Is Earth a cosmic “backwater”?
A story we often hear about the history of the Church’s relationship with science is that the Church insisted on a geocentric model of the universe for allegedly theological reasons, even in the face of the scientific evidence. One such reason was that Earth’s supposed centrality highlighted humanity as the pinnacle of God’s creation. This is partly true. The whole Christian tradition, starting with the Book of Genesis, does insist on a unique and elevated role for the human person. And this conviction was indeed buttressed by reference to the Earth being at the physical center of the universe.
On the other hand, it is important to distinguish between the literal and symbolic here. Having Earth at the center of the universe is certainly a handy symbol for the uniqueness of humanity. But Earth does not need to be literally the center of the universe for humanity’s role in creation to be central and unique. Being made in the image and likeness of God suffices for that.
What is more, the model of the universe the Church embraced in the Middle Ages was not primarily biblical or theological, but scientific. Ptolemy did not write the Book of Genesis; he was a pagan scientist. His geocentric model was the best way yet devised of accounting for careful astronomical observations. In following Ptolemy, the Church was simply accepting the best science available at the time, as has been its more or less consistent practice throughout history.
And while the Church did caution against rash reinterpretations of Earth’s place in the universe while evidence was still lacking — none of Galileo’s proofs actually worked, and the best scientists of the day knew it — it did not insist that evidence that the Earth went around the sun would undermine basic theological claims. In fact, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and Galileo were in basic agreement about the relationship between scientific knowledge and biblical interpretation.
The illogic of today’s ‘enlightened’ perspective
It is interesting, in this light, to consider contemporary claims that Earth is a kind of cosmic backwater. The Church’s view of the human person is presented as outdated and even pretentious because we now know that Earth is not the center of the universe. Earth, we are told, is located in an unimportant corner of an unremarkable galaxy. So any pretense to importance by its naïve and self-regarding inhabitants is quite misplaced.
Notice how this rhetoric functions. On the one hand, the Church was retrograde for thinking that humans were special because of the spatial relationship of Earth to the rest of the cosmos. On the other hand, the new perspective is enlightened for recognizing that humanity is not special because of — wait for it — the spatial relationship of the Earth to the rest of the cosmos.
The Church’s conclusion is rejected, but the logic it ostensibly used to reach that conclusion is explicitly repeated. Only now, those making the argument seem to have lost track of the difference between the literal and the metaphorical.
Now, the interesting thing about spatial relationships is that they are, by definition, relative. Indeed, medieval thinkers before Copernicus knew that if you were standing on the Earth, it would look like the sun orbited the Earth, but if you were standing on the sun, it would look like the Earth orbited the sun. And, while today we are happy to say that the Earth orbits the sun, it is even more accurate to say that they orbit each other. (Just Google “barycenter” if you want to learn more.)
Why does this matter? Because whether or not Earth is a cosmic backwater or the center of the universe is not properly a question of spatial relations. In those terms it can only be a backwater or the center in relation to other physical things. And determining which of those things should be considered central at the physical level is a purely arbitrary exercise.
A remarkable planet filled with remarkable creatures
But imagine, now, that we found another planet with the conditions to support life. It would cease to be a backwater and become special by that very fact. And what if we actually found life, even very primitive life, on another planet? We would rightly celebrate that planet’s specialness in an overwhelmingly lifeless universe.
And what if we discovered a planet with fully developed ecosystems, populated with plants and animals? It would be arguably the greatest discovery in human history.
And what if, on that planet, there were creatures gifted with the intelligence and self-awareness to ask questions about the meaning and purpose of life? Or to consider the difference between right and wrong? Such a planet would be a marvel of creation without equal!
Well, not quite without equal. We do live on such a planet ourselves, after all.
The medieval Church, and everyone else at the time, might not have fully understood the spatial relations of our solar system, but it was not wrong about what a special planet we live on. And people today might have a better grasp of astronomy, but that is no guarantee that they better understand the significance of the human person.
