. When contact is made with life beyond earth,
the astrobiologists are most likely to announce it to our world.
Astrobiology
is the scientific study of biological processes on earth, and beyond
(University of Arizona). NASAs Astrobiology Roadmap of 2003 orients the
field around three fundamental questions: (1) How does life begin and evolve?
(2) Does life exist elsewhere in the universe? (3) What is the future of life
on Earth and beyond? (NASA, 2003, p.1). According to Christopher McKay at NASA
Ames Research Center, Astrobiology has within it three broad questions that
have deep philosophical as well as scientific import. These are the origin of
life, the search for a second genesis of life, and the expansion of life beyond
Earth (McKay, 2000, p.45).
Within
the encompassing field of astrobiology, we should distinguish between
unintelligent and intelligent life. The field of exobiology focuses on the
discovery of microbial or biologically simple forms of life, non-intelligent
life forms. At the risk of insulting Martian microbes, we will refer to them as
ETNL, extraterrestrial non-intelligent life. We will distinguish the search for
ETNL from the search for extraterrestrial intelligent
life, from which the SETI project gets its name. In what follows, I plan to use
the acronym ETIL to refer to extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Exotheology is the name I have given for
that branch of theology which reflects upon extraterrestrial life, both
biologically simple and intelligent.[1] One
might just as easily call it Astro
Theology or, better, astrotheology. Perhaps these terms might be considered
interchangeable, at least for the time being.
In
what follows, I will look briefly at the implications of ETNL. Then, I will
turn to the larger question of ETIL and the assumptions with which many
astrobiologists begin their inquiry. Among these assumptions is the inclusion
of the origin of life right along with speciation in Charles Darwins theory of
evolution. Darwins theory dealt solely with speciation; but astrobiologists
require an explanation for lifes origin as well. They assume the grand cosmos
is biophilic - that is, it loves life and that life is likely to be plentiful
among the stars. What this means for the theologian is that religious
reflection will have to deal not just with the subject of ETIL but also the
evolutionary assumptions that structure the astrobiologists research agenda.
The
matter before exotheology is not a simple one of reflecting directly on what
scientists know or say. What we consider to be scientific knowledge is all
mixed up with myth. The line between science and myth is blurred, at least in
the field of astrobiology. This is because astrobiology relies upon a number of
assumptions regarding the theory of evolution, assumptions which are unproven
yet decisively important. The employment of assumptions in itself belongs
within the sphere of science, to be sure. But when assumptions begin to take on
the structure of a worldview and elicit a passionate hope for a scientific
savior, we have entered the domain of myth. The exotheologian needs to
discriminate between science and myth in order to pursue a rational response to
the prospect of ETI.
When
we turn to theological responses, I will ask whether people who have faith in
God should believe the ETI myth? I will answer in the negative. The negative
applies not to the question of whether extraterrestrial beings exist. Rather,
it applies to the implicit belief that science can save earths humanity from
its own self-inflicted demise. Terrestrial science, even if augmented by
extraterrestrial science, is insufficient for the human race to heal itself. To
reflections on ETNL, ETIL, science, and myth, we now turn.
Theological Reflections on ETNL
As
we just said, exobiology focuses on the discovery of microbial or biologically
simple forms of life, extraterrestrial unintelligent life or ETNL. Astro
ethicists are concerned about exobiological contamination, actually two
directional contamination. Forward
contamination would consist of earth intrusion into the ecosphere of
another world. By landing either a robotic probe or our own astronauts on Mars
or a moon orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, the context which supports whatever life
form exists might be subject to alteration, perhaps deleterious alteration. Back contamination could result from
bringing life samples back to earth, altering earths ecosphere and perhaps
poisoning some of us. Astro ethicists are busy devising preparatory principles
to rely upon when the first news of ETNL breaks.
What
might be the theological implications of ETNL? Margaret Race at SETI opens up
this question. If we find evidence for past or present Earth-like life on Mars, it would be extremely interesting
scientifically, but less so theologically or philosophically because it could
be explained as the result of dispersal between neighboring bodies; the
panspermia idea would then be a strong hypothesis. If, however, Martian life
were found to use a completely different biochemistry, it would be suggestive
of an independent origin of life, with significant philosophical and
theological implications (Race, 2007, p. 493). Now, just what is the logic of
Races suggestion here?
If
ETNL on Mars or another neighbor within our solar system is found to be
earthlike, then it would support the panspermia hypothesis. The idea of
panspermia suggests that the planet earth as well as Mars was seeded with a
primitive life form coming from a common source in space. The source in space
is unidentified; but the hypothesis includes the assumption that all life forms
both on earth and elsewhere in our solar neighborhood are kin to one another.
Life on earth would be part and parcel of extraterrestrial life.
Race
is hinting that continuity in life would be less challenging to traditional
Western theology than discontinuity - that is, a second genesis elsewhere might
be more upsetting to traditional religion than a single genesis which we
earthlings share with our space neighbors. So, perhaps we should ask: if life
originated independently on earth and elsewhere, would this mean a loss of
significance for life on earth? Does our theology presuppose earth-centeredness
and earth-life-centeredness? And would it be upset if life - even ETNL - would
begin to grow without earths influence?
Theologian
of science Robert John Russell formulates the question Race is hinting at. If
life were nowhere to be found in the universe except on earth, would this
increase its significance (as with the parable of the coin) or decrease its
significance (as though it were a curious anomaly)? (Russell, 2008, p.280).
It
appears to me that the answer to such questions would be: finding a second
genesis of ETNL or (or even ETIL) would not marginalize the significance of
terrestrial life. Our confidence in Gods love for life on earth would not be
compromised, just as a parents love for a child is not compromised because
that child has a brother or sister. God could love both.
In addition, belief in a unique genesis of life restricted to
earth does not seem to be implied by biblical accounts of creation. The
worldview of the ancient Hebrews at the time the Bible was written certainly
assumed that earth is the center and that the stars in our sky look down upon
us. This worldview has changed, of course. Our modern image of the cosmos with
billions of possible worlds is a recent development; yet, our modern word, cosmos, was still the word used in the
Bible to describe Gods creation. For God so loved the world
(κοσμος ,cosmos),
says John 3:16, that God gave his only begotten son... Perhaps the biblical
image of the cosmos was smaller than ours, yet the word still referred to the
totality of created reality for the Bible just as it does for us today.
Biblical theology was never a strictly earth-bound theology.
Oh,
yes, Thomas Aquinas argued that the concept of perfection implied that there
could be one and only one world, our earth. Nevertheless, many other medieval
theologians could speculate about the existence of other worlds among the stars
where life would be flourishing. God would have been the author of such life
there just as God is the author of life here. John Buridan (1295-1358), for
example, held from faith that just as God made this world, so he could make
another or several worlds (Cited by Dick, 2000, p.29). And, relevant to our
discussion of exobiology, these other worlds might have different elements and
could obey different laws of nature; and they could produce different results.
With the advent of Copernican heliocentrism, many theologians along with
scientists began to speculate about life among the stars. In my own study of
this matter, I could find both acceptance and rejection of the extraterrestrial
hypothesis in the history of theological thought, with the preponderance of
speculative opinion favoring the existence of separate worlds among the stars.
Even
though the sharp distinction between ETNL and ETIL is necessary for the pursuit
of astrobiology, it would seem to me that previous theological acceptance of
ETIL should suffice to cover what might happen should we discover ETNL. In sum,
I do not forecast much in the way of theological upset over a discovery of
ETNL, at least within the Christian tradition.
Contact Optimists vs. Unique Earthers
Of the three fundamental questions asked by astrobiologists,
the question of the second genesis of ETIL, is the one we ask next. We ask
about the possibility that intelligent
living creatures currently inhabit earthlike planets somewhere in the cosmos.
To date no empirical evidence exists that extraterrestrial intelligence exists.
Despite more than three decades of active SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence) research, no radio or visual contact has occurred. If we rely
solely on empirical evidence, then we have no reason to believe that anyone
else is out there.
Space
researchers are divided into two camps. The Contact
Optimists contend that simple reasoning would suggest that the universe
should be teeming with life. Those holding the Uniqueness Hypothesis, in contrast, suggest that the earth is
probably the first and only home for a technological civilization. Until
recently, the lack of empirical evidence combined with the high improbability
of a repeat of earths evolutionary history seemed to give the edge to the
uniqueness hypothesis, to the unique earthers (Brin, 1983).
The
unique earth hypothesis depends on the assumption of the improbability that
just the right prebiotic contingencies would fall into place to make the spring
from non-life to life possible, and the low probability that the contingencies
that made the evolution of intelligent life on earth could be repeated in
sequence. Two of the most prominent evolutionary biologists, Stephen Jay Gould
and Francisco Ayala (Gould 1989; Ayala 2004), have argued that if you replay
earths evolutionary tape again and again, it will never produce the same result.
The chemical origin of life seemed to depend on such an improbable sequence of
events, similar to throwing a die over and over and getting a six every time,
that biologists were inclined to think that life elsewhere must be a very rare
occurrence, writes David Darling (Darling 2001, p.121).
Contact
optimists, while recognizing the improbability problem, counter with the idea
of big numbers. Because the number of possible locations in this vast universe
for evolution to get started is so large, the number of possible repeats of
earths biological history is also large. In contrast to the unique earth
biologists, contact optimism has grown among astronomers. Most of the
speculation about life in the universe came from astronomers, who were generally
positive about the idea simply because they thought there were probably so many
planets around. With billions of potential homes, surely life couldnt be that
scarce, comments Darling (Darling 2001, p.121). He concludes, Almost beyond
doubt, life exists elsewhere (Darling 2001, p.xi).
The Speculations of the Contact Optimists
Now,
contact optimists, like theologians, can speculate. And speculate they do.
Todays star searchers can rely on a dramatic form of speculation known as the
Drake equation. The Drake Equation, first
formulated by Frank Drake in 1961 (National Radio Astronomy Observatory in
Green Bank, West Virginia), looks like this:
N = N* fp
ne fl fi fc fL where
N* = the number of stars in the
Milky Way Galaxy
fp = the fraction of stars with planets around them
ne = the number of planets per star
fl = the fraction of planets
in ne where life evolves
fi = the fraction of fl
where intelligent life evolves
fc = the fraction of fi that communicate
fL = the fraction of the planets life during which communication
happens
N = the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. (Drake 1961)
The value of the Drake equation is not in knowing the
numerical equivalent of N. Rather, the value is that here we have a template
for structuring research and filtering incoming data. As research advances, new
numbers can be plugged in. The calculations will change as new information is
gathered. As of the present moment, NASA estimates that 1021 planets exist in the universe, of which
1010 might be earthlike (NASA, 2003, p.18). George Coyne, S.J.,
former director of the Vatican Observatory, estimates that there are 1017 earthlike
planets in the universe (Coyne, 2000, p. 180). The mere appeal to such big
numbers persuades many astrobiologists that contact optimism is justified.
The
sense that discovery of ETIL is imminent has grown conspicuously since 1995,
when the first planet was found around a star similar to our sun, 51 Pegasi. As
technology increased to measure gravitational effects of suspected planets on
their respective stars, so has the number of identified planets. These planets
cannot be seen directly, but their gravitational pull can be detected by the
wobble they cause on their star. Evidence of perhaps two hundred extra-solar
planets is now in. As one might expect, larger planets will likely be
discovered first; and those already logged seem to be Jupiter sized objects
orbiting quite close to their equivalent to our sun.
Although
it is not clear exactly what a planet needs to have in order to generate life
or to sustain life that comes first as a visitor, astrobiogists are looking for
a planet that is earth size, metal rich, and sufficiently distant from its
respective sun in order to provide liquid water. It might need to provide
molecular oxygen and ozone, according to NASAs roadmap. To fit within the
biophilic range, such a planet should be like the porridge Goldilocks preferred
to eat, not too hot and not too cold. A Goldilocks planet would find itself in
a Circumstellar Habitable Zone (CHZ).
And such a planet would need to remain stable and safe for a long period of
time, perhaps earth years numbered in the billions. To date, no empirical
evidence that a Goldilocks planet exists is in; even though speculative
considerations make many astrobiologists optimistic.
The Place of Evolution in the ETI Myth
Now,
you the reader might say: astrobiology is straight science! Why all this talk
about myth? I grant that the mythical structures may require a bit of analysis
to become visible. Let me provide that analysis now.
Such
a myth would be a cultural construct, a window frame, so to speak, through
which we look in order to view the world out there. In ancient times, myths
were stories about how the gods had created the world in the beginning; and
this beginning explains why things are the way they are in our contemporary
experience. In the modern world, we think of ourselves as turning to science
rather than myth to explain the origin of things. Yet, what ancient myth and
modern science have in common is that they both provide a worldview, a frame
for understanding and explaining what we experience. Or, to say it a bit more
precisely, science contributes to the myths we modern people believe. At work
in modern culture is an identifiable framework - a myth, if you will--within
which we cast the questions we pose to the mysteries evoked by our experience
with outer space.
The
ETI myth begins to reveal its shape as Frank Drake gives voice to speculations
reflecting contact optimism. Everything we know says there are other
civilizations out there to be found. The discovery of such civilizations would
enrich our civilization with valuable information about science, technology,
and sociology. This information could directly improve our abilities to
conserve and to deal with sociological problems - poverty for example. Cheap
energy is another potential benefit of discovery, as are advancements in
medicine (Cited by Richards, 2003, p.5). Note how this optimism extends well
beyond mere contact with ETIL. It includes optimism regarding the solution to
sociological problems such as poverty and energy while giving us a leap
forward in medicine. What Drake believes is that science is salvific, and
extraterrestrial science would be even more salvific than earths science.
The ETI myth is structured around evolutionary assumptions.
Here is one of the assumptions: life must evolve wherever the conditions are
right; and there simply must be extraterrestrial planets where this is
possible. Life is the product of deterministic forces, writes biologist and
Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve. Life was bound to arise under the prevailing
conditions, and it will arise similarly wherever and whenever the same
conditions obtain. There is hardly any room for lucky accidents in the gradual,
multistep process whereby life originated. This conclusion is compellingly
enforced when one considers the development of life as a chemical process (de
Deuve, 1995, p. xv). As long as the right chemical conditions exist somewhere
in outer space - in the Goldilocks location--we can expect life to evolve and
develop and progress. And, perhaps, some day we will meet this extraterrestrial
life form. At the level of assumption, this evolutionary belief has worked its
way into the ETI myth.
Based on the Green Bank equation of 1961 (see the Drake
equation above), de Deuve speculates that the figure of about one million
habitable planets per galaxy is considered not unreasonable. Even if this
value were overestimated by several orders of magnitude, it would still add up
to trillions of potential cradles for life. If my reading of the evidence is
correct, this means that trillions of planets exist that have borne, bear, or
will bear life. The universe is awash with life (de Deuve, 1995), p.121). With
such contact optimists speculating without empirical evidence that the universe
is teeming with life, it is easy to imagine our culture developing images of
just what that life might be like.
This biologist continues to feed the growing myth with
apparent scientific veracity. My conclusion: We are not alone. Perhaps not
every biosphere in the universe has evolved or will evolve thinking brains. But
a significant subset of existing biospheres have achieved intelligence, or are
on the way to it, some, perhaps in a form more advanced than our own (de
Deuve, 1995, p.297). When science becomes mythologized, we speculate with
egregious confidence that our partners in outer space could be more highly
evolved - more advanced - than we are.
Now, speculation belongs to good science,
to be sure. Yet, when non-empirically founded speculations begin to frame a
worldview that fills the sky with projections of superior intelligence,
superior science, and perhaps even the power to save earth from the
inadequacies of its evolutionary past, then we can see how a framework for a
myth is being erected.
Carl Sagan similarly embraced the ETI myth. Yet, the
Cornell exobiologist recognized that this belief structure is based on
speculation rather than sufficient empirical evidence to deem it scientific. I
would guess that the Universe is filled with beings far more intelligent, far
more advanced than we are. But, of course, I might be wrong. Such a conclusion
is at best based on a plausibility argument, derived from the numbers of planets,
the ubiquity of organic matter, the immense timescales available for evolution,
and so on. It is not a scientific demonstration (Sagan, 1994, p.33).
These scientists have taken a number of
non-empirical and speculative steps from the Drake equation to myth-like images
of ETI more advanced in intelligence and even spirituality. Might these more
advanced intelligences represent our own future? Might they speed up earths
evolution and transcendence of our own past?
How a Theologian Interprets Myth
When
it comes to theological discernment, one must first ask the question: does myth
count in theology? No. Most theologians are willing to interpret myths, but
certainly not willing to believe them in their literal form.[2] Myths
tell us about human anxieties and propensities, to be sure; but they do not
tell us about the reality of God. It is the task of the theologian to say:
dont believe this myth. Or, at least avoid believing it with a high degree of
confidence. Science has not demonstrated that it can save us from
self-destruction, whether it be terrestrial or extraterrestrial science.
Science,
just like all other human enterprises, is fallen. Despite the marvels of the
new knowledge gained and new technology produced, science has become subject to
the funding of jingoists and the ambitions of militarists. Advances in
scientific knowledge lead frequently to equal advances in the breadth and
efficiency of murder, mayhem, and mass destruction. Each decade marks a new
level of global terror due to advances in nuclear and biochemical weaponry.
This spiral is beyond political control, religious control, moral control, and
beyond self-control. If the ETI myth suggests that augmenting terrestrial
science with extraterrestrial science will provide this control, the theologian
must simply shrug and say: where is the evidence for such a belief?
The
blind alley into which the myth leads us I call the eschatological problem
(Peters, 1977). The myth proposes
that if we in our generation simply make the right choice that, with the
advance of science, we in the human race can advance from warring destruction
to a state of world peace. Yet, the theologian should ask: how do we get from
here to there? Can a leopard change its spots so easily? If science got us into
the present mess, how can we expect science to liberate us from this mess? If
we have evolved to this point, why should we think that more evolving will save
us?
Salvific
healing, according to the Christian theologian, comes from divine grace granted
us within the setting of our fallen life on earth. The cross and resurrection
of Jesus Christ symbolize the presence of this saving grace. In the cross we
see Gods identification with the victims of human injustice or violence. In
the resurrection we see Gods promise that we will not forever be locked into a
cycle of poverty or spiral of violence. Unambiguous healing - even world
peace - will come to us only as an eschatological transformation, as an act of
God. More science will not save us. It is a delusion to think that it will. The
theologian, like the rest of us, should welcome and even celebrate the triumphs
of science; but these triumphs should not delude us into thinking that science
will save us from our human propensity for social injustice or even
environmental degradation.
The Astrobiological Delusion Regarding the Future of Religion
Returning
to the ETI myth within astrobiology, we note how it includes a prediction about
the demise of terrestrial religion, especially Christianity. The conventional
wisdom among those who look at terrestrial religion from the outside is this:
if we gain conclusive knowledge that we are not alone in the universe, this
will shatter all current religious belief systems. Ancient beliefs in the God
of Israel and other beliefs in personal gods will be crushed under the weight
of new cosmic knowledge. Why does it appear that our religious traditions are
so fragile? Because, allegedly, our inherited religious traditions are
terrestrial, earthbound, parochial, narrow, and atavistic. This is quite a set
of assumptions, but we find them at work within the worldview of many
astrobiologists.
The
prevailing logic seems to go like this: once we speculate about life on other
planets, then the Christian faith looks ridiculous. Once we make contact, the
Christian faith will collapse. This is the logic of SETI scientist, Jill
Tarter, for example, who constructs an entire scenario based upon the Drake
equation. Although to date no contact of any sort with extraterrestrial
intelligent life has occurred, Tarter can imagine myriads of planets teeming
with living beings. All will have evolved. And, if some got a start earlier
than we on earth, they will have evolved further. Their technology will have
progressed; and they may even have a technology sufficiently advanced to
communicate with us. Further, she imagines that these extraterrestrial
societies will have achieved a high degree of social harmony so as to support
this advanced technology. And, still further, if they have developed their own
religion, it too will be more advanced than the religions we have on earth. Or,
more likely, the long-lived extraterrestrials either never had, or have
outgrown, organized religion (Tarter, 2000, p.146). We can forecast, then,
that contact between earth and ETIL will necessitate either the end of our
inherited religious traditions or a new incorporation of a more universal
worldview.
Steven Dick makes the same evolutionary assumptions and
foresees virtually the same scenario. Earths ancient beliefs in a supernatural
personal god just must go by the wayside. To take its place will be belief in a
new God, a naturalists God, built right into the universe. Dick welcomes the
arrival of the concept of a natural God - a God in the universe rather than outside it (Dick, 2000, p.202).
Now, in my judgment, such alleged conventional wisdom
regarding the predicted demise of religion is misleading and unfounded. It is
misleading because it commits the fallacy of false alternatives: either believe
in the ancient God of Israel or believe the speculative facts about ETIL. This
is a false set of alternatives, because theologians both Christian and Jewish
could easily absorb new knowledge regarding extraterrestrial life. Both
Christians and Jews have debated the theological implications of many worlds
since the middle ages, with increased interest during the post-Reformation and
post-Copernican periods. Among major contemporary theologians, only a few
address the issue of ETIL, but those who do are quite comfortable at
integrating possible new knowledge on the subject.[3]
These forecasts about the demise of terrestrial religion are
unfounded. No evidence exists to support them. In fact, evidence to the
contrary does exist. Victoria Alexander conducted a survey of U.S. clergy
regarding their religious responses to extraterrestrial life. She provided
clergy from Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish congregations with a set of
questions such as, would you agree that official confirmation of the discovery
of an advanced, technologically superior extraterrestrial civilization would
have servere negative effects on the countrys moral, social, and religious
foundations? She tabulated her data and concluded: In sharp contrast to the
conventional wisdom that religion would collapse, ministers surveyed do not
feel their faith and the faith of their congregation would be threatened
(Alexander, 2003, p.360). The speculations by astrobiologists regarding the
demise of terrestrial religion are a product of their myth, not their science.
Conclusion
This
essay has been an exploration in exotheology, a speculation on the theological
implications of possible contact with ETNL or ETIL. We have found that
theological speculation regarding possible contact with extraterrestrial life
forms requires a critical stance regarding the science of astrobiology.
It
is necessary to distinguished between the raw core of astrobiologys search for
a second genesis, on the one hand, and the cultural overlays of the ETI myth,
on the other. What we find in the ETI myth is a complex speculation that
projects a repeat of earths evolutionary history stretched out by the doctrine
of progress so that ETs are imagined as beings more highly evolved than we,
more advanced, and superior not only in science but in morality. These projections
are most satisfying to terrestrial scientists because they paint a picture of
science as our worlds savior, revealing the hidden religious dimensions built
into scientific speculation. The self-congratulatory self-image of the
scientist is projected onto the screen of outer space; so that the scientists
image of themselves returns from the heavens to earth to save us.
Astrobiologists have a vested interest in propagating this myth, because under
the guise of inquirers they slip into the role of saviors. My theological
recommendation is that we avoid believing this myth, at least with a high level
of confidence, even if it is touted by some of the most respected scientists in
our society.
It is my judgment that the ETI myth does not warrant
confident belief for three reasons. First, the history of science on earth has
been ambiguous. Even though science has brought us modern medicine which saves
lives, it has brought us the atomic bomb and the terror of the nuclear arms
race. No precedent exists that science on its own can heal itself and become
benign let alone salvific. Second, the theory of evolution as currently
employed by biologists resists the doctrine of progress. There is no built-in
principle of advance. At most, one can find reason to affirm growth in
complexity within biological evolution, but definitely not something we might
wish to call advance. The idea of progress over time is an ideological import
into the theory. So, to paint a picture of ETIL as more advanced in science and
morality is to speculate well beyond the limits of even what the theory of
evolution would permit. Third, as of yet no empirical evidence for the
existence of ETIL exists. Yes, that evidence may appear in the future. At that
future moment when we actually encounter ETIL, however, we may be in for some
surprises. ETIL might be quite different than we expect. All this leads us to
treat the ETI myth with caution, not rejecting it out of hand but recognizing
that its plausibility hands on a very thin thread.
When it comes to the centuries old debate within Christian
theology regarding life on other worlds, we need to address the question of
whether Christian theology could absorb new knowledge regarding neighbors
living in other star systems. Those who contend that the Christian worldview is
too brittle or too fragile to adapt to this new knowledge underestimate the
degree of adaptation that has already taken place. The theory that the
Christian religion would collapse when shocked by ETIL has insufficient
evidence to support it. What Christian theology can absorb is authentic
scientific knowledge regarding what may or may not be the case regarding ETNL
or ETIL. What theologians need to interpret is the ETI myth; and they need to
interpret this myth without mistakenly thinking that myth is science.
References
Alexander, Victoria
(2003). Extraterrestrial Life and Religion, in UFO Religions, edited by James R. Lewis (Amherst NY: Prometheus
Books, 359-370.
Ayala, Francisco J.
(2004). "The Evolution of Life on Earth and the
Uniqueness of Humankind." in: S. Moriggi and E. Sindoni, eds., Perché
esiste qualcosa invece di nulla? (Why There Is Something rather than Nothing?) (ITACAlibri:
Castel Bolognese, Italy, 2004), 57-77.
Brin, Glen David
(1983). The Great Silence: the
Controversy Concerning Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life, Quarterly Journal of
the Royal Astronomical Society 24:
283-309.
Bultmann, Rudolph
(1958). Jesus Christ and Mythology. New
York: Charles Scribners Sons.
Coyne, George V., S.J., (2000). The Evolution of Intelligent
Life on Earth and Possibly Elsewhere: Reflections from a Religious Tradition,
in Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological
Implications, edited by Steven Dick. Philadelphia and London: Templeton
Foundation Press, 177-188.
Crowe, Michael J.
(2000). The Plurality of Worlds and
Extraterrestrial Life, in The History of
Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia, ed. by Gary
B. Ferngren. New York and London: Garland Publishing,, 342-343
Darling, David (2001). Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of
Astrobiology. New York: Basic Books.
Drake, Frank (1961).
Drake Equation at: http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
.
de Duve, Christian
(1995). Vital Dust: The Origin and
Evolution of Life on Earth. New York: Basic Books.
Dick, Steven J.
(2000). Cosmotheology: Theological
Implications of the New Universe, in Many
Worlds: The New Universe,
Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological Implications, edited by Steven
Dick. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 191-210.
Gould, Stephen Jay
(1989). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale
and the Nature of History. New York: W.W. Norton.
McKay, Christopher
(2000). Astrobiology: The Search for
Life Beyond the Earth, in Many Worlds:
The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life
and the Theological Implications, edited by Steven Dick. Philadelphia and
London: Templeton Foundation Press, 45-58.
NASA (2003). Astrobiology
Roadmap. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Astrobiology Institute, NASA Ames Research
Center. http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/roadmap.pdf
.
Peters, Ted
(1977). Futures - Human and Divine. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox
Press.
Peters, Ted
(2003). Exotheology: Speculations on
Extraterrestrial Life, chapter 6 of Science,
Theology, and Ethics. Aldershot UK: Ashgate, 121-136.
Race, Margaret
(2007). Societal and Ethical Concerns,
in Planets and Life: The Emerging Science
of Astrobiology, edited by Woodruff T. Sullivan, III, and John A. Baross.
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press,
483-497.
Richards, Diane (2003).
Interview with Dr. Frank Drake, SETI
Institute News, 12:1; First Quarter, 5.
Russell, Robert John
(2008). Cosmology from Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Sagan, Carl
(1994). Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. New York:
Random House.
Tarter, Jull Cornell
(2000). SETI and the Religions of the Universe, in Many Worlds: The New
Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological Implications, edited by
Steven Dick. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 143-149.
University of Arizona (2008). Astrobiology and the
Sacred: Implications of Life Beyond Earth, http://scienceandreligion.arizona.edu/project.html