Ufological Theology: A preliminary reflection about the possible links between ufology and religion

Currently, I'm studying intensively the up-to-date scholarly literature in English and German about the Historical Jesus and the case for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and also the best literature on ufology.

On a intuitive level, I feel the UFO phenomenon is a missing link in the study of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Most scholars in religion (and scholars in other areas) are wholly ignorant of the literature about ufology, in part because there are a lot of books on ufology which are not serious and in part because pseudoskeptics and other atheistic charlatans and dogmatists have stigmatized this field in academy.

By the phrase "Ufological theology" I'll refer to the hypothesis according to which religion in general, and Biblical Christianity in particular, are closely linked to the UFO phenomenon, and can be only understood properly in the ufological context.

For the record, I have no idea whether this hypothesis is true or false. I'm going to publish this article just for the sake of posing ideas and letting the readers to think hard about these questions.

A key website which explores this UFO-BIBLE connection is this, and I suggest the readers to study the material there.

THE UFOLOGICAL THEOLOGY HYPOTHESIS:

This hypothesis argues that the origin of religion and Christianity is connected by the UFO Phenomenon. In the Bible, there are a lot of references about flying objects/lights which were interpreted as God, angels, etc. because the religious contexts and the lack of technological knowledge prevented the people of that time to realize the true nature of the phenomenon in question.

Let's to take some examples:

In the Bible, in the book of the Exodus, you can read:

"And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people." (13:21)

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses (33:9)

In Nehemiah you can read: "Yet thou in thy manifold mercies for sookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go." (9:19)

It is obvious that the term "pillar" refers to some object with that form as seen by the people in that time. (The biblical writer used the concepts and terminology common in this time. The analogy of "clouds" is logical because in that time the only permanent objects seen in the sky by day are clouds, so the putative UFO in question would be compared with a cloud; and "fire" because by night the UFO in question was lighting).

Now, for people familiar with the ufology literature, UFOs with the form of "pillars" are well-known. Just examine carefully the following UFO pictures:

Now I ask you: Assuming for the argument's sake that all the above pictures are real (if they're not, it is irrelevant, because many reliable witnesses have observed objects like that), is not the term "pillar of cloud" (e.g. as a description of the object seen in the last picture) or "pillar of fire" (in the first and third pictures) a rather accurate description of what currently we would call cigarratte-shaped UFOs? Is it not argueably the same kind of phenomenon or object with different (and accurate!) descriptions?

Watch these videos:

















Note that by night or afternoon, the UFOs are lighting, and by day they tend to look just white or black. (If some or all of the above videos are real or fake is hard to say, but it is besides the point. There are a lot of witnesses around the world who have argued to have seen cigar-shaped or cylinder-shaped UFOs, and even members of the army and military groups have seen these objects. The above videos are just for the purposes of illustration of my point).

It seems to be a least possible that the Exodus (and other parts of the Bible) is actually describing an actual UFO phenomenon.

A key point here is to consider that Jesus' Second Coming will be (explicitly, by Jesus' own words) manifested in the sky, in the clouds:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. (Mark 13:26)

If the hypothesis we're commenting here is correct, then the correct interpretation of Jesus' Second Coming will be in the form of a massive UFO-like phenomenon, in which certain people will be elected (presumibly, in order to save them from the destruction of the Earth) and carried to other place (the "heaven" could refer to another planet or dimension where such people will be carried).

Thinking of Jesus literally flying like superman in the clouds is hard to believe; but thinking of him as a commander of a fleet of UFOs (angels?) coming in the sky, in the clouds, to save certain people (the spiritually more advanced people?) in order to save the human race from destruction (e.g. by nuclear war or a massive asteroid coming to the Earth) is less implausible, specially if we take into account the reality of UFOs and their consistent (putative) presence in all the books of the Bible.

The obvious objection against this hypothesis is that it assumes that UFOs are real and from extraterrestial origin, and this is not known to be true (or at least it is highly controversial).

The objection is right. But I think we can think of this hypothesis in terms of a conditional: IF the UFO phenomenon is real and from extraterrestial origin, THEN an ufological interpretation of the Biblical texts seems to be plausible and make sense, and at least it deserves serious consideration.

In any case, I have not idea of the true explanation of the UFO phenomenon and hence if the hypothesis of "ufological theology" has some actual merit.

Just think about this and other possibilities.

Morality and worldviews: A preliminary reflection

I've showed in this blog how many atheists defend that, if naturalistic atheism is true, then no objective (human mind-independent) morality exists. In my opinion, they're totally correct in this point.



If naturalism is true, then (and please, keep in mind the following 5 characteristic of naturalism in order to understand this discussion):



1-There is not objective purpose for cosmic evolution and existence (only subjective, person-dependent purposes or ends do exist).



2-Persons and sentient beings are not essential or basic features of reality, but an accidental and non-necessary by-products of evolution.



3-Persons are purely material, and since matter is controlled by deterministic laws (at least in the macro-physical level), then a person's actions are wholly and fully determined too. This destroy any libertarian concept of free will and, as consequence, of moral responsability.



4-Physical things (persons, cell phones, molecules, shoes, cars, atoms, etc). have at least a basic universal property in common: all of them have physical ENERGY. However, moral values have not physical energy, therefore (if they exist) they're not physical things.



If naturalism is true, then physicalism is true; but if non-physical moral values do exist, then physicalism is false, and so naturalism too. (This is why the objective existence of non-material moral values is at variance with naturalism).



5-Moral commands (orders, prescriptions) are directed upon rational sentient beings (just think giving a moral command to a non-sentient object like your chair, shows, t-shirt or keys, or to a non-rational sentient being like a rabbit).



Now, if rational sentient beings are not essential or basic in naturalism, is it plausible that objective moral laws like "Don't kill other people" do exist in such worldview? Who or what would be exactly the foundation of such command, if naturalism is true?



Please, keep in mind that we are not talking here about religion or God or the church or the Bible (or any other red herring used by charlatanistic atheists to prevent you to think hard about atheism). We're trying to think about the putative existence of objective moral values and laws in a naturalistic-atheistic worldview. Period.



Is it plausible that a moral command like "You shall love other persons like yourself" be an objective feature of reality (like atoms, entropy, etc.) if the naturalistic atheism is true? I think the answer is obvious to any honest thinker.



As naturalist Keith Augustine has argued: "It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances" (emphasis in blue added).



Note that, as Keith correctly argues, the view that objective moral laws do exist objectively would imply some element of "purposefulness" (which is incompatible with an essential feature of naturalism: namely, the non-existence of an objective purpose for existence and evolution).



It is absurd to think the universe created moral laws having in "mind" the future existence of human beings, because if naturalism is true, no "mind" existed before the arising of sentient beings. Therefore, how the hell could the purely physical, mechanistic, non-conscious and non-mental universe to have such a purpose (or any other purpose for that matter)? If naturalism is true, the "universe having purposes by itself" makes no sense at all.



THE KEY TO UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION:



Having thought hard and for years about this question, I think the best way to understand this problem is to classify worldviews in terms of "personalistic ones" and "non-personalistic ones".



The personalistic worldviews are those in which persons are ESSENTIAL in the fabric of reality. The best example is theism (the view that God exists) , in which the most important and essential being (namely God) is a PERSON. In theism, persons and sentient beings are essential, and non-sentient beings and properties (atoms, energy, keys, pens, etc.) are secondary. In these worldviews the physical universe is thought mainly as an instrument to satisfy the spiritual ends or needs of persons (God or his spiritual creations: human beings, souls, spirits, etc.).



Non-personalistic worldviews are those in which persons are ACCIDENTAL, in the sense that they could or couldn't exist. The best example is naturalism. In naturalism, everything that exists is physical matter-energy and its configurations (=patterns of organization). Persons and sentient beings are just lucky, contingent (non-necesary) accidents of a non-personal, largely random and without purpose cosmic evolution.



Now, I ask you: In what kind of worldview an OBJECTIVE moral command or prescription or law like "Don't rape little children" or "Search for the truth" or "Love your parents" (which is aimed at rational sentient beings with free will) fits better? In a non-personalistic one like naturalism, or in a personalistic one like theism?



I think the answer is obvious and doesn't need any particular defense or justification.



Just think hard and honestly about it. I'll write more in future posts.

According to Fox News: Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

According to the website of Fox News: "American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.



This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”



Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."



Read more here.



I agree with Craig's opinion about atheistic ideologues. Basically, they're INTELLECTUAL COWARDS. They feel very brave in atheistic internet forums or infamous websites (like PZ Meyers' blog) in which they act like wild cats. But when they're challenged to defend rationally their beliefs in a high-level public debate, many of them chicken out of it.



For example, at least 4 times, atheist Richard Dawkins has been invited to debate Craig regarding Gods' existence, and consistently Dawkins has refused to accept such intellectual challenges. See for example this video where Dawkins says he won't debate Craig:

In fact, Craig actually did exchange some arguments with Dawkins in Mexico, and you can see how Dawkins replied to Craig's arguments (intellectually and philosophically, Dawkins is clearly a light-weight amateur):

Craig is well-known for his reputation of sweeping the floor with atheists in his debates. In my opinion, some of the factors which explain why Craig wins his debates are these:



1-There are no good, persuasive or sound rational arguments for atheism. The best ones (like some recent versions of the argument from evil) have been refuted or undermined by sophisticated theists.



This is the main reason why atheists try to avoid debating Craig. And the few atheists who accept such debates are clearly and painfully defeated by Craig. (See a recent example here).



2-As a rule (and save some exceptions), atheistic ideologues are intellectually dishonest and sophistical "thinkers". As consequence, they are ready to lie and even defend incoherent positions just in order to win the argument. Therefore, for a seasoned debater like Craig, it is very easy to spot these fallacies and exposing them publicly, making the atheist to look like a sophistical, ignorant and dishonest charlatan.



For example, Michael Martin (a leading atheistic philosopher of religion) rejects the notion of simultaneous causation in order to undermine the Kalam argument for God: "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"



However, atheistic philosopher of religion Quentin Smith appeals to simultaneous causation when arguing for atheism: "Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)



Note that Martin and Smith cannot be both right. If Martin is right, Smith's case is seriously undermined. If Smith is right, Martin's objection is refuted. However, for atheists, it is not a motive for concern: their whole purpose is not to find the truth, but to defend atheism at all cost even if they begin from mutually incompatible premises. (It seems that atheism has to be true, even if the case for it begins from mutually incompatible premises regarding the physical universe!)



Another example: Martin argues that some cosmologists have embraced the (absurd) view that the universe began "out of nothing": "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view".



However, atheist Jeff Jay Lowder (the founder of the infidels.org website) has argued "Naturalists who accept the Big Bang model do not believe that the Universe just pop into existence out of nothing", as you can hear in this video:

If Martin is right, and some naturalist cosmologists have embraced the view that the universe began to exist "out of nothing", then Lowder's claim is false. And if Lowder is right, Martin's claim is false. Anyway, one of them is lying.



Another example: Atheist Lawrence Krauss, in order to reject God's existence and defend atheism, is prepared to deny that 2+2=4 is true, as you can watch in this funny video:







3-As consequence of their intellectual dishonesty, atheist ideologues CONSISTENTLY misrepresent the arguments for God's existence. For example, in criticizing the Kalam argument for God's existence, Martin ineptly argues: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause"



But the Kalam argument doesn't say that everything has a cause, but that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause, as Craig explains in this video:

It's astonishing to see a "prominent" (atheist) philosopher of religion misrepresenting the kalam argument in that way. In fact, Martin is not informed (or is intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to fool the readers, or is intellectually unable to understand philosophical arguments) that NO ONE of the best defenders of the cosmological argument has ever argued that "everything has a cause".



As comments philosopher of religion Edward Feser: "n fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended"



Can you see why atheist "intellectuals" like those are so easy prey for Craig and why they refuse to debate him? They have not the intellectual honesty, the logical rigour, the knowledge of philosophy and the proper cognitive faculties needed to defend their position coherently and find the truth (if they had all of these things, they weren't atheists).

A few atheists will accept Craig's intellectual challenge. And they'll be badly beaten... AGAIN.

Many atheist propagandists are charlatans and frauds, and they are intentionally misleading the public. As no-holds-barred truth-seekers, our intellectual and ethical principles demand that such atheists receive a proper, systematic and evidence-based debunking, and this blog is (and always will be) a modest attempt to do precisely that.

Victor J. Stenger vs William Lane Craig. Debate on the topic Does God exist? at Oregon State University, 2010