The Copernican principle: De-centering Earth and de-centering humanity

Are we earth-born terrans sinfully arrogant when we sanction geocentrism? Do we Homo sapiens express too much pride or hubris when we place ourselves atop the food chain and subject all other life forms to anthropocentrism? Should we repent? Will science compel us to repent?

Like the prophets of old, some scientists today feel compelled to demand that religious people repent from their illegitimate arrogance and embrace humility, modesty, and deference to nature. This demand for humility seems justified by the Copernican Principle (CP) and its demotion myth.

Allegedly, our arrogant ancestors took pride in thinking that Earth sat at the center of the universe. When Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) redrew the solar system map, he placed the Sun in the center. Earth became one of many planets and asteroids orbiting the Sun. Does this de-centering count as a de-capitating, too?

In this brief exploration in Astrotheology, I would like to subject CP to microscopic examination. Let's see what level of de-centering CP requires (Davison, 2023).

What is the Copernican Principle?

The Copernican Principle is composed of two overlapping assertions, one scientific and the other philosophical. Because Planet Earth is not in the center of the solar system, it follows that neither the planet nor the people on the planet are significant.

Chemist Hermann Bondi (1919-2005) may be the first to formulate CP in its currently accepted form. Bondi reminds us how, in astronomy, Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system placed the sun, not the Earth, in the center. The Earth became de-centered, so to speak, at least compared to the previous Ptolemaic model.

To this astronomical observation, Bondi added a value observation, namely, heliocentrism demotes both Earth and humanity. Heliocentrism undercuts both geocentrism and anthropocentrism. Copernicus allegedly demoted the human race to marginal status in a giant universe. "This removal of the Earth from any position of great cosmological significance is generally known, even today, as the Copernican Principle. It has become a cornerstone of modern astrophysics" (Bondi 1952, 13).

Contemporary astronomer Caleb Scharf pounds another nail into the coffin of significance. "The Copernican principle...states that the Sun, not the Earth, occupies the center of the heavens, and that a spinning Earth, as well as the other planets, circles around this fiery orb. It is a worldview that asserts that we are not the center of all existence; we are not special. In fact, we are as dull as they come" (Scharf 2014, 8). Because of heliocentrism, you and I are "dull as they come."

How we see the universe counts here. Jacques Arnould, astroethicist at the Centre national d'études spatiales (CNES), the French space agency, emphasizes that our terrestrial location enjoys no privileged position to view the universe. "The Copernican Principle…postulates that there is no privileged point of view in the universe, especially none that is related to the human observers that we are" (Arnould 2021, 80-81). Not only do we on Earth not enjoy a privileged position to view the universe, nobody else does either. Why? Because of the Cosmological Principle, according to which the universe is generally homogeneous or the same everywhere (at any given time) and is also isotropic about any given point. The Copernican Principle and Cosmological Principle overlap, as you can see.

Three De-Centerings

Popular American astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson expands CP beyond the solar system.

"The Copernican principle, named for the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus who, in the mid-1500s, put the Sun back in the middle of our solar system where it belongs….Codified by the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and the preachings of the Roman Catholic Church, people generally accepted Earth as the center of all motion. It was self evident: the universe not only looked that way, but God surely made it so….not only is Earth not in the center of the solar system, but the solar system is not in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and that the Milky Way galaxy is not in the center of the universe."

In one fell swoop, astronomer Tyson has demoted three of our inherited centerings: geocentrism, heliocentrism, and galactocentrism. In the process, you and I can no longer appeal even to God to feel important, let alone centered.

Did you notice the fallacy in the Copernican Principle?

Did you notice the sneaky fallacy in CP? Did you notice the sleight of the logical hand as we move from scientific observation to philosophical value? Is it sound reasoning to draw a value judgment out of an empirical fact? No.

Some call this the naturalistic fallacy. Accordingly, it is fallacious to ask nature to determine human value. One dare not draw a human "ought" out of an "is" that describes nature.

The fallacy at work here trespasses the parameters of the scientific method. Science deals with objective data, not subjective meaning. Scientific knowledge of the physical world is assumed by scientists to be devoid of meaning. Objective facts are just facts. Meaning derives from subjective interpretations of such facts along with other factors. There is no logical warrant to deem the human race insignificant based on Earth's physical location.

Believers in CP rewrite history according to CP's demotion myth. Allegedly, our poor ancestors walked around modern Europe with their heads hung low in depression. "Oh, no! Copernicus has de-centered me! I feel so insignificant!"

Historically, Western Christianity experienced no such crisis of faith due to the alleged de-centering by CP, despite what critics say. This leads evolutionary biologist Martinez Hewlett to write, "The Copernican Revolution that Never Was" (Hewlett 2018).

The Privileged Planet Alternative

Not everyone today is happy with CP. While granting heliocentrism, critics look for ways to affirm the privileged planet thesis.

Recent astronomical observations suggest that the universe is not isotropic. Outer space is uneven, with clumps of matter separated by empty spaces. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, happens to reside in an unusually large empty space. This provides observers residing within the Milky Way with a relatively superior location to look out at the rest of cosmic reality. Might this count as support for the Privileged Planet Thesis? Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez thinks so. He notes that we on Earth reside in an empty pocket within the universe that provides a uniquely valuable observation point. Does this make us significant again?

What is not in dispute is Copernicus' heliocentrism. This is taken for granted today. Even biblical creationists such as Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis affirm heliocentrism and repudiate geocentrism.

Even so, some theologians of the intelligent design or ID mindset deny the truth of the Copernican Principle for scientific reasons. Why? Because fine-tuning provides evidence of a divine Creator that treats life on Earth as special. In effect, this denial of CP repeats the fallacy, namely, that one or another empirical fact determines the meaning of Earth's place in the cosmos.

To counter the counter-CP argument, some theologians such as Roman Catholic Karl Keating have rallied a phalanx to battle against the new geocentrism.

Hannah Arendt: "The Conquest of Space and the Stature of Man"

Already in 1963, famed political philosopher Hannah Arendt took up questions generated by an equivalent of CP. Would space travel so demote Earth's Homo sapiens that we would have no cosmic significance? Or, if the cosmos is so big and we are so small, should we earthlings acquiesce to the fact that we have no stature in the universe?

As a sockdolager, Arendt ferrets her way through the arguments, she sets aside the assumption that big space renders small humanity marginal. It is not outer space that eliminates the meaningful stature of humanity. No. What eliminates the human from competing for cosmic stature is science, especially reductionistic science. What I call scientism is the ideology Arendt is addressing here, namely, the belief that reality is objectively posited as material only and that this excludes the human subject from what is really real.

Arendt was a phenomenologist in the train of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Accordingly, knowledge begins with your and my sense experience within the world in which we find ourselves. Knowledge begins in our life-world (Lebenswelt for Husserl). We are fundamentally Dasein (being-there). Where? We are being-in-the-world (in der Welt sein for Heidegger). Our most enthralling knowledge of outer space begins with our distinctive human experience and grows from there.

Unfortunately, according to Arendt, scientists and metaphysicians have explicated and extrapolated and hypothecated. They have created a picture of reality abstracted from the primal human experience that made the abstract world picture (Weltanschauung) possible in the first place. Then, fallaciously, they attributed more reality to the abstracted worldview than to the originary experience of human understanding and knowing.

To say it another way, our scientists erased the experiencing human – the knower – from this abstract picture. The picture of reality drawn by modern Western science eliminates the artist, so to speak, who drew the picture of reality in the first place.

The nub of Arendt's argument is that our modern picture of the vastness of outer space cannot demote humanity or eliminate our stature. Why? Because we have already been demoted. The demotion has already been accomplished by the very scientists who now educate us about outer space.

"To understand physical reality seems to demand not only the renunciation of an anthropocentric or geocentric world view, but also a radical elimination of all anthropomorphic elements and principles, as they arise either from the world given to the five human senses or from the categories inherent in the human mind.…Surely the scientist cannot permit himself to ask: What consequences will the result of my investigations have for the stature (or, for that matter, for the future) of man? It has been the glory of modern science that it has been able to emancipate itself completely from all such anthropocentric, that is, truly humanistic, concerns" (Arendt, 1963, 2007, 43).

The elimination of the human component from the worldview presented by science is careless, adds Arendt. "Careless" means uncaring in this context. Human stature does not find any moral measure in the scientific calculus, as the invention of nuclear weapons testifies.

"Has not each of the advances of science, since the time of Copernicus, almost automatically resulted in a decrease in his stature?... At any event, man, insofar as he is a scientist, does not care about his own stature in the universe or about his position on the evolutionary ladder of animal life; this carelessness is his pride and his glory. The simple fact that physicists split the atom without any hesitations the very moment they knew how to do it, although they realized full well the enormous destructive potentialities of their operation, demonstrates that the scientist qua scientist does not even care about the survival of the human race on earth or, for that matter, about the survival of the planet itself" (Arendt, 1963, 2007, 50).

Although Arendt does not assert it in so many words, she makes the case for dismissing the Copernican Principle because it is as fallacious as it is dangerous.

Theological Implications

Most contemporary theologians embrace CP, some with considerable enthusiasm. "In this experience of de-centeredness we will gain new insights into God and into God's will for us," writes former Zygon editor, the late Philip Hefner (1932-2024) (Hefner 1996, 16-17).

Virtually no Christian or Muslim theologian these days will deny heliocentrism. Nor will they defend geocentrism (Vainio 2018). But there is a widespread willingness to deny anthropocentrism and turn this denial into a virtue.

New Zealand theologian Nicola Hoggard Creegan, for example, shames Christian anthropocentrism for its neglect of other life forms on Earth.

"I would argue that Christians have been hugely anthropocentric, never more so than when humans were considered to be the product of the sixth literal day… Everything revolved around the human being and the drama of salvation for humans…It is a very short step from this view of life, to treating nature in an instrumental way. Christians did not invent anthropocentric ways of thinking, but a disregard for the ultimate value of nature only encouraged an instrumental approach."

In short, out of faith, Christians should de-anthropocentrize and re-center themselves on Earth's biosphere. We should treat our planet's ecosphere with intrinsic rather than pragmatic or instrumental value. In effect, Creegan champions geocentrism over anthropocentrism.

What happens when we transcend geocentrism on behalf of outer space? What happens when we speculate about sharing the cosmos with extraterrestrial creatures who, being born from a second or independent genesis, will soon become our space neighbors? "The recognition of Earth's relative insignificance in the vast cosmos amplifies the possibility of intelligent beings inhabiting realms far grander in scale or significance," writes Islamic theologian Shoaib Ahmed Malik at the University of Edinburgh. "If humanity's dominion is confined to a tiny speck in the universe, could beings dwelling in larger, more complex regions possess superior authority or closer proximity to the divine?" (Malik 2025, 438). That is, Malik asks, might we have to de-anthropocentrize if we meet superior ETI?

Muzaffar Iqbal, editor of Islam and Science, presupposes the astronomer's universe while wrestling with theological implications of ETI. "Theologically, what is important is that extraterrestrial intelligent creatures are, like us, creatures of God" (Iqbal 2018, 226). In short, there is nowhere we can go in space that God has not preceded us.

This cosmocentric rather than geocentric scope is embraced by Vatican Observatory astronomer James Kurzynski. In his inspiring online essay, "Confronting our Geocentric Tendencies," Kurzynski cultivates the humility demanded by the Copernican Principle until it blossoms into a spiritual flower.

"One of the major shifts in my thinking about faith and science has been to see geocentrism not only as a false understanding of our universe, but also a crisis of refusing to humble ourselves in the presence of something greater than ourselves. Though many have tried to convince me that the material smallness of our universe is a strong argument against God, I find that our small, non-geocentric status in the universe is wonderfully consistent with Catholic spirituality. If we take Jesus at his word that we are to humble ourselves, taking the lowest place, and are to become like children, … we also need to train ourselves through prayer to let go of our "geocentric" spiritual tendencies of living only for ourselves. When this happens, we open ourselves to a much broader "universe" of faith, playing in the mystic ocean of God's love and mercy. May all of us work to let go of our Earth-centered, me-centered mentality so our small stature can allow us the privilege of allowing God to reveal to us a universe far greater than ourselves."

Like leaven in bread, this Vatican Observatory astronomer turns CP into an ingredient for a robust Roman Catholic spirituality.

Conclusion

Our astronomers have proven themselves capable of finding the address of Earth on maps of the solar system, galaxy, and cosmos. We should thank them for this achievement and for this information.

But let's refrain from asking astronomers to practice theology without a license. Modern Western science has voluntarily excluded from its worldview any meaning, value, or significance. This was a decision inherently made within methodological materialism. To draw a value judgment from a physical fact, then, commits the naturalistic fallacy. Meaning and value must be derived from sources outside science.

One implication of our discussion here is this: do not let the Copernican Principle frighten you into nihilism or self-deprecation. Our stature or value or significance comes from God, not from our cosmic address. Hybrid astronomer and theologian David Wilkinson explains why. "For Christians the significance of human beings in the universe is demonstrated by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. For being human is not being at the centre of everything or being different from everything else in creation. It is supremely a gift of grace" (Wilkinson 2018, 14).

God's grace determines our significance. It is not our size or location that does it.

Related Online Readings

"Astrotheology" in Covalence

"Astroethics" in Covalence

Substack SR 1215. The Search for ETI: Why it Matters for Science and Theology

SR 1161 How to become an Astrotheologian?

SR 1162 Astrotheology as Public Theology

SR 1163 The Copernican Principle and Cosmic Consciousness

SR 1166 Astronomer Grace Wolf-Chase & Astrotheology

Ted Peters, "The implications of the discovery of extraterrestrial life for religion"

Ted Peters, "From Astrobiology to Astrotheology and Back" (2026)
Ted Peters, "Astrobiology, Astrotheology, and Cosmic Consciousness" (2024)

Ted Peters, "At Home in the Cosmos" (2023)

Ted Peters, "Muslims, Christians, Scientists, and Extraterrestrial Aliens" (2023)

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1963, 2007. "The Conquest of Space and the Stature of Man." The New Atlantis 43-55.

Arnould, Jacques. 2021. "Who Goes There? When Astrobiology Challenges Humans." In Astrobiology: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, by Ted Peters, Joseph Seckbach, and Richard Gordon, eds Octavio Chon-Torres, 79-94. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.

Bondi, Herman. 1952. Cosmology. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. 2014. Astronomy Today, 8th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Davison, Andrew. 2023. Astrobiology and Christian Doctrine. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hefner, Philip. 1996. "Discovery of Life on Mars--A Theological Response." The Magazine of the Chicago Center for Religion and Science 8:1 16-17.

Hewlett, Martinez. 2018. "The Copernican Revolution that Never Was." In Astrotheology: Science and Religion Meet Extraterrestrial Life, by Martinez Hewlett, Joshua M. Moritz, and Robert John Russell, eds. Ted Peters, 90-106. Eugene, OR: Cascade.

Iqbal, Muzaffar. 2018. "Islamic Theology Meets ETI." In Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Life, by Ted Peters, Martinez Hewlett, Joshua Moritz, and Robert John Russell, 216-227. Eugene OR: Cascade.

Malik, Shoaib Ahmed. 2025. "Houston, al-Rāzī Has a Problem: Are Humans (Really) the Best of Creation?" Zygon 60:2 413-439. doi.org/10.16995/zygon.18951.

Peters, Ted. 2024. "Astrobiology, Astrotheology, and Cosmic Consciousness." In Astrophilosophy, Cosmotheology, and Religiosity in a Process Universe, by ed Andrew Davis, 233-248. Landham, MD: Lexington.

Peters, Ted, Martinez Hewlett, Joshua Moritz, and es and Robert John Russell. 2018. Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Life. Eugene, OR: Cascade.

Scharf, Caleb. 2014. The Copernicus Complex: Cosmic Significance in a Universe of Planets and Probabilities. New York: Scientific American.

Vainio, Olli-Pekka. 2018. Cosmology in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Wilkinson, David. 2018. "Being Human in a Cosmic Context." In Issues in Science and Theology: Are We Special?, by Dirk Evers, Anne Runehov, and Knut-Willy Saether, eds Michael Fuller, 3-16. Switzerland: Springer.