Thomas Aquinas on Extraterrestrial Life

[Philosophy Now]

Babatunde Onabajo tells us why Aquinas did not believe in aliens.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/166/Thomas_Aquinas_on_Extraterrestrial_Life

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The conclusion says,

"Where Is Everyone?
Estimates suggest that there are at least a hundred billion stars (other more accurate calculations put that results at 250 billion stars +/- 150 billion, and as many planets multiplied by 10 (2.5tn), and then 100 (250tn) for moons), in the Milky Way alone, let alone in other galaxies. Despite this, outer space seems eerily quiet – so much so that the Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi (1901-54) once asked, “But where is everybody?”

‘Where are all the aliens?’ is a puzzle astrophysicists have so far failed to adequately answer. Yet whilst the modern Catholic Church has a more neutral view on whether or not life exists beyond Earth, Aquinas was forthright: he argued that space is, in fact, desolate, and that Earth and humanity have a special place and purpose in God’s scheme of things.

Given that no clear evidence to date has established that there is in fact any life beyond Earth, St Thomas Aquinas has yet to be proven wrong."

It's not a puzzle in the slightest. In geological time, as soon as it rained here, there was life. Within 200my +/- 100m. I mean, it's early Thursday afternoon since creation (a billion years is but a day) and there's been life since the small hours of Sunday morning. The universe teems with life. Gamma ray bursters notwithstanding. Chemistry obviously easily does respiratory proteins (if you can do one peptide, you might as well do a hundred thousand), as brilliantly outlined 10 years ago by Nick Lane in his peerless The Vital Question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vital_Question.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, of course, false positive biosignatures are impossible to eliminate over hundreds (we've all but exhausted the tens) of light years, for now, but there is perfectly rational strong uniformitarianism. I.e. we have more than enough science, since Democritus, to know, epistemologically, that everywhere you point, within the redundantly named Milky Way galaxy alone, someone's pointing back.

And that's all they will ever do.

There's nothing eerie about whatever signals they're making being utterly swamped by star radio noise (lasers, masers you say! Uh huh. 100kW, 10^5 W... vs 10^15-18 of the sun alone). Let alone the fact that interstellar travel is meaningless without woo. Nobody in this infinitesimal universe or any of the infinity of same-measured-constant universes from eternity (yeah, yeah, yeah; presentist I know) ever gets to Kardashev I. No solettas to morse your sun. Everyone peaks at Kardashian 0 https://philosophynow.org/issues/164/We ... verse_Gets. We can't even make 1000 year (order of magnitude) old rockets redundant with a space elevator, despite having carbon nanotube.

[evelynwang]

Babatunde Onabajo tells us why Aquinas did not believe in aliens.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/166/Th ... trial_Lifegrade calculator

Fascinating analysis of Aquinas’s stance on extraterrestrial life! His theological framework—rooted in unity of purpose (telos)—offers a stark contrast to modern astrobiological optimism (e.g., Drake Equation). While his 13th-century celestial mechanics might seem outdated, his core argument—that Earth’s uniqueness stems from divine intentionality—still resonates with those who see humanity’s existence as non-accidental.

P.S. For fellow philosophy nerds: How might Aquinas reconcile his view with today’s discoveries of exoplanets in ‘habitable zones’? Would he double down on Earth’s singularity or adapt?

[Eodnhoj7]

If memory recalls he had a vision and from that vision he claimed "all my work is straw"...and yet the church conveniently ignores this in favor of the dense security providing rhetoric he provided before said vision.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If memory recalls he had a vision and from that vision he claimed "all my work is straw"...and yet the church conveniently ignores this in favor of the dense security providing rhetoric he provided before said vision.

He redeemed himself for all time. Pity the RCC couldn't.

[Eodnhoj7]

If memory recalls he had a vision and from that vision he claimed "all my work is straw"...and yet the church conveniently ignores this in favor of the dense security providing rhetoric he provided before said vision.

He redeemed himself for all time. Pity the RCC couldn't.

Aquinas is respected because he made an immense web of distinctions that created a sense of mystery and safety in those unable to resist questioning him.

I consider myself one of the deepest respect for Aquinas and as such one of his best followers...he said his work was "straw" and I both believe and agree with him.

The RCC doesn't do this and yet claims him as a leading intellectual authority.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If memory recalls he had a vision and from that vision he claimed "all my work is straw"...and yet the church conveniently ignores this in favor of the dense security providing rhetoric he provided before said vision.

He redeemed himself for all time. Pity the RCC couldn't.

Aquinas is respected because he made an immense web of distinctions that created a sense of mystery and safety in those unable to resist questioning him.

I consider myself one of the deepest respect for Aquinas and as such one of his best followers...he said his work was "straw" and I both believe and agree with him.

The RCC doesn't do this and yet claims him as a leading intellectual authority.

I imagine they put it down to senility or just old age depression. Whereas, in fact, it's awakening.

[Eodnhoj7]

He redeemed himself for all time. Pity the RCC couldn't.

Aquinas is respected because he made an immense web of distinctions that created a sense of mystery and safety in those unable to resist questioning him.

I consider myself one of the deepest respect for Aquinas and as such one of his best followers...he said his work was "straw" and I both believe and agree with him.

The RCC doesn't do this and yet claims him as a leading intellectual authority.

I imagine they put it down to senility or just old age depression. Whereas, in fact, it's awakening.

They have to have explanations why he said such things about his work in order to justify the security giving rhetoric he provided.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Babatunde Onabajo tells us why Aquinas did not believe in aliens.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/166/Th ... trial_Life

Fascinating analysis of Aquinas’s stance on extraterrestrial life! His theological framework—rooted in unity of purpose (telos)—offers a stark contrast to modern astrobiological optimism (e.g., Drake Equation). While his 13th-century celestial mechanics might seem outdated, his core argument—that Earth’s uniqueness stems from divine intentionality—still resonates with those who see humanity’s existence as non-accidental.

P.S. For fellow philosophy nerds: How might Aquinas reconcile his view with today’s discoveries of exoplanets in ‘habitable zones’? Would he double down on Earth’s singularity or adapt?

He adapted and died already. Earth is unique just like the infinity of other habitable worlds from eternity. Meaninglessly, insignificantly so. No one can see humanity’s existence as non-accidental. Seeing isn't believing. Seeing makes it clear forever.