 |
Christopher J. Corbally, S.J.
Vatican Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
ABSTRACT
Reactions to the announcement by Dr. McKay and his collaborators that
they had found evidence for primitive life in a meteorite from Mars have
been intense. Some concerned the scientific evidence, some the implications
of extraterrestrial life, especially if intelligent. Underlying these reactions
are assumptions, or beliefs, which often have a religious grounding. The
two divergent beliefs, for and against the plurality of life in the universe,
are examined historically and through religious traditions, particularly
the Judeo-Christian. This examination guides the formulation of the right
relation between science and religion as one that respects the autonomy
of each discipline, yet allows for each to be open to the discoveries of
the other. Based on this relationship, perspectives from scientific exploration
are developed that can help individuals to respect and cope with the new
phenomena that science brings, whether these imply that we might be alone
in the universe or co-creatures of God with the ancient Martians.
I. Introduction
Thanks to Dr. Chris Romanek and the rest of Dr. David McKay's team, last
August and September were exciting months for "exo-scientists".
People's reactions to the announcement of evidence for primitive life in
a meteorite from Mars were intense, and the media rightly played to this
public interest. Some reactions concerned the science; others concerned
the implications, such as in this selection:
No doubt there are moral and religious implications in this.
(Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee for the
NASA budget on National Public Radio)
There is no proof yet, but if there were, then it would cause some sort
of rethink.
(Spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland in The Boston Sunday
Globe by Chet Raymo)
Every time science reveals one of these little mysteries, it says to
me there is a universal cosmic intelligence absolutely beyond my ken.
(Rabbi David Goldstein in The Times-Picayune by Bruce Nolan)
The news is fatally suspect because it rises out of a scientific view
of physical processes contradicted by the Bible.
(Rev. Rusty Tardo in The Times-Picayune by Bruce Nolan)
These reactions are rather like surface features indicating a deeper question.
For underlying them is the prime implication that I find coming from the
announcement: the reactions point to our need for the right relationship,
or dialogue, between science and religion. Six months after the announcement
we have some increased perspective from which to understand this relationship
and so of approaching the possibility of Martian and any other extraterrestrial
life fruitfully. Frequently, though, our position on the possibility of
life is driven by premises derived elsewhere than from science, particularly
from philosophy and theology.
In the following I shall speak mainly from my own Christian tradition.
If your religious tradition is different, then please make due translation
for yourself. Time does not allow me to speak in the many `languages' of
religions today.
II. Premise Driven Positions
"Examine your premises" has nothing to do with the state of your
house, but with uncovering your underlying assumptions. Steven Dick (1996,
12f) has convincingly made the point that where each of us comes down in
the extraterrestrial life debate has its historical foundation in the two
contrasting positions of Greek philosophers, particularly those from the
fourth century B.C., the atomists and the Aristoteleans.
There are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. For
the atoms being infinite in number, as was already proved, are borne on
far out into space. For those atoms which are of such nature that a world
could be created by them or made by them, have not been used up either
on one world or a limited number of worlds .... So that there nowhere exists
an obstacle to the infinite number of worlds.
(Epicurus, in Bailey 1926, 25)
Either, therefore, the initial assumptions must be rejected, or there
must be one center and one circumference; and given this latter fact, it
follows from the same evidence and by the same compulsion, that the world
must be unique. There cannot be several worlds.
(Aristotle, in Guthrie 1953)
Epicurus's philosophy of atomism (all matter is made up of microscopic
atoms) leads to a plurality of worlds; Aristotle's philosophy of
absolute natural place (each element earth, air, fire, water moves towards its natural place) leads to a uniqueness of the known
world. Thus, two philosophical understandings of the nature of matter,
plurality or uniqueness, lead to opposing perspectives on the universe.
When Aristotle's thought was rediscovered in the Middle Ages, and particularly
his rejection of many worlds in De caelo, his arguments were not
uncritically accepted, even though these were not for the most part contrasted
with the atomists' standpoint. The concepts of center, of void, and of
natural motion became the objects of debate. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)
approached the debate from the Aristotelian perspective, but his main concern
seemed to be to show that a single world would not compromise God's omnipotence
and that indeed, since perfection was to be found in unity, a single world
would be more in accordance with God's perfection (Aquinas 1952). For a
time then, perfection, the theological counterpart to Aristotle's uniqueness,
rather than plenitude from the atomists, dominated scholastic thinking
about God and the world.
These were the foundations to the extraterrestrial life debate and its
rediscovery in the thirteenth century. For sake of brevity, let us jump
to the nineteenth century, when science was telling more about the universe,
and to two figures who well illustrate the two main premises in action.
First is the truly fascinating person, William Whewell, a prominent Cambridge
theologian and scientist. Whewell was for many years a proponent of the
plurality of worlds, but he changed his mind and attacked it in 1853. What
seems to have happened, according to Michael Crowe (1986, 265ff), an historian
at the University of Notre Dame, is that Whewell came to appreciate the
full significance of the Copernican revolution that took humans from their
place in the center of the universe and threw them out among the billions
of stars. For Whewell, that change of perspective was an oppressive, desolate,
and dark thought indeed. Further, it was a thought that raised the theological
problem of reconciling these many worlds with the fact that God had intervened
in human history in what seemed a unique way, through the incarnation and
redemption of Christ. Now, Whewell was living in the days before current
science had shown how finely tuned must the universe be to allow life and
how actually its vastness is needed for any life to appear. Such fine-tuning
is the basis of the Anthropic Principle (Polkinghorne 1995, 68ff) which,
whether held in weaker or stronger forms, puts life as the reason for why
the universe is as it is. (In deference to possible aliens and to avoid
chauvinism, perhaps we should now call this the `Sapientic Principle'.)
This Principle, in a theological context, can restore us to the center
of God's scheme.
The second nineteenth century figure is an astronomer who was not at all
perturbed by the Copernican change in perspective. This was Angelo Secchi
(1818-78), a Jesuit and a director of the Roman College Observatory. In
1856 he wrote: "it is with a sweet sentiment that man thinks of these
worlds without number, where each star is a sun which, as minister of the
divine bounty, distributes life and goodness to the other innumerable beings,
blessed by the hand of the Omnipotent." (Secchi 1856, 158) Secchi
conceded that these worlds may not be accessible to his telescopes, but
by analogy with the earth and the solar system he was well persuaded that
the universe is a wonderful organism, filled with life. So, even if Secchi's
science failed him in proof, it fueled his sense of the limitless wonders
of the universe. This open enthusiasm for plurality was remarkable in one
so close to a usually cautious Vatican, but it will strike a chord in those
of us who have enjoyed the myriads of stars on a dark night.
In case anyone thinks that this is where history leaves us, with the debate
settled in favor of the extraterrestrial, I would mention one friend with
whom I have enjoyed many a luncheon. This is Dominic Caronna, who has recently
published a book, Death of the Bible? The question mark at the end
of the book's title is important, for Caronna by no means believes that
the bible is dead. Instead, he believes that extraterrestrials are `dead',
since he focuses on `the unicity of God' (his term for describing unity,
completeness, and absoluteness in God) to show that it would be absurd
for the events of the bible, particularly the incarnation and redemption,
to be repeated elsewhere in the universe. Since Christ is unique, so must
human beings be the only intelligent life in the entire universe. Caronna,
given his premise, makes arguments that are clear and sound, as you would
expect from a lawyer with a philosophical education. My role in the lunchtime
meetings was to try and place a "reasonable doubt" within him
that his scientific perspectives of the limitless universe (Caronna is
one of the few people I know who have read through Stephen Hawking's A
Brief History of Time) might actually be saying something about the
Creator that would have to modify his understanding of `unicity'. We are
still friends, despite the sleepless nights he claims that I gave him,
and we meet regularly, so the contemporary debate continues as it
perhaps does for you too.
III. Proper Relationship between Science and Religion
This brief historical review shows that philosophy and religion, working
from their premises, cannot prove the existence of extraterrestrial life.
However, history also shows that, where science fails to give enough evidence,
premises such as plurality or uniqueness will fill any vacuum that is left.
This is what happens when we work "at the limits" of science
(Dick 1996, 7). There is nothing wrong in this; it is only dangerous when
this happens unawares to us or to others. A powerful guard against
this danger is to keep a proper relationship between science and other
disciplines, particularly philosophy and theology in this case.
A first step in this proper relationship is to recognize and preserve the
limits of discourse within each discipline. For instance, science cannot
address the reason why something exists rather than does not exist. Its
methodology brings out processes among material things, not purpose and
meaning. So, the words "creation of the universe" when spoken
in scientific cosmology and when used in theology have to mean two different
things: we should be clear whether we are talking about physical interactions
or about the work of a non-physical, Prime Mover. This clarity is what
Pope John Paul II had in mind when he wrote, "both religion and science
must preserve their autonomy and distinctiveness" (John Paul II 1988,
M8).
Yet for dialogue between religion and science, a second step is necessary.
Each discipline, while retaining its integrity must be "radically
open to the discoveries and insights of the other" (John Paul II 1988,
M9). An ancient example of such fruitful dialogue can be seen in the first
chapters of Genesis, where the cosmologies of the Near Eastern world were
purified and assimilated into conveying the truths of the relationship
between Creator and created world (or even, worlds). Contemporary cosmologies
are needed for a similar service today, just as evolutionary theory, recognized
recently by Pope John Paul II as no longer just an hypothesis (1996), must
also help. Right now it is the turn of exo-science to dialogue with religion,
so that the two may be "radically open" to each other in thinking
about the alien.
IV. Approaching the Alien
Some clearly approach the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life
with fear and/or disbelief. H.G. Wells's book, The War of the Worlds,
is an early and good illustration of this reaction (without accusing Wells
of it himself). A current example will be found in the Focal Point article
of this February's Sky and Telescope, where George Baldwin writes
about "Keeping ET Away". The dominant premise behind such thinking
is that of uniqueness, which in a religious guise leads one either to take
the Bible or other revelation as literally true (unique or perfect
in that sense), or to take doctrines as quite fixed in expression. Any
disturbance of this world view is to be feared or dubbed as silliness.
From my science I prefer another approach, while recognizing that it is
ultimately founded on the principle of plurality. This approach starts
with the activity of exploration. Exploration is vital to progress
in the physical sciences, for without curiosity in how things work there
would have been no understanding of planets and stars and galaxies, and
further, no significant progress in technology. Exploration is also needed
in the `sciences' of theology and philosophy, so that the same urge to
push back the boundaries of knowledge can bring new insights into traditional
doctrines and questions.
This exploration is what I do daily in my scientific research when examining
the spectrum, or rainbow, from a star such as Vega. That spectrum is more
than a band of colors: there are places of relative darkness where part
of a color is missing, and these features characterize the star's physical
conditions. When I look at a particular star's spectrum, I look at it as
a specimen: I try and let that star be what it is, without forcing
it into a classification category. It may end up being classified easily,
and 95 per cent of stars fall readily into the Morgan-Keenan classification
system (Osterbrock 1994), but I would loose potential insights if I jumped
too readily to a classification for that spectrum. I find that my preferred
way of doing science is synthetic, starting with observations, rather than
analytic, starting with theory. So too, given an encounter with intelligent
extraterrestrial life, I would want to examine the alien by letting `it'
be what it is, without rushing for a classification category, not even
presuming two genders.
Similarly, I would want to let the alien be what it is theologically, without
rushing for the baptismal water (after all, ammonia might be more appropriate!).
Perhaps it is better to speak of letting the alien "reveal" what
it is, since Christians speak of the essence of the Christ-event as the
concentrated point of God's "self-revelation" to human kind (Peacocke
1993, 315). We find the Gospel of St. John appropriately using "Word", Logos in the Greek, to describe this divine self-communication.
But while Christ is the First and the Last Word (the Alpha and the Omega)
spoken to humanity, he is not necessarily the only word spoken to
the whole universe.
There is a challenge to both science and religion in such a synthetic or
specimen-driven approach. This challenge is to provide us with the proper
sense of self and the proper sense of God which will provide
the right foundation for our exploration. For first, if we have a sense
of our own worth, a God-given worth for the religious person that is supported
by the wonderful processes that cosmic and biologic evolution relate, then
we can be prepared for any outcome of our exploration. The finding that
our universe is filled with other intelligent species would not give humanity
a sense of insignificance or fear, but a sense of being an integral part
of a cosmic community. We would discover a `church' beyond the confines
of the Earth and of any narrow interpretations of the Bible. Alternately,
if we find, as far as we can tell, that we on Earth are alone in the vast
universe, this would not bring hubris but a sense of awe and responsibility.
Secondly, the proper sense of God, derived in the dialogue between religion
and science, is needed if we are to avoid making God in our own image. For then there would be nothing that exploration could reveal, except
an inadequate view of ourselves. If instead we allow the echo of the Infinite
Creator to be heard in the vastness of the universe that is shown through
science, then we shall be open to those possibilities that God through
the universe wants to reveal to us. This openness, as we have found
from history, is one that tries to be aware of its premises. It is informed
by past experience and a structured knowledge (or well-winnowed wisdom,
as some would express it). What this correct partnership of the disciplines
will give is the grounded openness by which we can respect and cope
with any new phenomenon that science brings, whether this indicates we
are in the end alone in the universe or are co-creatures with, say, the
ancient Martians.
From this perspective I close by inviting you to enjoy the vision that
Alice Meynell (1923) expressed in the last four verses of her "Christ
in the Universe."
No planet knows that this
Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave,
Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss,
Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.
Nor, in our little day,
May His devices with the heavens be guessed,
His pilgrimage to tread the Milky Way,
Or His bestowals there be manifest.
But, in the eternities,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
O, be prepared, my soul!
To read the inconceivable, to scan
The million forms of God those stars unroll
When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
References
- Aquinas, Thomas, edition of 1952: In Aristotelis libros de caelo
et mundo, generatione et corruptione, meteorologicorum expositio, Rome,
Lectio XIX, 94.
- Bailey, Cyril, ed. and trans. 1926: Epicurus: the Extant Remains,
Oxford.
- Crowe, Michael J. 1986: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750-1900,
Cambridge: CUP.
- Dick, Steven J. 1996: The Biological Universe, Cambridge: CUP.
- Guthrie, W.K.C., trans., 1953, of Aristotle's: On the Heavens,
Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, bk 1, ch 8, 277a, lines 11-13.
- John Paul II, 1988: `Message' in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology:
a Common Quest for Understanding, Eds. Russell, Stoeger, Coyne, Vatican:
Vatican Observatory.
- John Paul II, 1996: `Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences', in L'Osservatore Romano, 30 Oct 1996, Vatican.
- Meynell, Alice 1923: The Poems of Alice Meynell, New York.
- Osterbrock, Donald E. 1994: `Fifty Years Ago: Astronomy; Yerkes Observatory;
Morgan, Keenan, Kellman', The MK Process at 50 Years: ..., San Francisco:
A.S.P., 199-214.
- Peacocke, Arthur 1993: Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming
Natural, Divine, and Human, Minneapolis: Fortress.
- Polkinghorne, John 1995: Serious Talk, Valley Forge, PA: Trinity.
- Secchi, Angelo 1856: Descrizione del nuovo osservatorio del collegio
romano, Rome.
Tucson, February 1997
|
|
