KARL RAHNER AND THE EXTRA‐TERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE QUESTION

The prospect of extra‐terrestrial intelligence has become a central topic of scientific investigation and popular speculation. This has generated questions of ethical and theological significance that now receive growing coverage. Throughout his writings, Karl Rahner remained open to the prospect that the process of cosmic evolution had yielded sentient life form in other galaxies. He argued against any theological veto on this notion, while also distinguishing the existential significance of such life forms from that of angels. Furthermore, the possibility of multiple incarnations is raised though not affirmed. With its christological intensity, his theology seems to militate against any repetition of the incarnation. This essay examines some of the arguments for and against the possibility of multiple incarnations, before assessing the current state of the extra‐terrestrial intelligence debate. In the light of inconclusive scientific findings, the cautionary position of Rahner is re‐affirmed.     

Moderation in the actor–partner interdependence model

Potential moderators of effects in the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) include variables that vary within dyads, between dyads, or both between and within dyads (i.e., mixed moderators). Another factor in the moderation of the APIM is whether dyads are indistinguishable (e.g., same‐sex friendship pairs) or distinguishable (e.g., heterosexual couples). For each possibility, what are the potential moderator effects (up to 8), how they might be estimated and tested, and how they can be interpreted are discussed. Submodels are also presented, based on patterns of moderation of the actor and partner effects, which are statistically simpler, more conceptually meaningful, and more powerful in testing moderator effects. Example analyses illustrate the recommended steps involved in an APIM moderation analysis.     

A paradox of support seeking and support response among gays and lesbians

Individuals that perceive stigma surrounding their identity and fear rejection of support requests may experience a paradox whereby they seek support indirectly from support networks (friends and family) to avoid rejection and are met with unsupportive responses. This study extended this paradox to sexual minorities using survey data from a sample of 133 individuals self‐identified as gay and lesbian. Results of structural equation modeling showed self‐stigma and fear of support rejection linked to increased indirect support seeking, which in turn explained unsupportive network responses, providing support for a paradox among gays and lesbians. Findings may have implications for interventions to improve support exchanges in the lives of sexual minorities.     

Exploring the Effects of the Naturalistic Fallacy: Evidence That Genetic Explanations Increase the Acceptability of Killing and Male Promiscuity

The naturalistic fallacy is the erroneous belief that what is natural is morally acceptable. Two studies assessed whether people commit the naturalistic fallacy by testing whether genetic explanations for killing and male promiscuity, as compared to experiential explanations (i.e., learning/“nurture” explanations) increase acceptance of these behaviors. In Study 1, participants who read a genetic explanation for why people kill bugs viewed bug killing as more morally acceptable than participants who read an experiential explanation, although they did not reliably kill more bugs. In Study 2, men who read a genetic explanation for why men are more promiscuous than women reported decreased interest in long‐term romantic commitment compared with men who read experiential explanations and women who read either explanation.