NASA Astrobiology Grant Revisits "Contact" Memes

1. “Contact” was a poorly written, dumbed down movie that left me greatly disappointed. You will be much better advised to read Carl Sagan’s novel instead.

   1. You missed the point of the posting entirely.

   2. Don’t agree djshultz3 – I think the movie is very good on it’s own terms. I enjoyed the book very much though for slightly different reasons. Science Fiction movies in the last generation have usually been dumb action blockbusters and ‘Contact’ is streets ahead of them on those terms. In other words – it’s smart for a mere movie. As for the idea that there might be information or ‘messages’ hidden in the mathematics and substance of the Universe; a very similar idea was just getting started on the TV show ‘Stargate: Universe’ before that was cancelled a few years back. It’s an idea that still might see the light of day elsewhere; drama-wise.

   3. djshultz3, one of the points of “Contact” is that people tend see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what their beliefs tell them they’ll see. This applies to watching the movie itself. I had a powerfully positive experience from the movie in large part due to what I brought to it. You didn’t. Your loss.

2. I read the book when it came out. I read it again several times after the movie came out. I like the movie and the book for different reasons. The post is about NASA funding a theological organization. Please stay on topic.

   1. The suggestion was made that “Contact Is The Forgotten ’90s Sci-Fi Film You Need To Revisit”, so this is on-topic, especially given that in the novel the aliens tell her about their discovery of messages hidden in the endlessly repeating digits of Pi and other transcendental numbers, messages that really could only have been placed there by the designer of the universe, which even they admit must be the “signature of the artist”. The alien civilization is expending more and more of its resources to build galactic scale supercomputers to dig deeper and deeper into these messages. At the end of the novel, Ellie takes the alien’s suggestion and programs her SETI software to look for patterns not in the radio noise from her telescope, but in the digits of Pi, and the novel ends with the first hint to humanity of what is to come if they choose to dig deeper into these numbers. The movie left all of this out, leaving a very unsatisfying ending compared to the novel, which provides the theological connection that this article hints at, but the movie misses entirely.

3. This is distressing.

   Nowadays the ‘belief’ community is seen attacking science on many fronts, particularly with respect to the mechanism with which the variety of phenotypes that we see on Earth develop.

   Templeton’s mission, among others, focuses on finding ‘common ground’ between science and faith. NASA has no place in this particular food fight.

4. Yes, it does seem like its crossing the line. Hopefully they will also look at the opposite case, the implications of not discovering advanced intelligence in the galaxy, although it is always difficult to prove a negative.

   But it is quite possible, given what we are now discovering about other planetary systems, the history of our Solar System and the hazards of GRBs, etc. that even complex life is very rare and most of the life found will be at the level of primitive prokaryotic level because of the lack of stable planetary environments.

5. There is not enough commonality in language and method between science and religion to form a solid basis for comparison. Therefore there is no conflict. There is only a perception of conflict born out of arrogance, ignorance and closed-mindedness.
   However, NASA using public money to help fund any particular religious denomination (or group thereof), and not all of them, is a violation of the establishment clause IMO. So I hope that they didn’t do that. Also, NASA working with only one denomination (or group thereof), and not all of them, on such a study would produce an incomplete study.
   I do know that there are many folks who’s religious beliefs have no problem at all with the possibility of alien life…myself included. I anticipate that if/when we find intelligent life on other planets they will be better informed on religion and science and will therefore be more religious than us and will of course share my own religious beliefs. 😉

   1. Yep, they (the aliens) will bring the One and True God to us. And we start praying, or else.

6. Religion and faith in a higher power(s) has been woven into human culture and societies since the beginning. Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of God or any particular belief system is to a certain degree besides the point; for better or worse (I happen to think better, on balance) many philosophies, governments, laws, ethics, and morals find their basis in theological perspectives/beliefs. Consequently, any analysis or discussion regarding the impact of such a profound scientific matter on society and culture MUST include religious questions & perspectives. How could it not?

   Therefore, presuming a healthy variety of religious affiliations would be represented at the proceedings, I see no problem with this. Religion and theology as a field of study has opened doors inward to our consciousnesses/souls that secular techniques have consistently failed to breach. Why shouldn’t our premier space exploration agency support the discussion of questions derived from space exploration that would, one would presume, deeply touch us all?

   1. Very simple.

      Faith has no antecedent in the realm of science.

      1. Untrue. Genuine faith exists in the presence of the physical universe and begins with a simple acknowledgement regarding the creation of said universe: gratitude.

         The conference described appears at face value to seek to explore the impact of specific scientific discoveries, current & potential, on society at large. Religion/faith is a substantial component of society at large, so it would be a logical component of any such set of discussions.

         1. ‘Genuine faith’ as you say.

            1. Perhaps ‘thoughtfully considered faith’ better captures my intended meaning. Your so-called ‘belief community’ is less monolithic than your posts here would seem to want to suggest. In fact, quite a few scientists are ‘members’.

            2. It is monolithic at least in the sense that faith is the barrier to entry.

            3. While I believe that I understand your description I consider it an oversimplified distortion. You are trying to represent what is actually a very nuanced variance across a vast multitude as something straightforwardly either/or, as if billions of folks around the globe have a religious ‘on/off’ switch on their back.

               But what an odd word choice on your part: ‘barrier to entry’. Faith for many is not a threshold to cross as much as a personal arrival at some answers—some certainly tentative—to questions that ‘ordinary’ pursuit of knowledge and understanding (including scientific investigations) has failed to supply—or silence—in our minds/hearts/souls.

            4. faith
               [feyth]
               noun
               1.
               confidence or trust in a person or thing:
               faith in another’s ability.

               Dictionary.com

               As in a scientist trusting a hypothesis enough to risk his/her career and reputation pursuing it.

Comments are closed.