Category: General

Last night, my brother-in-law Mark and I watched the first half of the first episode of the new “Ancient Aliens” series on the History Channel. It’s an expansion of the documentary that came out a little while ago.

Not being a scientist, as my friend George P. can attest, I watched the program solely with my logical reasoning skills and historical research skills in mind, which I feel I am qualified to use, having completed a BA and an MDiv, and written over 100 papers during that time. I also feel that my exposure to ancient religious texts and how to interpret them, skills I also obtained during my days at seminary, qualified me to assess the claims. In other words, I was not paying attention to the scientific details at all–since I am wholly unqualified to comment on science (Mark is a college student studying chemistry and has taken several classes on physics, so he is, though)–I was simply assessing the soundness of the arguments, and looking at the background of the texts cited.

Well, I expected the program to be a little kooky. I have to say, it was a total joke. A sick joke, and a waste of my time. I could only watch 30 minutes of it!

Analysis of the Arguments Presented

1) Statuettes that look like planes are proof of ancient aircraft. Yes, they did not have a regulator device on the back (a rudder for planes?). But we see there is a marking on one of those statues, where something fell off, so we can assume there used to be one (even though that part was not found in the intact tomb…)

2) A golden statuette that looked like an insect to me was discounted as an insect because “insects don’t have wings in the front.” Yet it didn’t look like it was in the front to me, as much as in the middle. Mark remarked that it looked like the statue had eyes, and that they were holding it on the wrong side anyway. Still, this was proof to these “researchers.” On top of that, they “proved” that this was a viable plane, by making a model to scale and putting it in a wind tunnel. This is “proof” that alien aircraft visited, according to these “scientists.”

Could the Ancients have produced gliders? Why not? Even though I still maintain the thing looked like an insect, even accepting it is a glider, how does that prove anything? Does it really take that much brain power to look at say a dragonfly and say, “hmmm, well it obviously flies somehow. Given this is 2500 years before they figured out anything about physics, I have to go on my hunches here. And what I see is it has these wings and it has a a proportionate body and it does something with that tail” etc etc and try to recreate that? It doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to me. I guess it’s just too disappointing to believe that Ancient Egyptians invented a prototype hand-glider and then didn’t do anything with it. Alien visitations make so much more sense.

3) Historical text analysis starts here: they mentioned this “ancient text” called the Vaimanika Shastra. They said it was an ANCIENT TEXT. That this ANCIENT TEXT had aerodynamic instructions.

They didn’t mention that in fact, it was produced by a Hindu guru in a trance in the 20th century: “based on the linguistic analysis of the text, the review concluded that it came into existence sometime between 1900 and 1922” and that “A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircrafts described in the text were “poor concoctions” and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.”

Sources listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaimanika_Shastra

4) One participant said (paraphrased): “Can we really say all this is a coincidence? And don’t coincidences after awhile seem to be more than coincidences?” (No, that is why they are called coincidences.)

Another participant used the logical fallacy “argument from ignorance” (also called “negative evidence”) when he stated (paraphrased): “Some people say there is no proof these are models of alien spacecraft….but do we really have any valid argument that they are not?” Excuse me, but anyone with any training whatsoever in any discipline knows that that is a logical fallacy and that it is NOT POSSIBLE to make such an argument to “prove” ANY idea!

Some of the participants in this program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo : Convert to Hindu fundamentalism. No academic degrees completed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hatcher_Childress : No academic degrees, and no formal training in archaeology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Greer : Is a licensed physician in NY, but based off of medical training he obtained from the Maharishi Intl Univ, which anyone who was alive in the 1960’s knows is highly questionable.

Conclusions

1) Just because someone does not have an academic degree, does not mean he is unqualified to comment on things, on a certain level. One can become a master of a topic without a terminal academic degree, and sometimes these people can teach in universities, even. Knowledge is knowledge. However, having at least ONE degree proves that someone has the diligence to stick with a program that is monitored by people outside himself. It shows a certain credibility. So I would not immediately discount someone without a degree, but I would be suspicious until proven otherwise. When these people have their own publishing houses, and state things that are VERIFIABLY FALSE, then I start questioning the real reason they don’t have a degree.

2) There is no proof that aliens did “not” visit earth, but this is a logical fallacy to claim that this means something. There is no proof my dog does not talk when I leave the room. There is also no proof that these ancient aliens are not really demons. That is actually my personal take as an Orthodox priest, that if such aircraft are present in ancient texts or ancient paintings, they could be the product of demonic visitations (which I believe modern UFO abductions are–the stories are similar to demonic apparitions as described in the Church Fathers’ writings). That being said, I would never try to “prove” that such things are demonic as I have no way to measure it. Science doesn’t address that question. These apparitions could just as much be the result of schizophrenia, being high on some hallucinogen, mass hysteria, fantasy, or a productive imagination. Investigations by a religious official into cases of demonic possession are obtained by observation and spiritual analysis, which is impossible on ancient cases. It also makes about as much sense as some modern mental health professionals writing books about what disease might have affected various figures in historical texts that acted strangely.

That being said, whether one believes these alleged apparitions are aliens, demons, or hallucinations is irrelevant–none of us can prove it. This is beyond the scope of scientific or religious investigation, and is an abuse of our training. A discussion of these apparitions with reference to scientific or religious theories might be valid in some humanities field, cultural studies, etc., but the way this program was presented was as science, and that was very troubling to me.

3) The fact that a modern text was presented as ancient with no explanation struck me as deceptive.

Bottom line: 30 minutes of the program did not convince me that aliens visited Earth 3000 years ago. “But you should have watched the whole program!” might be the response. If after 30 minutes I was able to come up with the above analysis, do you really think it would be worth it? Again, I watched the program with no claims to know the science. I only responded to the logic used and how the evidence was presented. It was presented inaccurately, with fallacies, and deceptively in some cases.

If someone else comes up with a better quality program, I’ll watch it. But this was a travesty. Shame on you, History Channel.

<disclaimer> This post will be a little more emotional and personal than what I usually post. Also, since this is a reflection, I will not be providing extensive citations. It’s kind of a tribute. Perhaps I will convert this in to a proper essay, after I’ve had time to let it sink in.</disclaimer>

Some people assume that because I converted to the Orthodox Church, that I rejected all of my past religious upbringing. It is certainly true that I rejected some things from my Protestant upbringing. Let me list a few of those ideas for illustration, before proceeding on with this essay, which is not about what I rejected, but what I benefited from and appreciate:

1) The idea that you say a sinner’s prayer and get saved, have a sure knowledge that it “worked,” and that nothing you do from that point on can jeopardize your eternal salvation. My Lutheran upbringing did temper this with an exception for apostasy.

2) The idea that goes hand-in-hand with #1, namely, that it is impossible for someone to become truly righteous, but rather God adds the credits of Jesus’s life to you after you “accept him as your savior.” Sanctification is encouraged, but is a separate category. You’ll never really get clean though. States Luther: “I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 34, page 184). No. God’s grace, which is truly part of Him (His uncreated energies) penetrate the soul and restore man to the condition He had before the fall. Man can be changed, truly, to the core. Man can become godlike. Holiness is possible for man, in this life.

3) The idea that there is a class of people that can’t be prayed for: namely, those who have already died.

4) The idea that God created some people knowing full well they would have no chance for salvation (i.e. all Native Americans created before 1492).

I could go on and on, but the purpose of this note is actually not to catalog why I rejected Protestantism, and ultimately became an Orthodox Christian. Instead, this post is a corrective to any impression or assumption one might have about me and my conversion, which might arise from the known doctrinal viewpoints of the Orthodox Church vis-a-vis non-Orthodox Churches (denominations).

Quite on the contrary, despite the theological errors that I was exposed to growing up, it was not those things which affected me more than the basic love of Christ found in my family did. The picture I have attached, “Christ at Heart’s Door” by Warner Sallman, illustrates perfectly what my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, some of my older cousins, got right. What their example showed me.

This beautiful picture (in a kind of odd 3-d rendition so reminiscent of the 1980s) was on the bedside table of the guest room in my grandmother’s home growing up. When I would spend the night there, or go over there, this image was next to me. Christ is knocking on the door. But look: there’s no handle. You have to let him in. I never noticed that; someone pointed it out to me. Beautiful, huh? He’s right there, and he wants to come in. He loves us. But he isn’t going to force us. Sallman was inspired by this quote from Revelation: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20).

Yes, there are simplistic understandings of what that means. Yes, there is an overemphasis on making Jesus one’s “personal” savior. But there is a simple truth that is lived by many people who didn’t always understand all the doctrinal implications: Jesus is here. He’s ready. He’s waiting. He loves you. When you accept him and believe in him, that means you should do things differently.

My family was a Christian family. We went to Church, we put God first. It was the 1980’s, and gradually many of my family members experienced temptations and sinful influences. There were divorces and the like. Some of it didn’t seem to add up with what we had been eagerly agreeing with in the Church. Sometimes they didn’t do things differently (and I myself didn’t do things right, so many times!) But there was a reality there, a belief that God is in control and that ultimately things will be ok. That through faith, things will change.

I changed, and it was Christ that saved me from myself so many times. I got a good grounding in faith and the Bible in my Protestant days. The Roman Catholic Church, where I sojourned some years, taught me about personal repentance, confession, charity, and increased my love of neighbor. Ultimately, it all came together for me in Orthodoxy, where life changed completely. Where baptism in the Orthodox Church, by three full immersions, changed me forever. Sinful passions I could never conquer were destroyed. Everything is calmer–the ups and downs are there, but there is a regulator of sorts; it doesn’t sway too much one way or the other.

Would I have become Orthodox, which I believe is the original and True visible Church of Jesus Christ, if I had not been taught to love Jesus Christ by my family? Taken to Church by them regularly? Slept next to this beautiful picture of Jesus, and thought about him wanting to save me? Maybe, maybe not. But I got a good head start. I will never reject that, and I will thank my parents, grandparents, and other relatives who gave me this gift. My acceptance of Orthodoxy was not a complete rejection of my past. It did involve a rejection of some extremes, but those were extremes which didn’t really impact the day-to-day good examples shown me (for example, Grandma railing against Catholics for “worshiping Mary,” calling the Pope an Antichrist, and wearing orange on St Patrick’s Day did not affect my faith much, because I saw her lifetime of loving service to my grandfather and her service to the local Church, and this spoke more than the rough edges).

Jesus stood knocking, and I accepted him. Maybe I went in a direction that some don’t understand. Maybe they don’t agree with it. I hope they will consider it, and yes, I hope everyone I know will become an Orthodox Christian. But I leave that in the hands of God. Seeing the image of Christ knocking, however, reminds me of the firm grounding I received, the love I was shown, the wholesomeness, the joy. It prepared me for where I am now. I will never disparage the simple faith that was present.

Thank you Jesus, for letting me be born where I was. Thank you family, for raising me to know Jesus.

Dear Mr. Easter Bunny,

Contrary to what you’ve been told, just because I converted to the Orthodox Church some years ago, you have not been banished from our holiday celebration.

In fact, you are welcome to come over on the joyous day. We can’t let you in for the service (animals, except for cats, are not allowed in Orthodox Churches), but we have a special way to make that up to you.

Around 1pm in the afternoon, you will be the guest of honor at our outdoor barbecue. You see, ever since I met Greeks, I discovered that you serve more than the purpose of just a) being a pet and b) giving little kids chocolate eggs once a year.

So around 1 pm on Sunday, [insert this year’s Pascha/Easter date], please feel free to hop on over to my backyard. If you arrive early, hop right on up to the grill and get a whiff of all the fresh vegetables we will have cooking already (we had plenty of them left over from Lent).

Please don’t be late though–we can’t start the party without you!