-John Wesley, "The Imperfection of Human Knowledge" Sermon 69.
It may come as a surprise to many that John Wesley (1703-1791) even entertained the thought of extraterrestrial life. We imagine that to be the exclusive preoccupation of the Space Age. But not so. Initially, Wesley by his own admission assumed that the universe teemed with life but later adopted a more cautious, if not agnostic, view. He was very much a child of his age, “imperfect in knowledge”, ever reliant on his own limited sources but always ready to investigate and accept new verifiable discoveries.The Plurality of Inhabited Planets Debate of 1764
In 1763 Wesley published his three volume work A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation; Or, A Compendium of Natural Philosophy. Shortly thereafter, a letter from a certain "Philosophaster" to the London Magazine (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015021269660), challenged a number of Wesley's assertions, particularly his apparent rejection of life elsewhere in the universe. "Philosophaster" says...
"And, in page. 143, you tell us 'you doubt we shall never prove that the primary (planets) are (inhabited) and so (you say) the whole ingenious hypothesis of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into air.' Not so indeed, the hypothesis, having much more to be said in its favour than against it, is more likely to be permanent than evanescent."
Then, by analogy he argues that it is reasonable to assume life on the primary planets and adds...
"It is more reasonable to suppose that in the indefinitely great space of the universe, are placed innumerable suns, which (tho' they appear to us like so many small stars, yet) are bodies not behind our own sun either in bigness, light, or glory; and each of them constantly attended with a number of planets, which dance round him, and constitute so many particular systems: Every sun doing the same office to his proper planet, in illustrating and cherishing them, which our sun performs in the system to which we belong. Hence, we are to consider the whole universe as a glorious palace for an infinitely great and every where present God, and that all the worlds, or systems of worlds, are as so many theatres, in which he displays his divine power, wisdom and goodness."
He continues...
"Let us suppose the earth viewed from one of the planets (not from Saturn, for at that planet our mighty globe cannot be see, but as a very small spot transiting the sun's disk, now an then) some intelligent beings there who were,
Slaves to no sect, who sought no private road,
But look'd through nature up to nature's God,
would argue that our earth must be inhabited in much the same manner that we argue that the other planets are inhabited: But the superstitious would oppose this doctrine and call it mere, uncertain conjecture."
The Need for Evidence
Wesley engages his critic. (See http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015021277671 or WW vol.13, page 473ff.) The arguments for and against might seeme naïve today. Wesley acknowledges there could be mistakes in his Natural Philosophy. He is not writing a science text book in the modern sense but wishing instead to demonstrate God's wisdom and grace in creation as the title of his book suggests. Wesley then quotes in more detail what he had written explaining why he doubted that there was life elsewhere in the universe. He had written, he says citing Huygens:
"It is now almost universally supposed, that the moon is just like the earth, having mountains and valleys, seas with islands, peninsulas and promontories, with a changeable atmosphere, wherein vapors and exhalations; and hence it is generally inferred, that she is inhabited like the earth, and, by parity of reason, that all the other planets, as well as the earth and moon, have their respective inhabitants." (I take this to be the very strength of the cause. It was this consideration chiefly which induced me to think for many years, that all the planets were inhabited.) "But after all comes the celebrated Mr. Huygens, and brings strong reasons why the moon is not, and cannot be, inhabited at all, nor any secondary planet whatever. Then" (if the first supposition sinks, on which all the rest are built) "I doubt that we shall never prove that the primary are. And so the whole hypothesis, of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them, vanishes into air."
Wesley further maintained that astronomical measurement and consensus in his time was not sufficiently accurate nor consistent to be reasonably conclusive. Consequently he wasn't all that sure that the universe was as vast or as old as some astronomers were claiming where there was such disparity. He then proceeds to dismiss "Philosophaster's" reasons why the planets should be inhabited:
"In order to prove that the planets are inhabited, you say,
(1.) “The earth is spherical, opaque, enlightened by the sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving round it in a time exactly proportioned to its distance. The other planets resemble the earth in all these particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited.” I cannot allow the consequence.
(2.) “The earth has a regular succession of day and night, summer and winter. So probably have all the planets. Therefore they are inhabited.” I am not sure of the antecedent. But, however that be, I deny the consequence.
(3.) “Jupiter and Saturn are much bigger than the earth.” Does this prove that they are inhabited?
(4.) “The earth has a moon, Jupiter has four, Saturn five, each of these larger than ours. They eclipse their respective planets, and are eclipsed by them.” All this does not prove that they are inhabited.
(5.) “Saturn’s ring reflects the light of the sun upon him.” I am not sure of that. And, till the fact is ascertained, no certain inference can be drawn from it.
(6.) “But is it probable God should have created planets like our own, and furnished them with such amazing apparatus, and yet have placed no inhabitants therein?” Of their apparatus I know nothing. However, if all you assert be, the probability of their being inhabited, I contend not.
(7.) “They who affirm, that God created those bodies, the fixed stars, only to give us a small, dim light, must have a very mean opinion of the divine wisdom.”
"I do not affirm this; neither can I tell for what other end He created them: He that created them knows," says Wesley.
Wesley is suggesting that one cannot infer intelligent life elsewhere simply because there happens to be life on Earth. Earthlike planets doesn't prove anything. Without proof, planets within the so-called "Goldilocks Zone" wouldn't easily convince him. He isn't happy with conjecture. He wants solid evidence. He then offers a word of advice, he cautions against at simply jumping to conclusions when the evidence is so tenuous:
"Before I conclude, permit me, Sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be not so positive; especially with regard to things which are neither easy nor necessary to be determined. I ground this advice on my own experience. When I was young, I was sure of everything: In a few years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I was not half so sure of most things as I was before: At present I am hardly sure of anything but what God has revealed to man."
He ends:
"Enlarge the bounds of creation as much as you please; still it is as but a drop to the Creator: - And still the power of His almighty hand Can form another world from every sand! Were this done, there would be no more proportion than there is now between Him and His creatures. In this respect, one world and millions of worlds are just the same thing. Is the earth a cipher, a nothing, to the infinitely great, glorious, wise, and powerful God? So is any number of worlds which can be conceived: So is all finite being to the infinite."
Revisions
Wesley's Natural Philosophy underwent considerable revision thereafter. The 1763 three volume work was followed in 1777 by a five volume edition. This was republished after his death in 1809. In 1810 and 1836 reworked editions appeared, edited by Robert Mudie. The 1777 edition illustrates Wesley's growing acceptance of the rapid new advances in astronomy. Wesley included not only his reply to Philosophaster but added, "I do not deny, but only doubt the present system of astronomy." He concedes, however, the immensity of the universe and includes the speculations of the early Greek philosophers and Church Fathers on the possibility of plural inhabited worlds:
"And this notion of a plurality of worlds, was generally inculcated by the Grecian philosophers. Plutarch, after having given an account of it, says, 'That he was so far from finding fault with it, that he thought it highly probable there had been, and "were, like this of ours, an innumerable, though not absolutely infinite multitude of worlds, wherein were, as well as here, land and water, invested by sky.'.... Origen, in his Philosophumena (Bk 1, Chap. xi. No longer ascribed to Origen but Hippolytus, Ed.), treats amply of the opinion of Democritus, saying, 'That he taught that there was an innumerable multitude of worlds, of unequal size, and differing in the number of their planets ; that some of them were as large as ours, and placed at unequal distances; that some were inhabited by animals, which he could not take upon him to describe : and that some had neither animals nor plants, nor any thing like what appeared among us.' For that truly philosophic genius discerned, that the different nature of those spheres required inhabitants of very different kinds." (Vol.5, 1809, chap.XVI p.98ff)
Following his death in 1791, the 1810 and subsequent editions were re-worked by Robert Mudie editing out much of the more speculative polemic and inserting words that, though written 200 years ago, have a wonderful modern ring about them and yet, still echo the enquiring spirit of Wesley:
"...since the discoveries and observations of Dr. Herschell on the nebulosity of the heavens, very different conjectures and theories have been substituted. It now appears a more probable and rational conjecture, that our solar system is but one of innumerable systems; that the universe is of infinite extension, and occupied by an infinite multitude of worlds; that the sovereignty of the Creator is not limited to a comparatively insignificant and solitary world, or system, but that it is infinite as his wisdom, and extensive as his power. By the application, and great improvement of telescopic powers, the ideas of the universe has been much enlarged-; assisted and corroborated by handmaids of philosophy, science, and analogy. And we derive new views and prospects of the constituent parts of nature, and of universe, from recent experiments, and the great improvements, and discoveries in chemical philosophy. Hence we contemplate the universe as a boundless expanse, interspersed with contiguous systems; and worlds, suspended at distances proportionate to their mutual powers of attraction, and capable or reciprocating causes and effects hence we contemplate the nebulous patches of the heavens, as so many systems, and the galaxy as a zone of systems; and hence also we contemplate the sun as the centre of its particular system, comprehending the worlds which revolve round it as their common centre." (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/wesley_natural_philosophy/part5chapter1.htm)
Here is the beginnings of a major ontological shift in appreciating our place in the universe...we are beings with an ever evolving capacity to contemplate "the universe as a boundless expanse". We can now ponder as never before, "Are there others out there with a similar or even more advanced intellectual capacity than our own to know, to dream, to wonder, to praise?" We "raise our thoughts to higher and higher objects", as Wesley said. We are inclined to agree with Robert Mudie that "it now appears a more probable and rational conjecture, that our solar system is but one of innumerable systems; that the universe is of infinite extension, and occupied by an infinite multitude of worlds; that the sovereignty of the Creator is not limited to a comparatively insignificant and solitary world, or system, but that it is infinite as his wisdom, and extensive as his power."
Celestials and Extraterrestrials
In recent years compelling new evidence has come to light. Some believe that the discovery and disclosure of intelligent extraterrestrial life is imminent. While Wesley was somewhat reluctant to recognise life on other planets he does speak with greater assurance about another species of celestial beings - angels. In fact a hierarchy of them. He is in no doubt about their existence. Noting that reported "encounters" with so-called "aliens" bear many of the characteristics and marks of what has historically been said about angels we might extrapolate and draw yet further insights from Wesley. On the subject of angels, Wesley wrote:
"Many of the ancient Heathens had (probably from tradition) some notion of good and evil angels. They had some conception of a superior order of beings, between men and God, whom the Greeks generally termed demons, (knowing ones) and the Romans, genii. Some of these they supposed to be kind and benevolent, delighting in doing good; others, to be malicious and cruel, delighting in doing evil. (Sermon 71, http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/71/) .... It has been frequently observed that there are no gaps or chasms in the creation of God, but that all the parts of it are admirably connected together, to make up one universal whole. Accordingly there is one chain of beings, from the lowest to the highest point, from an unorganized particle of earth or water to Michael the archangel. And the scale of creatures does not advance per saltum, by leaps, but by smooth and gentle degrees; although it is true, these are frequently imperceptible to our imperfect faculties. We cannot accurately trace many of the intermediate links of this amazing chain, which are abundantly too fine to be discerned either by our senses or understanding....spirits, pure ethereal creatures, simple and incorruptible; if not wholly immaterial, yet certainly not incumbered with gross, earthly flesh and blood. As spirits, they were endued with understanding, with affections, and with liberty, or a power of self-determination; so that it lay in themselves, either to continue in their allegiance to God, or to rebel against him." (Sermon 72, http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/72/)
Wesley pleads for cautious circumspection and the constant need for rational discernment and vigilance. We may not be alone in the universe after all. Wesley quotes Hesiod who claimed, "Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth unseen." He concedes that not only are there vast uncharted inhabited heavenly realms out there but some alien-beings may even already be walking unrecognised among us or... may always have been here, unrecognised! We have entertained angels unawares.Whatever encounters there could be, Wesley's prayer would be that it be in the spirit of a discerning, universal redemptive love...
Let earth and heaven agree,
Angels and men be joined,
To celebrate with me
The Saviour of mankind!
For further study:
Michael J Crowe, A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate, http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions/Crowe.pdf
Laura Bartels Felleman, John Wesley's Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation: A Methodological Inquiry, The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, Vol.58,No 1, March 2006
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Felleman.pdf
Randy L Maddox, John Wesley's Precedent for Theological Engagement with the Natural Sciences, Wesleyan Theological Journal 44.1 (Spring 2009): 23-54
http://152.3.90.197/docs/faculty/maddox/wesley/Wesleys_Precedent_with_Science_WTJ.pdf
Wesley's Sermon 69, "The Imperfection of Human Knowledge," http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/69/
Wesley's sermons 71, "Of Good Angels", http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/71/
Wesley's sermons 72, "Of Evil Angels", http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/72/
©Colin G Garvie HomePage: http://www.garvies.co.za/
