I think it's the opposite. There are scientists who are obsessed with finding extraterrestrial life because of their philosophical views regarding man's place in the universe. The fact that our universe seems primed for life has bothered so many gung ho atheistic scientists that they've conjured all sorts of semi-pseudoscientific multiverse theories (Sean Carroll). That's one part of it. The second part it's reducing abiogenesis to a simple process that just "takes time" and is almost inevitable. The goal is to try to shove bare faced facts into a dusty drawer while you trot out the latest sensational theory. This is why there's been constant attacks on the Big Bang theory even though it's one of the triumphs of modern cosmological science. It all becomes so easy to justify when you define science as "what atheists believe."

Methodological naturalism as applied to the scientific Certainly has no dependence on atheism.

Who categorizes science as an intrinsically atheistic endeavor other than religious apologists?

The perception that all scientists are atheists comes from a small number of loud dogmatists. This is exactly like the perception that all Christians are literalist fundamentalists or hold right wing political beliefs.

All scientists are not atheists, just the smart ones. Depends on your interpretation of the word though. I don't consider atheism to be a complete abscence of philosophical pondering. I believe we haven't explored emergent consciousness enough and that makes it a mystery. But a scientist believing in a God from an ancient textbook is a red flag for me

Only 7% of Nobel Prize winners are "smart"? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_...

How would microbial life on mars be a confirmation of atheists beliefs?

The nature of general religious beliefs is that they're essentially non-falsifiable.

And particularly in this case, life on mars wouldn't be shocking due to the fact that there is life on earth and there is a small amount of mass transfer. If there isn't some amount of microbial life on mars it would only because of the dumb luck that there hasn't happened to be anything on earth that could get transferred, survive the transfer, and survive on mars.

Why would a position on athiesm have any negative bearing on whether the universe is teaming with life? Atheism would likely posit that finding life all over the place hints that it's a common natural process.

People could also see it as evidence for a creator, e.g. that the universe is obviously fine tuned for life. Theism isn't scientifically testable or falsifiable, so science can't say much of anything about it.

Moving the goalpost doesn't prove much. Going from how special we are vis a vis Adam and Eve, to accepting life is actually everywhere and has been since well before Earth was a thing is itself a huge leap to make.

Is it really different than any other retcon that's occurred in the last 500 years? At least in Christianity anything can be de-emphasized or treated as metaphor if it is inconvenient.

What?

The priorities currently for Mars seem to be gathering correlated data to strengthen or weaken the case overall.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/

2x. Look at the test suites on everything we've sent since Viking. Viking gave us odd results so we've set out to do a good job proving things one way or the other.

I mean, you're probably right. If there was life found on Mars, there would be precedence to protect it - I could see this even stopping ANY manned missions (fear of contamination).

If the planet is dead, we as a civilization get the privilege to do whatever we want with it. Also a dead planet means the idea of the Monotheistic God kind of remains.

Ignorance is bliss.

Mars is getting contaminated in the near future, whether we find life on it or not. Whether we collectively want it to be or not. Given the ever-decreasing cost of launches into space, the increasing access to small satellites, I think suspect it's inevitable that some collection of Earth microbes will get a ride to Mars within the next century. Whether it's a motivated team of grad students, an obsessed billionaire, or a small nation that doesn't decontaminate its lander before launch, it's going to happen.

> Also a dead planet means the idea of the Monotheistic God kind of remains.

I don't follow why life on another planet would have any bearing on the idea of a Monotheistic God.

This is why I kind of admire the biblical myths; their selective details and smoky metaphors have proven incredibly resilient to new truths, and invite so much speculation.

The garden of eden could be in some far flung galaxy, from which we “life”, were expelled as microbes, thanks to the sins of relatives we wouldn’t recognize. The rib of Adam could symbolize the arbitrary evolution of sexual reproduction from asexual origins. The forbidden fruit could represent some inevitable nuclear holocaust spurred on by some intra-species conflict, which prompted life to be cast out and begin on another planet. Something unique about our shape of life means that we’re stuck in a cycle of destructive evolution that cannot be saved from itself, excepting for the divine intervention of some less imperfect shape of life.

Anyways, I’m rambling! I hope this sparks somebody’s theological-scifi bug and produces a mildly entertaining narrative in somebody else’s head. :)

It makes God's ultimate and unquestioning perfection in creating the Universe called essentially into question. If there is life on Mars, then it's no small leap to think there's life outside of the Solar System. What place then do we, as God's children have in the Universe, and in God's grand plan?

Stuff like that.