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. We could include other axes that also represent important aspects of different religions, but this could increase them unnecessarily. The other option would be to encompass the more general notions that have to do with this form of perennial philosophy of all religions and reflect them in the framework of astrobiological discoveries.
One issue that is extremely important is that the astrotheological discussion should come from religious representatives who have adequate knowledge of the working form of science and astrobiology. Point 3 is essential in order to not fall into absolute biases that blind the assimilation of new results that arise, which will ultimately influence point 4.
The most fundamental aspect we could infer from these four axes is that of our place in the universe from a religious perspective. What is our place in the universe considering the presence of life outside the Earth within the framework of religion? are we moving towards new religious forms that contemplate “other creations” as well as a second astrobiological Genesis? This will push us to rethink several of the religious concepts we currently handle [1.2].
However, when discussing axis 4 we would have to take into account the following:
“Astrotheology should take seriously that most astrobiologists are searching for life that is far from an ETI with which we might have conversations over metaphysics. It is microbial life that is being imagined and that seems like it potentially could be found [1.26].”
There are important issues worth discussing about astrotheology and the discovery of life outside the Earth. To what extent is it relevant for religious studies to find microbial life compared to extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)? Would discovering non-intelligent and microbial life forms imply a sort of preference for “intelligent creation” on Earth over other planets from a biogeocentric point of view? These and other issues deserve proper discussion to reach a consensus.
1.4 Interplanetary Issue
What if a fact-finding mission involves extraterrestrial life? What would happen if we accidentally caused damage to these life forms? Of course, I mean non-intelligent life, which presents us with a situation where we must decide for ourselves what is the right way to proceed.
These kinds of questions differ from those that might be asked in astroethics. In the latter, there would be more of a focus on issues regarding territorial conflicts, such as: What would happen if a nation under the pretext of staying in an area, the moon, for example, for the purpose of research, intends for second intentions to “appropriate” that land? What would prevent a country from indefinitely occupying a place on Mars under the pretext of continuing its research, considering that no celestial object can be the object of militarization?
We cannot deny that eventually any issues involving the presence of life and the militarization of space or space mining will have to intersect. In the future it is most likely that they will, and to date there is no normative document that addresses all the implications and responsibilities involving all the variables to consider, especially since it is one thing to discuss it around a table, and another to have the problem directly in front of us.
But coming back to the issue of Interplanetary, in astrobioethics it will have to be limited to our role in relation to these other forms of life. This puts us in the position of thinking about defining the axiological dimension that extraterrestrial life will have for us. Should we consider that these forms of life have value in themselves or just an instrumental value? Therefore, we could look at extraterrestrial life from two perspectives, which, since it is always changing, could be more or even interconnect. The perspective of value in itself—taking Kant as a reference—and that of instrumental value—considering the utilitarian perspective.
It should be emphasized that the idea that the human being has value in himself, according to Kant’s argument, comes mainly from the fact of his being a rational being. We do not expect in the short term to meet beings from other planets with intelligence and use of reason, so we will subtract from this thought only the notion of value in itself, since an authentic use of Kantian morality has no place here. Taking into consideration that we think that non-intelligent extraterrestrial life forms cannot defend themselves or have a way of communicating with us in any way, to what extent can we give them some value? The value we could give a non-intelligent extraterrestrial life forms is perhaps as the only galactic companions we know, and that neglecting them or not treating them properly, would then make us alone in the known universe. Here you can enter the word coined by Charles Cockell, which is that of “teloempathy.” What does it mean? Basically, to have empathy for other terrestrial and non-terrestrial life forms because they have interests. What is that interest? That of not being destroyed [1.12] [1.13] [1.15].
However, when we start talking about interests, we are moving away from Kantian morality, so it is more convenient to talk about an astrobioethics with utilitarian rather than Kantian tendencies,
“…if we really want to consider a ‘universal’ ethic in the most real sense possible, it should be based on the experience and the cases studied, so that we avoid a metaphysical attempt that can bring us difficulties rather than solutions [1.7].”
Considering a form of universal ethics would be inconvenient if we put it in front of the transdisciplinary nature of astrobioethics discussed ages ago. The a posteriori form of work that involves the process of astrobiological discovery does
