SETI's Challenge to Religion: Would encountering intelligence elsewhere in the universe be a problem for anthropocentric religions?

[Tuno]

This:

Human notions of temporal and spatial economy are completely irrelevant to the nature of reality.

and this from SedesD:

Any Aliens would not be Homo sapiens, but that does not mean that they could not be made in the “image and likeness” God, just like us

are the two best things about the question I’ve seen on here so far, having read/scanned all the posts up to here.

The first one is deeper than it seems, because I would guess that by habit tonyrey is not including intellect, reason, belief, and faith in the said notions of “temporal economy.” Yet it is so. Reality allows our miniscule perceptions, reasonings and beliefs therefrom as ad hoc ways to deal with our momentary lives. But while our prejudices about Reality allow a sort of functioning on the human level, they are far from complete either in/as content or in usefulness. One of the things that Reality allows is a phenomenal self importance and the need, for sanity’s sake, to make ourselves right. So we connect a few dots in our local neighborhood and say “This is how it works!” while living in a completely dwarfed comprehension of what actually constitutes the context of our lives.

Religion and science are kind of two dimensions of a space in which each of those generally takes itself as containing the other in terms of explanation. And some see a field of far greater scope that integrates both, but those tend to be rare, and there are many who don’t give a whoop-de-do. Nevertheless, it is the same Reality that allows each its ways, means, and scopes of perception, rational, and expression.

Both religion and science, though in different ways, seem to explain what are perceived as a continuity of discrete forms of life. They call them “life forms” and ascribe to one special case, humanity, a radical difference from other forms. And their reasons for this are as well different. Yet neither is fully satisfying, as one cannot really explain why we are here by chance, and the other is unsatisfying to reason on account of defying the laws of conservation and observation in a quantifiable sense. Both reject what is most likely the actual scenario because it is radically different from both while accounting for both. And most importantly, it is emotionally unacceptable to both.

This emotional unacceptability is best exemplified in the phycisists who did not accept Einstein’s new paradigm of physics because they were emotionally unprepared for the shift. That in this case, would be most of us. Once again, as Walt Kelly said, “We have me the enemy, and he is us!”

So without saying much more, let me propose this: that “life” is not the living forms it manifests as. LIFE is a force inherent in and as Universe that has as its goal the experiencing of every possibility in every way for its own sake and for the sake of self knowledge of the possibilities inherent within itself. Therefore LIFE will create the continuum of higher forms that include and transcend lower forms. This goes from the “Beginning” of particles and forces that bound into atoms, then molecules, then etc into humans at a far greater rate of progression than would be allowed by chance. LIFE abounds because it wants to. It is indiscriminate as to what forms it takes or what as those forms it experiences, because as LIFE it is immortal and uneffected by any modification of matter or energy. Neither is is effected by its own fleeting thoughts as to what it looks like to itself from a limited embodied perspective. And neither will it reward or punish itself for anything it thought or did as those forms, because those forms are its self exploring itself. It is always already totally satisfied in its ALLness.

If any of those forms wish to get on board, so to speak, by dropping their limited perspective and seeing themselves as they are in Reality, those forms, by means of their newly informed awareness, are in for an absolutely wonderful treat.

So when other sentient forms are discovered, we shall see that thought forms based on limited perceptions of the Nature of Life itself will be disrupted to the degree of their limitations, while others will be entertained to the degree of their freedom from limited thoughts about LIFE.

 

[tonyrey]

This:and this from SedesD: are the two best things about the question I’ve seen on here so far, having read/scanned all the posts up to here.

The first one is deeper than it seems, because I would guess that by habit tonyrey is not including intellect, reason, belief, and faith in the said notions of “temporal economy.” Yet it is so. Reality allows our miniscule perceptions, reasonings and beliefs therefrom as ad hoc ways to deal with our momentary lives. But while our prejudices about Reality allow a sort of functioning on the human level, they are far from complete either in/as content or in usefulness. One of the things that Reality allows is a phenomenal self importance and the need, for sanity’s sake, to make ourselves right. So we connect a few dots in our local neighborhood and say “This is how it works!” while living in a completely dwarfed comprehension of what actually constitutes the context of our lives.

Religion and science are kind of two dimensions of a space in which each of those generally takes itself as containing the other in terms of explanation. And some see a field of far greater scope that integrates both, but those tend to be rare, and there are many who don’t give a whoop-de-do. Nevertheless, it is the same Reality that allows each its ways, means, and scopes of perception, rational, and expression.

Both religion and science, though in different ways, seem to explain what are perceived as a continuity of discrete forms of life. They call them “life forms” and ascribe to one special case, humanity, a radical difference from other forms. And their reasons for this are as well different. Yet neither is fully satisfying, as one cannot really explain why we are here by chance, and the other is unsatisfying to reason on account of defying the laws of conservation and observation in a quantifiable sense. Both reject what is most likely the actual scenario because it is radically different from both while accounting for both. And most importantly, it is emotionally unacceptable to both.

This emotional unacceptability is best exemplified in the phycisists who did not accept Einstein’s new paradigm of physics because they were emotionally unprepared for the shift. That in this case, would be most of us. Once again, as Walt Kelly said, “We have me the enemy, and he is us!”

So without saying much more, let me propose this: that “life” is not the living forms it manifests as. LIFE is a force inherent in and as Universe that has as its goal the experiencing of every possibility in every way for its own sake and for the sake of self knowledge of the possibilities inherent within itself. Therefore LIFE will create the continuum of higher forms that include and transcend lower forms. This goes from the “Beginning” of particles and forces that bound into atoms, then molecules, then etc into humans at a far greater rate of progression than would be allowed by chance. LIFE abounds because it wants to. It is indiscriminate as to what forms it takes or what as those forms it experiences, because as LIFE it is immortal and uneffected by any modification of matter or energy. Neither is is effected by its own fleeting thoughts as to what it looks like to itself from a limited embodied perspective. And neither will it reward or punish itself for anything it thought or did as those forms, because those forms are its self exploring itself. It is always already totally satisfied in its ALLness.

If any of those forms wish to get on board, so to speak, by dropping their limited perspective and seeing themselves as they are in Reality, those forms, by means of their newly informed awareness, are in for an absolutely wonderful treat.

So when other sentient forms are discovered, we shall see that thought forms based on limited perceptions of the Nature of Life itself will be disrupted to the degree of their limitations, while others will be entertained to the degree of their freedom from limited thoughts about LIFE.

Life certainly cannot be adequately explained as a product of purposeless particles. We cannot fully comprehend the nature of Reality - as you point out - but we do know that the immense richness and beauty of life should fill us with gratitude, hope and love…

 

[Tuno]

Life certainly cannot be adequately explained as a product of purposeless particles. We cannot fully comprehend the nature of Reality - as you point out - but we do know that the immense richness and beauty of life should fill us with gratitude, hope and love…

That is so, Tonyrey, and they do, immeasurably. And I don’t know who you were replying to about random particles, but I hope that you didn’t read that meaning into my post, as I was implying exactly the opposite.

 

[Eclogue]

Actually, Mr. Spock IS Half-Human. His mother was human, remember???

The fascination with the character has always been his struggle to balance his “Vulcan” side with his “Human” side. Usually the Vulcan won out, but He gave in to his human side enough times to qualify him as Human. He also lived mostly around Humans so that reinforces his Humanity.

I just KNEW some Trekkie was going to call me out on this one! You’re absolutely right, of course . . . but that’s beside the point. The Catholic Church is not an anthropecentric religion, and can not be invalidated by the discovery of extraterrestrial life. I think the Church would be open to receiving new members from another planet, as long as they had a rational mind and free will. External characteristics shouldn’t matter; everyone agrees that personhood is not defined as the color of one’s skin.

 

[Tuno]

With a nod to Eclogue, I will shorten my previous more lengthy post to this: There is not terrestrial and extraterrestrial life, those being arbitrary local distinctions. There is LIFE. That LIFE will manifest anywhere, everywhere, and in any form suitable to its way across the entire spectrum of existence which it is not different from, though that expression is not necessary for its already complete SELF. Thought forms which acknowledge the nature of LIFE cannot be disturbed by the fact of existence of any of its manifestations, discovered or known, while thought forms restricted to personalizations of LIFE may be disturbed to the degree of their emotional stake in their limited picture of LIFE. Religions tend to some extent to aid and abet these restrictions.

 

[tonyrey]

That is so, Tonyrey, and they do, immeasurably. And I don’t know who you were replying to about random particles, but I hope that you didn’t read that meaning into my post, as I was implying exactly the opposite.

I know! I was contrasting the two explanations of reality - the sublime and the absurd…

 

[tafan]

Any Aliens would not be Homo sapiens, but that does not mean that they could not be made in the “image and likeness” God, just like us.

I suppose that may be true. I have only been responding to this post:

Interpreting “Man” to mean merely “homo sapiens” is rather narrow, don’t you think? It seems to me that any being possessing a human intellect and will could fall under the category of “mankind,” even if they are strange creatures from a distant planet.

and trying to point out that aliens cannot be part of mankind, as Catholics view the definition of mankind.

 

[SedesDomi]

…and trying to point out that aliens cannot be part of mankind, as Catholics view the definition of mankind.

I thought the Catholic definition of Man was a being made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[tafan]

I thought the Catholic definition of Man was a being made in the image and likeness of God.

That would be only a partially definition, incomplete. We are the physical descendants of Adam and Eve, ie the first two humans. This is a required belief. Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1950 Humani Generis:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents”

It is these descendants that God became incarnate to save. The incarnation was a singular and the pivitol event in the history of the world (read universe in my opinion). So if there is another race, that God created, who are also fallen, a completely different plan of salvation would be needed.

 

[Tuno]

That would be only a partially definition, incomplete. We are the physical descendants of Adam and Eve, ie the first two humans. This is a required belief. Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1950 Humani Generis:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For **the faithful **cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents”

Yes, and the bolded type is the crux (intended) of the problem: the above point of view is one of manufactured ad hoc faith, not necessarily of actuality, and certainly not of Reality.

 

[tafan]

Yes, and the bolded type is the crux (intended) of the problem: the above point of view is one of manufactured ad hoc faith, not necessarily of actuality, and certainly not of Reality.

Who manufactured it? And why is it certainly not of Reality? Do you have evidence of its falshood?

 

[Tuno]

Yes. You are calling it a falsehood.

 

[tafan]

Yes. You are calling it a falsehood.

I am confused, maybe my last rhetorical question was misworded, ignore that on. Just the clarify how you what you know of its manufacturing and why you know it is certainly not of reality?

 

[Tuno]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Tafan, and I apologize if that’s the case, so lets see if we can get on the same page by going back here:

Originally Posted by tafan
That would be only a partially definition, incomplete. We are the physical descendants of Adam and Eve, ie the first two humans. This is a required belief. Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1950 Humani Generis:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty

. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents"
Yes, and the bolded type is the crux (intended) of the problem: the above point of view is one of manufactured ad hoc faith, not necessarily of actuality, and certainly not of Reality.

I should have, as well, bolded “required belief.” What I meant was that looking at Pius XII statement from Humani Genereis, he was speaking to faithful members of the Church. That excludes a lot of people who are therefore not bound by Papal Infalibility except in the view of the faithful. To someone from a perspective outside the Church who sees Scripture, dogma, and especially Church history in a less “pious” light, the whole schema of the Church, regardless of what good it does or doesn’t do, appears manufactured, therefore not necessarily actual as having a 1/1 corespondency with things as they are. Such a statement certainly does not have corespondency with Reality because the Church does not account for nor encourage modes of awareness open to humans by due diligence in which the structure of Church interpretation applies as best as I can see. Yet those modes easily account for the existence of the Church or anything else. So if we are drawing circles of what’s where, the Church is one circle of many within actuality, and actuality is within Reality. That is to say the the greater contains the lesser, not visa versa.

Now I don’t think that will explain much for you, and I’m guessing you will not agree with it. But I’m not saying it as a defensible position. I’m just saying it. But that carries no intention demonstrate the Church as a “falsehood” by any means, not being sure where that word came form; it simply shows the Church as a phenomenon on the plate of attention, one might say.

 

[colmcille1]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Tafan, and I apologize if that’s the case, so lets see if we can get on the same page by going back here:
I should have, as well, bolded “required belief.” What I meant was that looking at Pius XII statement from Humani Genereis, he was speaking to faithful members of the Church. That excludes a lot of people who are therefore not bound by Papal Infalibility except in the view of the faithful. To someone from a perspective outside the Church who sees Scripture, dogma, and especially Church history in a less “pious” light, the whole schema of the Church, regardless of what good it does or doesn’t do, appears manufactured, therefore not necessarily actual as having a 1/1 corespondency with things as they are. Such a statement certainly does not have corespondency with Reality because the Church does not account for nor encourage** modes of awareness **open to humans by due diligence in which the structure of Church interpretation applies as best as I can see. Yet those modes easily account for the existence of the Church or anything else. So if we are drawing circles of what’s where, the Church is one circle of many within actuality, and actuality is within Reality. That is to say the the greater contains the lesser, not visa versa.
Now I don’t think that will explain much for you, and I’m guessing you will not agree with it. But I’m not saying it as a defensible position. I’m just saying it. But that carries no intention demonstrate the Church as a “falsehood” by any means, not being sure where that word came form; it simply shows the Church as a phenomenon on the plate of attention, one might say.

Hi Tuno, my friend,
An interesting post. I have bolded these words as I felt (perhaps wrongly) that this is the gist of your argument here.
The way I see it is that the Church is a far-reaching reality for countless millions. Now, the strength of numbers angle does not operate on the same basis as that which would hold for a political pholosophy e.g. democracy. IOW, said reality of Faith has far greater meaning, both public and private, for millions worldwide.
I see no inherent “wrong” (and I appreciate where you are coming from re that word) in the Church tackling the modes of awareness. If said tackling is done badly this is a tragedy and it is no wonder many leave or feel alienated from Christ’s teaching.
But my answer to this would be to steel ones nerve, so to speak, and challenge said bad catechesis by discovering the goodness that is there.
And if we always keep in mind and heart that Faith is God-given, then I believe that said modes of awareness will unfold in a clearer, more discernible light.
I’m not sure if I have dealt with what you were referring to here. I hope I have contributed something to it. Thanks.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Tuno]

Yes, the bolded line is the “gist” or includes a main point in that statement. There is no doubt that the Church is a very far reaching “reality” for somewhat countable millions unless there are already uncensused millions “out there.” As for those here, I sincerely feel that The church & they have a mutually admirable & useful relationship up to the point of such incongruancies as might happen with science, needful practice, subtlety of meaning, & other possible bones of contention.

As you say, there is no “inherent ‘wrong’” in the Church’s view as I understand it, except by omission, over-caution, & lack of fineness of distinction or discrimination–in the evaluative sense–in these matters. There is far, far more of value in this regard, say in the astonishing love poetry of Sts Francis, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Sienna, etc, than there is in teachings codified regarding faith & morals.

The tragedy I personally, or “impersonally” might serve better here, was the utter lack of recognition in the very numerous clergy I consulted about my very state-changing experience that it was even of any value to consider the meaning of. I was pretty much summarily dismissed with everything from “it must be a chemical imbalance in your hormones” to “just have faith and ignore that it happened.” My only tangible support was from the Salesian priest who had been a Navy S.E.A.L. He at least encouraged a scrupulous inventorying of knowns & unknowns about the incident & acknowledged at least that whatever happened was real & significant to me, if no one else. That small anchor allowed me to keep my sanity. Reading didn’t help much, either.

So the tragedy is that if there is adequate and useful teaching in this matter that is applicable in such instances as mine, it made no appearance during my time of need. Indeed, after these many decades, it hasn’t yet, save in the congruency of the experiences as recorded by some Saints. That does not mean that I am claiming Sainthood, I hope you clearly understand. I am simply looking for some category of explanation.

So I have been “steeling my nerve” for some lengthy time now, as I indicated. I do not dismiss such good as the Church has done. Neither am I happy about such associations as the Church has with, uh, unfortunate actions not commensurate with the Love and compassion of its Exemplar. Gandhi’s statement* comes easily to mind.

And while Faith is God given, as is absolutely everything else, Faith is but a place holder until something fundamentally Real informs our awareness. Please note I differentiate “Real” from “actual” or “extant.” In the mean time, Faith is excellent, & I have no argument with having it, save that it is almost in every case mistaken for knowledge. This is a point incapable of actual clarity until one has had such an experience as mine which divorces thought from Being and relegates intellect to the category of “contents.” Contents is dependent & changeable, Being is not. And, importantly, one who has experienced Being, or Soul, as such, easily and unconsciously might well be forced simply by the tools available by means of their upbringing & mind set to exegize their experience through the lens of those limited tools. I was more fortunate than that.

So such animosity as I harbored for some time was not against the Church as such, but against it’s inability to deal with my experience as a living actuality. It has not yet done so, as what has been offered from any source “within” has been intellection, save, as I say, the Mysitcs who had usually no other tools than Catholic culture to explain themselves. Even in those cases, such as Avila, the Church militated against the unfolding of a direct revelation. The Inquisition forbad women to read books! This is how the Church treated one of its own Doctors (a word which means “'Teacher”). St. Thomas Aquinas is similarly mistaken when his final revelation is contrasted to his life’s prodigious and astonishingly profound work. Yet he was ready to burn it all, as was my Mentor at the time of his own demise. There is excellent reason for this, & it is not uncommon among Sages to behave this way, as you might know from your extensive readings. Suffice it to say that the person who said “I think our ecstasies offer the only real clues about Him” was spot on.

So, again, I have no quarrel with the Church insofar as it is an aid and stabilizing factor in someone’s life. Unfortunately, in its dogmatic and non-mystical aspects, it can as well be a damper, or far, far worse. That is what I object to, & that is why people of my ilk, & I know many, tend to leave. Those who don’t clearly are straining to express their experience within the bounds of approved doctrine when there is, as I have noted, a cognitive system in place which covers all the bases.

That system is incompatible with Catholicism only in its exegesis of such experiences as mine & the consequent expansion of congruent identity statements in the Bible. To some those are just too radical (a word which stems from “root”) to be acceptable, & that is fine. When they wake up to having had such a mystical experience even in small degree, they will be far more open to such interpretations if they are available. In my case they were not, and the consequences followed.

So you have dealt with my question to the extent that you allowed me to speak on its significance to me & many others. There are many, & I have encountered them even on these fora. Few of them have remained Catholic. Very few. Perhaps now you might be getting a glimmer of why. We are all the children of the God. He made us in His image & Likeness. Is it such a stretch to think that some might look within and see the Glory of that? Is it such a stretch to think that mere dogma cannot encompass such Wonder?

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ."

 

[colmcille1]

Hi Tuno, my friend,
Thank you for your very thorough reply.
I feel, on the one hand, that anything I may say will be grossly inadequate as you are obviously deeply conversant with your past and present; what I may add may seem trite or unintentionally hurtful. So I will not go down that road.
However, if I may, I would like to offer some real-life events which fortify my belief system.
And in the course of doing so, I would like to use selfsame events as “evidence” in a continuum of belief; this constancy would face down any apparent problems should intelligence from out there in the universe be encountered.
Firstly, a dear dear friend of mine is living proof that art saved her life. Many years back, she was hospitalised. Her condition was so bad that she lost all sense of touch. She faced life as a wheelchair-bound patient. Through the power of prayer she responded to all the therapies. Her sense of touch and hand manipulation returned to such an extent that she was able to scribble doodles on a page. These doodles created their own energy by egging her on to add to them. And, stubborn lady that she is, she did until entire pictures were formed. Not content with leaving it at that she then used splodges of watercolour. The art forming beneath those restless fingers mirrored the growth of an inner resilience.
Today, she is a beautiful wise woman. Whose life was saved by art.
Second, my family have had more than their fair share of grief. We are very close. I would do anything for them.Every day I thank God for the strength He has given us.
Third, a neighbour of mine has tremendous Faith. Loathe as I am to pigeon-hole people, I suppose she would be typical of a lot of Irish people of “the old school”. I have to tell you that chatting with this lady for half an hour is more instructive than a month of book-reading. It is lived Faith. It speaks to another space inside. I do not fully know how to verbalise it. But I do know that there is unfathomable richness there.

And that richness is the common denominator, as it were, of all three areas I have described. This strength of Faith, this human broken-ness striving towards His goodness is more than enough, as I see it, to overcome any potential problems we may have in encountering other intelligence within the universe.

Tuno, I hope that by mentioning just these areas of my life, it will help you to see, on a very ordinary and extraordinary plane, why I have the Faith I have. And, while I cling to said Faith doggedly, I am not blind to your arduous journey which has led you on your particular path. I hope and pray that we can continue this dialogue of searching souls.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Tuno]

As I just dropped by my computer to glance at mail on my way to the studio to touch up a piece for an upcoming show, I can readily understand from my own and other’s multitudinous experiences about the healing properties of art. Despite deriving exquisite insight and joy from visual arts, I would more readily ascribe such powers to music than to my own arena of expression, but am grateful to hear about your friend’s healing through such application. My Mentor’s music has been attributed with several healings, and the same has been true of much music through the ages, notably Gregorian chant. Since Music touches us on all levels, even the atomic, that is a small, yet overwhelming wonder.

And far be it from me to doubt any healing event that is attributed to faith. As I said, I have no quarrel with faith, though I would add that faith is independent of denomination. I read not too long ago about a man whose life was saved literally by finding water by agency of striking a rock, a la Moses. He was a Christian Scientist, and you might imagine that his faith was mightily re-enforced by that event. I have heard first hand of many such things, a large percentage independent of Catholicism. A good example independent of religion altogether is the case of Richard Bandler who “conversed” his mother out of metastasized breast cancer. She lived another eleven years, much to the surprise of several doctors.

Indeed, once when I visited my Mother in hospital I found her gasping for air and exhausted from hours of such effort. I thought that my Mentor would see through the falsehood of that presentation as depicting Reality. I touched my Mother at the top of her sternum with that in mind and her breathing immediately returned to normal, and she could not imagine what had happened to her. Neither could I, but I know that “Miracle is the lessening of objective confinement.” A similar event happened with me when I had a severely painful burn from a glob of rue I’d flipped on to a finger. My brother, a Zen Buddhist, talked me out of it. In five minutes I was in no pain and there was not even redness where the burn had been. And of course, the history of our Church is replete with accounts of far, far greater miracles, many of them true. Padre Pio comes to mind.

But mine is not a question of Faith. I know God IS. My accounting simply discredits the Church and other institutions as having a complete or viable explanation or course of action in cases such as mine. And, as I have said, I have no contest with people having whatever faith they wish. I just know from experience that there is an underlying Reality that precedes the form or practice of any particular faith. That underlying Reality is what Christianity, in my understanding, is originally about. It is that underlying Reality that has been to some degree occluded by men and women of less stature than our Exemplar, the Son of God.

That underlying Reality, however, is unassailable by any means of mind or emotion. It simply IS. I knew that even before I had my experiences as a conclusion I drew from my own limited knowledge of religions and experience. It only took my own experience and serendipity, (or was it Grace?) to find the commensurate cognitive line. That cognitive line is not for everyone. Au contraire. But it should not suffer the obscurity of denial or ignorance, either.

So let those who have faith have it. It is good, right, and necessary that it be so. There has to be a starting place and the grades that follow. I am simply stating from my experience that there is more. Would that not be a signal of hope and spark a desire for effort? Maybe not. And that is fine as well. How many give any attention to the large questions of life? Maybe too few. Or maybe exactly the right number, that number being exactly equal to those who by desire or calling are ready. Have you not read Mark 4:33;34?

 

[tonyrey]

Tuno
I just know from experience that there is an underlying Reality that precedes the form or practice of any particular faith. That underlying Reality is what Christianity, in my understanding, is originally about. It is that underlying Reality that has been to some degree occluded by men and women of less stature than our Exemplar, the Son of God.

Indeed. Far from being a problem the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere would confirm the truths and values of the religions on this planet. It would become even more evident that the principle of fraternity is essential for harmony in society and fulfilment for the individual. Aliens are obviously not biologically related to us in any way. If we and they exist for no reason or purpose we cannot be truly members of one family unless we all have one Father in heaven.** Fraternity cannot be based on an accident of birth.**…

 

[Tuno]

Yes, Tonyrey. While we may as a race conform in the development of our extraordinary “space suits,” the suits we utilize in this “space,” to what appears as a process called “evolution,” that process yet has the earmarks of an accelerant. Both “chance” and “He did it” by themselves are insufficient answers. Something far more wonderful than mind accounts for is at play here.