Astrobiology. Группа авторов

or interact with those extraterrestrial life forms. The ethical normative aspect would have greater weight whenever there is a possibility of intervening in their ecosystem. It would not be the same to detect extraterrestrial life forms on exoplanets that we cannot visit to detect it on a nearby planet and be able to have some degree of impact on it.

      The third case would have more of an impact on us than on them, in the case of detecting intelligent life forms that may not be able to communicate with us, but we do detect them. This scenario does not seem highly likely now (and here the convenience of the mental experiment, because we can imagine it). However, if that were the case, it would have a significant impact on how we understand life in the universe. In this scenario, since we cannot communicate with them much less visit them, we would not have the possibility to exchange moral systems to establish an authentic astrobiocentric way of behavior. We would be limited to rearticulate what we are as intelligent beings sharing existence with other intelligent beings, but at the moral level we would still be conditioned by the ethical perspective based on the biogeocentric approach, so that even if there are considerable implications both for the natural and social sciences, we would still be watching with eyes anthropocentric to our peers’ smarts.

      The fourth scenario is closer to a science fiction one, but sometimes science fiction gets ahead of the facts and helps us imagine scenarios and develop interesting arguments. If a communication with intelligent life forms were to take place, the epistemological gap would be more affected than in the other cases since it represents a rather rich cognitive element.

In this exchange of information, the elaboration of an astrobiological code of ethics with an astrobiocentric approach would find its most developed form, since it will be based not only on one reference, but on two. Assuming, of course, that in this communication there is a minimum of mutual understanding and there is no threat presented by it. This scenario is hard to imagine and less likely to happen. What most likely could be expected to happen is scenario one, considering the current state of the search for life in the universe. That being the case, our problem on how to establish an astrobioethics criterion with an appropriate epistemological foundation will have to be limited to an inevitable anthropo-bio-geocentric bias.

1.3 Astrotheological Issue

      It is interesting to think about the implications that the discovery of life in other worlds would have on theology. It would not be the first time that a scientific discovery would modify or infuse the spiritual world’s perspective on the universe. The antecedent of this can be seen in Darwin’s theory of evolution and the passage of the geocentric model to a heliocentric one in the Copernican turn.

      The positivism of Auguste Comte thought that after passing through the theological state and the metaphysical state, you would follow the state science, where the hubris of humanity would finally surpass the other forms of knowledge to give way to one in which science leads the way (this is known as the law of the three states). In the theological state, human beings explain the world through supernatural beings; in the metaphysical state, reason supplants these beings to give an explanation of your environment; and finally assumes the positive state, in which the explanation based on scientific evidence predominates, which is the one that would eventually be established as the one form of knowledge that leads us to truth, freeing us from any form of theological thought [1.16].

      Religion still exists and, in some countries, is even stronger today. Perhaps analyzing the etymological origin of the word religion will help us to understand it in another way and not as positivist thought was trying to do.

      “The word religion comes from the Latin religare which means ‘to bind together.’ Religion in this sense would be the construct that for a long time has allowed us to unite our world, giving shape and meaning, giving us a character of teleological beings, or beings that seek a purpose, which is not given a priori but is rather developed [1.3].”¹

If we understand religion as giving meaning, then its function can be better understood, since it is not a question of worshipping certain gods or one in particular, but of offering the meaning that human beings need to guide their lives. Religious experience is a dimension of the human being that cannot be left out. Religion can be understood as a natural phenomenon, which is a cultural product that society has needed to give meaning to its environment, and has been so for thousands of years, leaving an undeniable imprint on the human mind [1.17].

      On the other hand, the universality of religious experience can also be understood as a form of perennial wisdom, as Aldous Huxley explains:

      “To this the fully developed Perennial Philosophy always has and, in all places, given fundamentally the same answer. The divine Ground of all existence is a spiritual Absolute, ineffable in terms of discursive thought, but (in certain circumstances) susceptible of being directly experienced and realized by the human being. This Absolute is the God-without-form of Hindu and Christian mystical phraseology [1.18].”

      If we understand it from this perspective, religion is not a secondary accessory for humanity. For a person it can be dispensable, since you can be an atheist and use the sense of religare in other activities such as science itself (an extreme version of this can be seen in the Religion of Humanity by Auguste Comte, where science was an important part of the cult).

      If we have this perspective, it is important not to forget the theological aspect in astrobiology, regardless of whether one is a believer or not, because it is a relevant issue to consider and has an impact on the way we see the world of millions of people on Earth. The mere discovery of a second Genesis would potentially have significant implications for the way we see the world. Based on this we could speculate and say that religions will adapt. Perhaps there are religions more flexible to this type of new scenario than others.

      But we must also consider another factor. We have religion whose Praxis is institutionalized, and we have the personal way in which people live their religious lives. In accordance with their belief system, perhaps for the average person it is not exceedingly difficult to assume that life exists on other worlds, but another scenario may be that the religious institution makes adjustments in the short term. The truth is that religion will not disappear because there is life on other worlds.

The theological explanation of Christian creation will find ways to contextualize in this new scenario, Buddhism will be able to share existence with other forms of life, and ancestral spiritual practices, such as in the Andes and its cult of Pachamama, could contemplate the fact that Mother Earth (in a cosmic context) is always generous in giving life even in other lands.

      Considering the complexity involved in having a religious discussion in relation to the discovery of life in other worlds, it is important to talk about astrotheology, which is the discipline that studies the theological implications related to the results of astrobiological research. The word astrotheology was coined by Ted Peters, and he defines it as:

      “Astrotheology is that branch of theology that provides a critical analysis of contemporary space sciences combined with an explanation of classical doctrines such as creation and Christology for the purpose of building a comprehensive and meaningful understanding of our human situation within an astonishingly immense cosmos [1.25].”

      In astrotheology we could discuss religious aspects in a context of astrobiological discoveries. Traditionally accepted questions in some religions can be seen in a renewed way in astrotheology. We could take as a starting point of reflection the four fundamental axes of astrotheology proposed by Tom Peters:

      1 To reflect from different religious traditions the issue of creation and geocentrism.

      2 Discuss the parameters on the debate of the person of Christ and the work of Christ.

      3 Analyze and discuss astrobiology and related sciences from within, exposing extra-scientific assumptions, interpreting the high value of scientific enterprise.

      4 Cooperate between scientists and religious leaders to prepare for possible extraterrestrial contact [1.25].

      At least the second axis corresponds more to a reflective aspect of Christian astrotheology.