archive: RE: SETI The Drake Equation - Probability One

RE: SETI The Drake Equation - Probability One

Cecchini, Ron ( (no email) )
Thu, 20 May 1999 19:07:25 -0400

> From: John Willcox[]
<snip well said stuff>

> The point I wanted to state (after all this clumsy verbiage):
> The motivation for SETI is neither Science, nor some vague
> cosmic hand-waving philosophy. It is the culmination of all that we
> are and want to be. If it occurs to us on our world...

Whereas my interest is primarily motivated from
spending 20 years of my (former) life as a strict
protestant Christian. i "left the faith" a year
& a half ago.

Oh, i should say that i've actually been "following"
SETI, as well as most branches of science, for a good
long while now. My degrees are in computer science, &
i've always been a "student of science" despite holding
that Englightenment-esque belief that the existence of
a God was a given (weird that they did that, no?).

Anyway, i gotta get running to the extrasolar planet
lecture at Harvard right now <hint><hint>, but i've
jokingly quipped (though i'm dead serious) that *if*
i should ever come in physical contact with an E.T.,
i'm gonna bodyslam it to the ground, pounce on top of
it & yell out:


(ok, so maybe i wouldn't be the best ambassador...)

But i have to admit to finding it ... what's the word ...
"comforting" (?) that Sagan sorta wrote this exact notion
into "Contact" (which i didn't read until after my little
"conversion"). Namely, in the book, when Ellie asks the ET
about their "numinous", their mysteries.

In the movie, her question was going to be how they
survived their technological infancy ... & that's a
damn good question.

But to *me* (& i think i can justify this), the bigger
& more important question is to ask about their religions;
my reasoning being that, if they, say, recite The Gospel
Story of Christ (or whatever), to *me* it would be pretty
damn compelling evidence of its validity, even if it were
only a statistical sample set of 2.

Ok, gotta run.

have a good weekend