Immensity!

However one might imagine the cosmic immensity, God is present at every discrete point, from the smallest speck, the tiniest sparrow, every niche of time and space, to the uttermost parts of the seas and heavens, and unknown galaxies.

-Thomas C Oden, John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity, p.34

Viewed from the being of God as holy love, omnipresence means nothing less than the ability of divine love to maintain itself everywhere unhindered by limitations of space.

-Albert Truesdale, A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology, Vol.1, p.126

The Andromeda Galaxy (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

In my previous blog, "Awesome!", I reflected on the immensity of space and by implication, of time. I wondered, where does God fit in this picture? Can we even apply "where questions" to God? Can we even ask a question such as, "Where is the Universe?" Dr Albert Truesdale reminds us that, "God's omnipresence has nothing to do with how a physical entity can nevertheless be unbounded by spatial restrictions. God is Spirit..." (ibid.)  Whatever, instead of negating our understanding of God, our new cosmologies and biologies have served to enhance and enrich theology tremendously. I agree with Kit Pedler... 

I began to study the works of people with legendary names: Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger and Dirac. I found that here were not clinical and detached men, but people and religious ones who imagined such unfamiliar immensities as to make what I have referred to as the 'paranormal' almost pedestrian by comparison. (Kit Pedler, Mind Over Matter, p.11)

In relation to the universe three attributes of God comes to mind: Infinity, Eternity, and Immensity. Much of my own theological understanding of God has its roots in Wesleyan theology. I agree with John Wesley where he says in his sermon, "The Imperfection of Human Knowledge"...

...our desire of knowledge has no bounds, yet our knowledge itself has. It is, indeed, confined within very narrow bounds; abundantly narrower than common people imagine, or men of learning are willing to acknowledge: A strong intimation, (since the Creator doeth nothing in vain,) that there will be some future state of being, wherein that now insatiable desire will be satisfied, and there will be no longer so immense a distance between the appetite and the object of it.

...

Who is able to comprehend how God is in this and every place how he fills the immensity of space? If philosophers, by denying the existence of a vacuum, only meant that there is no place empty of God, that every point of infinite space is full of God, certainly no man could call it in question. But still, the fact being admitted what is omnipresence or ubiquity Man is no more able to comprehend this, than to grasp the universe. The omnipresence or immensity of God, Sir Isaac Newton endeavours to illustrate by a strong expression, by terming infinite space, "the Sensorium of the Deity."

We occupy a minuscule sliver of time (three score years and ten of 14-billion) and a mere wedge of space (a speck in the vastness of an immeasurable universe), aware of only a very tiny slice of the full electro-magnetic spectrum of light. We are severely confined creatures!

Another of John Wesley's sermons is his homily "On the Omnipresence of God", or what he terms the "ubiquity of God."  In the homily Wesley addresses deistic tendencies, the idea that the Creator is remote or absent from creation. Wesley argues that however immense the universe might be, that God is all pervasive, immanent in time and space. Contemporary theologians sometimes describes this as “panentheism”. Wikipedia defines panentheism as “a belief system which posits that the divine interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it.”  Church of the Nazarene/Methodist theologian Thomas Jay Oord advocates panentheism, but he prefers the word "theocosmocentrism". 

Dated 1788, I still find Wesley's sermon, despite the limited scientific knowledge of the time, refreshingly contemporary:

The Macrocosm

God is in this, and every place. The Psalmist, you may remember, speaks strongly and beautifully upon it in the hundred and thirty-ninth Psalm; observing in the most exact order, First, "God is in this place;" and Then, "God is in every place." He observes, First, "Thou art about my bed, and about my path, and spiest out all my ways." (Ps. 139:3.) "Thou hast fashioned me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me." (Ps. 139:5) Although the manner thereof he could not explain; how it was he could not tell. "Such knowledge," says he, "is too wonderful for me: I cannot attain unto it." (Ps. 139:6) He next observes, in the most lively and affecting manner, that God is in every place. "Whither shall I go then from thy Spirit, or whither shall I go from thy presence If I climb up into heaven, thou art there; if I go down to hell, thou art there also.'(Ps. 139:7, 8.) If I could ascend, speaking after the manner of men, to the highest part of the universe, or could I descend to the lowest point, thou art alike present both in one and the other. "If I should take the wings of the morning, and remain in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there thy hand would lead me," -- thy power and thy presence would be before me, -- "and thy right hand would hold me,' seeing thou art equally in the length and breadth, and in the height and depth of the universe.

In a word, there is no point of space, whether within or without the bounds of creation, where God is not. ...The universal God dwelleth in universal space.

The Microcosm

If we may dare attempt the illustrating this a little farther, what is the space occupied by a grain of sand, compared to that space which is occupied by the starry heavens? It is as a cipher; it is nothing; it vanishes away in the comparison. What is it, then, to the whole expanse of space, to which the whole creation is infinitely less than a grain of sand? And yet this space, to which the whole creation bears no proportion at all, is infinitely less in comparison of the great God than a grain of sand, yea, a millionth part of it, bears to that whole space.

God acts in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, throughout the whole compass of his creation; by sustaining all things, without which everything would in an instant sink into its primitive nothing; by governing all..... having a regard to the least things as well as the greatest; of his presiding over all that he has made, and governing atoms as well as worlds. This we could not have known unless it had pleased God to reveal it unto us himself. Had he not himself told us so, we should not have dared to think that "not a sparrow falleth to the ground, without the will of our Father which is in heaven;" and much less affirm, that "even the very hairs of our head are all numbered!"

....

Omnipresent

If I remove to any distance whatever....to any conceivable or inconceivable distance; above, beneath, or on any side;, it makes no difference; thou art still equally there: In thee I still "live, and move, and have my being."

Empty Space

Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud

Wikimedia Commons

And where no creature is, still God is there. The presence or absence of any or all creatures makes no difference with regard to him. He is equally in all, or without all. Many have been the disputes among philosophers whether there be any such thing as empty space in the universe; and it is now generally supposed that all space is full. Perhaps it cannot be proved that all space is filled with matter. But the Heathen himself will bear us witness, Jovis omnia plena: "All things are full of God." Yea, and space exists beyond the bounds of creation (for creation must have bounds, seeing nothing is boundless, nothing can be, but the great Creator), even that space cannot exclude Him who fills the heaven and the earth....for it is well known, the Hebrew phrase "heaven and earth," includes the whole universe; the whole extent of space, created or uncreated, and all that is therein...

In extra-mundane space, (so to speak,) where we suppose God not to be present, we must, of course, suppose him to have no duration; but as it is supposed to be beyond the bounds of the creation, so it is beyond the bounds of the Creator's power. Such is the blasphemous absurdity which is implied in this supposition.

Of course this is a sermon and not a scientific treatise. Elsewhere Wesley reflects on the mysterious immensity of creation:

Wesley on the "Goldilocks Zone": 

The Copernican System

That [God] who dispenses existence at his will, should multiply, extend, enlarge, and add a kind of immensity to his works, is not properly what surprises me; at least my amazement is chiefly founded on my own extreme littleness. But what astonishes me most, is to see, that notwithstanding this my extreme littleness, he has vouchsafed to regulate his immense works, by the advantages I was to receive from them! Thus he has placed the sun just at such a distance from the earth on which I was lodged, that it might be near enough to warm me, yet not so near as to set it on fire.

-John Wesley, A Compendium of Natural Philosophy, VOL. III.p.253

Wesley on the "immensity of the great chain of beings": 

Great Chain of Being. Retorica Christiana, written by Didacus Valdes in 1579

Between the lowest and highest degree of corporeal and spiritual perfection, there is an almost infinite number of intermediate degrees. The result of these degrees composes the universal chain. This unites all beings, connects all worlds, comprehends all the spheres. One SOLE BEING is out of this chain, and that is HE that made it.

A thick cloud conceals from our sight the noblest parts of this immense chain, and admits us only to a slight view of some ill-connected links, which are broken,and greatly differing from the natural order.

We behold its winding course on the surface of our globe, see it pierce into its entrails, penetrate into the abyss of the sea, dart itself into the atmosphere, sink far into the celestial spaces, where we are only able to descry it by the flashes of fire it emits hither and thither.

But notwithstanding our knowledge of the chain of beings is so very imperfect, it is sufficient at least to inspire us with the most exalted ideas of that amazing and noble progression and variety which reign in the universe.

-John Wesley, A Compendium of Natural Philosophy, Vol IV, p.60

Since Wesley there has been an eruption of knowledge. Our knowledge is still severely imperfect. 

Wesley concluded his sermon of 1788 with this mindful application which is as applicable today as it was in the 18th Century:

If you believe that God is about your bed, and about your path, and spieth out all your ways, then take care not to do the least thing, not to speak the least word, not to indulge the least thought, which you have reason to think would offend him. Suppose that a messenger of God, an angel, be now standing at your right hand, and fixing his eyes upon you, would you not take care to abstain from every word or action that you knew would offend him Yea, suppose one of your mortal fellow-servants, suppose only a holy man stood by you, would not you be extremely cautious how you conducted yourself, both in word and action How much more cautious ought you to be when you know that not a holy man, not an angel of God, but God himself, the Holy One "that inhabiteth eternity," is inspecting your heart, your tongue, your hand, every moment; and that he himself will surely bring you into judgement for all you think, and speak, and act under the sun!

Acknowledgements:

John Wesley Sermon Project General Editors: Ryan N. Danker and George Lyons, Copyright 1999-2011 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. http://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=787

Charles Carter Ed., A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology
Thomas C Oden, John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity

H Orton Wiley and Paul T Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology.

©Colin G Garvie HomePage: http://www.garvies.co.za

John Wesley and "Unexplained Flying Observations"

 Elijah's Chariots of Fire, Byzantine Museum, Athens, Greece

John Wesley was insatiably curious about natural and supernatural phenomena. He published an expansive work titled "A Compendium of Natural Philosophy". His "Journals" are a tremendous  collection of psychic and spiritual reports. He speculated about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Recently, I came across this tantalising reference:

Aliens have been sighted all throughout history by millions of people. Most people think that only crazy people have said they have saw "aliens" or "UFO's," but that is not true. Christopher Columbus, who discovered America recorded that he saw a UFO that looked like fireballs going across the sky. John Wesley, the Christian theologian said that he saw a UFO come out of a lake. Three Presidents of the United States, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Dwight Eisenhower, also have said that they saw UFOs. Not to mention over 14,000 American Servicemen in the Air Force and Navy, along with thirteen astronauts have spotted UFOs.

-Cody Waters, Friday, June 1, 2012, Aliens & UFOs

I was familiar with most of these documented reports but the sighting attributed to John Wesley was new to me. Attempts to locate the source reference has failed. I wondered if anyone else had heard of this? I had not. I would be most appreciative if a Wesleyan researcher could point me to the likely incident referred to here. If Wesley actually saw "a UFO [or something like that] come out of a lake" I would be very interested to know. It certainly begs further investigation.

However, John Wesley does relate another, most extraordinary incident he had come across and, as he often would, sought to investigate it for himself...

Last year, a strange letter, written at Penzance, was inserted in the public papers. Today I spoke to the two persons who occasioned that letter. They are of St. Just parish, sensible men, and no Methodists. The name of one is James Tregear; of the other, Thomas Sackerly. I received the account from James, two or three hours before Thomas came: But there was no material difference. In July was twelvemonth, they both said, as they were walking from St. Just church town toward Sancreet, Thomas, happening to look up, cried out, "James, look, look! What is that in the sky?" The first appearance, as James expressed it, was, three large columns of horsemen, swiftly pressing on, as in a fight from southwest to northeast; a broad streak of sky being between each column. Sometimes they seemed to run thick together; then to thin their ranks. Afterward they saw a large fleet of three mast ships, in full sail toward the Lizard Point. This continued above a quarter of an hour: Then, all disappearing, they went on their way. The meaning of this, if it was real, (which I do not affirm,) time only can show. (Journal, 7th September 1755.)

Wesley is not sure about the objective reality of the reported event. He typically, "thinks and lets think" on such matters. For him such occurrences evokes a sense of awe and wonder. Unfortunately he doesn't comment further. Nehemiah Curnock, the editor of Wesley's Journals, refers to the Gentleman's Magazine 1754, p. 482 which is even more curious despite its brevity:

"About three weeks since, two persons of St Juste, six miles westward of Penzance in Cornwall, about 10 at night, saw in the sky, a large fleet of ships, and soon after a cloud came before it, and the scene was changed to an army, or armies, seeming to be smartly engaged in battle. It lasted fifteen minutes, and divers other persons saw this phaenomenon." (Gentleman's Magazine, Octboer 1745, p.482)

What are we to make of this? It was witnessed by "divers other persons". How many? A night-time observation....could it have been fireballs? northern lights? group hallucination? unidentified flying objects? psychological projection? star wars? condensation trails? a fiction? Definitely not Japanese lanterns! "Definitely not a hostile takeover!" The story is most peculiar. reminiscent of numerous, similar experiences reported throughout history since Elijah's chariots of fire and before.

Paul Lambourne Higgins in his, John Wesley Spiritual Witness, says, "At every point Wesley was a careful observer of unusual events and a thorough-going and highly intelligent investigator of psychic and supernatural phenomena." He also observes that the "active power of Providence for Wesley shaped the very forces of nature" which might explain how Wesley might have understood the experience of the two "sensible men" from Penzance. "Those experiences which strangely eluded man's understanding and quite defied the explanation of natural science were to Wesley clear evidence of the Providence of God." We probably need to view this incident in a similar light...an awesome manifestation of God's foresightful protective assurance and care for his creatures.

Whatever startled Tregear and Sackerly and others that July night in 1754, it remains a mystery to us, an "unexplained flying observation". Wesley leaves us to ponder "the meaning of this", to quietly contemplate the strange and mysterious permeation  of worlds unseen and dimensions unknown to us. But time will tell!

Further Reading:
Graham Hancock, Supernatural, 2005, Arrow Books, London.
Paul Lambourne Higgins, John Wesley Spiritual Witness, 1960, Dennison & Co, Minneapolis.
Carl Jung, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky, 2002, Routledge, London and New York.
Jacque Vallee, Passport to Magnolia: On UFOs, Folklore and Parallel Worlds, 1993 Contemporary Books, Chicago.
WY Evan-Wentz, The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries, 2004, New Page Books, Franklin lakes, NJ.
Walter Scott, Demonology and Witchcraft, 1830


©Colin G Garvie HomePage: http://www.garvies.co.za

Cybernetics and Dreams

...build belief in yourself and as you do this, you reactivate the success mechanism -- the servo-mechanism -- within you. This implies that your eyes are open to opportunities that arise because you want to see them and reach them -- without stepping on other people's toes, but also without tripping over your own toes. 

-Maxwell Maltz, Psycho-Cybernetics and Self-Fulfillment, p.8

The term cybernetics stems from the Greek κυβερνήτης (kybernētēs, steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder — the same root as government). In 1 Corinthians 12:28 (cf Prov 1.5; 11.14 Septuagint) κυβέρνησις is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Today the word is generally used in the context of Information Systems.

The significance of cybernetics to anthropology, sociology, physiology, and psychology was appreciated by the father of modern cybernetics, Norbert Wiener  and others. He wrote, "Drs McCulloch and Fremont-Smith have rightly seen the psychological and sociological implications of the subject.... The need of including psychologists had indeed  been obvious from the beginning. He who studies the nervous system cannot forget the mind, and he who studies the mind cannot forget the nervous system. (Wiener, Cybernetics, p.26). Thus the relevance of cybernetics to dreaming and dreams.

Over the years I have come to experience and think of dreams as an inner guidance system, a rudder or steering mechanism to help one navigate through life's difficulties. Dreams can be a useful problem-solving resource.

A little while ago I had been reading John Kehoe (Quantum Warrior, p.120f) explaining how one can consciously dream solutions to problems through a process he calls "dream incubation". Top of my mind at the time was an awful conflict situation I had had at work. It was an accounting environment and the problem was one of financial accountability. I was a programmer and a technician but not an accountant so felt inadequate to deal with it. The problem was a complex legal-forensic one and a very serious one at that. It affected me deeply.  Kehoe led me to think differently about the problem by  reactivating the "servo-system" within myself.

So, on going to bed I kept repeating the question that was running through my mind, "What must I do about this situation at work? Do I continue working at it or do I just resign from it, throw in the towel, and not get involved?" With this concern on my heart I went to sleep.

I woke early the next morning dreaming that I was at a radio observatory of sorts like the one at Hartebeesthoek where I had previously worked. In a mysterious way my dream had latched on to a context I could easily relate to as a technician and programmer. In the dream we weren't getting a clear "picture" of a critical deep space object that we were looking at. I suggested the noise level was anomalously high, distorting the picture, and that we should check the signal to noise ratio (SNR is a standard measurement in radio telecommunication). We needed to take corrective action in order to see the big picture by reducing internally generated dissonance . (See Gestalt and Cybernetics.) And so it happened.

Mariner 6 photo enhancement.

First panel is the original picture. The top-right panel

is the system noise pattern which when digitally

applied to the original clarifies it as in the lower pictures.

Photo Credit: NASA

It was quite some dream! As a direct response to my question, the the dream seemed to be advising me that the problem should not simply be ignored but that it had to be addressed. It also indicated the kind of contribution I could make.

Remarkable as my dream was, dreams of this nature are not unusual. Indeed, one of the most significant instances comes from my own Methodist tradition. John Wesley wrote parts of his Journal in code, intentionally guarding its contents deliberately hiding it by means of a cipher. Sometimes there is good reason for encoding transmissions. In this case, it was not noise that hid the true content but encoding.

John Wesley had left behind a Journal much of it written in an indecipherable code. In 1909, the Rev. Nehemiah Curnock was poking around through a secondhand bookstore when he came across a treasure - John Wesley's personal Bible, with marginal handwritten notes in the same mysterious code. Curnock bought the Bible, studied it, and then forgot about it. One night, shortly thereafter, while deep in sleep, Reverend Curnock had a dream - he saw Wesley's Journal, and on one page the code was deciphered. Waking, he had the key. Remembering his dream, he examined Wesley's code in the Bible, and unlocked the mystery. Curnock alludes to the dream in his introduction to his edition of the Journal of John Wesley. His dream was cybernetic, it had guided and directed him to the key that would help unlock the mysterious cipher John Wesley had used.

Dreams do that for us! They open us to new possibilities helping us to see the underlying issues and get the  "bigger picture".

oOo

Further Reading:
Two interesting articles by George Butler:
"Minister's Remarkable Dream", http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19761010&id=-6QfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OtYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1360,1216912
"Dreams often provide key to many of world's mysteries", http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19750816&id=wKcfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VtYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=811,2666820

Recent Wesleyan research has built on the earlier work of Nehemiah Curnock. Richard Heitzenrater has devoted much of his time decoding the diaries of John Wesley http://divinity.duke.edu/publications/2008.10/features/code/index.htm. Charles Wesley also coded large sections of his Journal which has been cracked by Professor Kenneth Newport http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1049285/Coded-diary-reveals-secret-sex-scandal-haunted-Methodist-founder-Charles-Wesley.html


©Colin G Garvie HomePage: http://www.garvies.co.za

John Wesley and the "Extraterrestrial Life Debate"

"The desire of knowledge is an universal principle in man, fixed in his inmost nature. It is not variable, but constant in every rational creature, unless while it is suspended by some stronger desire. And it is insatiable: 'The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing;' neither the mind with any degree of knowledge which can be conveyed into it. And it is planted in every human soul for excellent purposes. It is intended to hinder our taking up our rest in anything here below; to raise our thoughts to higher and higher objects, more and more worthy our consideration, till we ascend to the Source of all knowledge and all excellence, the all-wise and all-gracious Creator."

-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.

Prof. Michael Crowe in his paper, "A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate" has shown that humans reflected on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe from antiquity. During Wesley's time astronomers such as Thomas Wright (1711-1786), Johann Lambert (1728-1777), and William Herschel (1738-1822) entertained the likelihood. In 1698 Christiaan Huygens' Celestial Worlds Discover'd: Or, Conjectures Concerning the Inhabitants, Plants and Productions of the Worlds in the planets was published posthumously.

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/