Steve Robey remembers it like it was yesterday. The now-retired air traffic controller was working the night shift at the Melbourne Flight Service Unit on Saturday, October 21, 1978, when the call came in at 7.06pm.
Pilot Frederick Valentich, flying from Moorabbin Airport to King Island to pick up some crayfish, reported that a strange aircraft was "playing a game with him" and he wanted to know if any military planes were in the area. Both men were puzzled as there was no known air traffic in the vicinity apart from the 20-year-old RAAF air training corp instructor's plane.
Mr Valentich reported that the unknown aircraft had four bright lights and had buzzed him a number of times at great speed. He told Mr Robey the object was orbiting on top of him and "it's got a green light and is sort of metallic, like it's all shiny on the outside".
Then it vanished.
Mr Valentich, who had had his pilot's licence for two years, said his plane's engines began rough idling and coughing when the object reappeared. He told Mr Robey he planned to continue flying to King Island. Then came the message that the object had suddenly reappeared above him. "That strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again … it is hovering and it's not an aircraft."
They were Mr Valentich's last words. A still unidentified metallic noise came over the radio during the next 17 seconds, then the transmission ended abruptly. Mr Valentich and his single-engine Cessna 182L were never seen again, despite an exhaustive seven-day land and sea search. A Department of Transport investigation concluded that the disappearance could not be explained.
Now, what to make of that?
So-called rationalists who would say: "Oh, for goodness sake - it was a trick of the light, the pilot could have been drinking etc etc etc," are guilty, in my opinion, of the "leap to rationalization", a deeply narrow view which maintains that nothing exists outside the physical plane. And yet that stance is not borne out by the evidence of history.
How many times has someone professed a radical view, only to be torn down? Look at Galileo. Look at Sackerson's site, for example - They Laughed at Noah. Surely he would be up for new ideas on phenomena with a blogname like that, despite his world view being rooted in economics?
The CIA does mind control? Why not, for goodness sake? Stands to reason. There is a resurrected Jesus Christ? Why not? There are UFOs? Why not, if there are spirits? If there is a G-d, then there are spirits too. Or are you saying there's no G-d, no life force? What is the human spirit then? A conjunction of synapses or the power moving between them?
Please prove that assertion tht there is no G-d. Matt Murrell has been trying to do that for the past year and a half, to my knowledge and is still in the same place.
Unacceptable answers, by the way, are: "It's a myth," "Everyone knows," "It's been scientifically proven" [that one always affords a good laugh] or to raise the eyebrows to heaven and say the one asserting the idea has "lost the plot".
Come on, rationalists - science demands that you disprove the assertion. The onus is on you as well as on the asserter.
In the words of JMB, "My case rests."
Can you disprove the assertion that I have an invisible unicorn, called Jeffery, living in my fridge? He's a small unicorn, by the way, and its a fairly large fridge.
ReplyDeleteMy "assertion" that the various gods don't exist is based on the sheer lack of evidence for the claims. A god (in some form or another) is possible, in the same way that Jeffery is possible. Hardly anyone denies that. In the same way, it's possible that UFOs are sometimes caused by visiting alien space craft. But the leap from "this is possible" to "this is the most likely" requires evidence. When it comes to the supernatural and paranormal, this evidence is quite unconvincing.
I used to believe in ghosts and UFOs as a teenager, and have numerous books on the subjects. But the more I looked into the claims made and arguments put forward, the more disappointed I became. Rather like the alleged ghosts, they seem to melt away when you try to shine a light on them.
There are still many unexplained aspects of the universe. It's the attempt to put forward unconvincing, and often banal, "explanations" for them that I have a problem with.
If it makes you happy to believe in these things, then by all means do so. Just don't expect others to do the same. And don't expect others not to be critical of what they see as weak arguments.
Au contraire, Matt, there is ample evidence that G-d exists and that he could move physical things too.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it is not a case of do I believe it but am I going to take the blinkered, philistine course of automatically denyng, based on no evidence?
In your reply, you reassert that the onus is on the deist to prove. Look at the arrangement of the spinal cord for a start and let's throw in the nature of the human spirit for a second.
The point is, the onus is on you to disprove and to just say "evidence doesn't exist", when it very much does, proves nothing.
It's not a case of "if it makes you happy" but a case of what is the most likely? On all the present evidence, it is more likely he exists.
"And don't expect others not to be critical of what they see as weak arguments."
Well of course - a mindset is a mindset and one can present evidence until one's blue in the face and the other is never going to admit it.
Human nature. :)
By the way - good to see you here.
ReplyDeleteBy the way - good to see you here.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a regular reader, via Google Reader. Sadly, as with most of the blogs I read, I don't comment as much as I'd like to.
Look at the arrangement of the spinal cord for a start and let's throw in the nature of the human spirit for a second.
What exactly about the spinal cord leads to the existence of a god? And what exactly do you mean by human "spirit"?
You believe in a higher being, and so interpret the world through that prism. But that's not an argument about the nature of the universe, only human psychology. Our beliefs shape our views. You believe in a deity and so view a tree as obviously its handiwork. I believe (as I assume you do as well) in science, and so see it as the result of natural forces. We can point to the tree all day and never shake each other's views.
We share - I assume - a naturalistic view of much of the universe. We see it shaped largely by natural forces such as gravity and evolution. At a certain point we reach the current limits of human knowledge and enter the realm of the unknown and (so far) unexplained. It's at this point that I stop and regard further theories as pure speculation - neither true nor false until further evidence is discovered. You carry on and make claims about aliens and gods. While they may seem convincing to you, sceptics such as myself can see no convincing reason to go along with it.
Apparently the UFOs are due to make their entrance today:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/54515/Aliens-will-land-here-tomorrow/
I mean that the spinal cord is so arranged that the first part to be impaired in a blow is the use if the limbs and non automatic functions other than the heart. This is an accident?
ReplyDeleteThe human spirit. When the baby is born, this spirit which enables us to overcome instinct and go against our prime directives, to develop a morality and enables us to reject the same - these are on a higher plane. Why would the physical act of having a baby, which billions of animals do, result, in our case, in these psychological abilities?
Here's another one, Matt:
Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges "...the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on...." (Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997. See also Walter Bradley video, in resource list.)
We can get into the readiness of the populace from AD 30 onwards to believe and to die for the idea, not in a gradually diminishing way but in an increasing way. There is a simple explanation - what happens to a person inside once he believes.
In the face of persecution, even if one is a fanatic, if there is no solid factor reinforcing the fanaticism, it dies out as a phenomenon. It didn't here.
These are just a few random ones, none of which prove but all of which add to the body of evidence. Once you're up to your 300th or 400th piece of evidence, even if there is no outright proof, most scientists would be willing to concede that there might be something there.
May I go one step further please? In turning a blind eye to what, even if it does not constitute proof does constitute evidence [just as to say that G-d allows war is evidence, if not proof], the atheist is taking a leap of faith himself. He doesn't know G-d does not exist. He has faith that He doesn't.
ReplyDeleteAtheists are more psychologically of a mindset which won't accept than actually coming out with any outright compelling evidence. Every argument atheist ahve come out with have had their answer.
Plus one double whammy they can't answer - the concept of inward spirituality which flows from the infusion of the spirit. That one usually stumps them.
Thanks, MJW. We can only wait.
ReplyDeleteThis is an accident?
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly. Or the result of natural selection. Species, or sub-sets of species, with poorly co-ordinated physiology are more likely to die off. So we'd expect to see some fairly sophisticated structures in those who have survived long-term.
Why would the physical act of having a baby, which billions of animals do, result, in our case, in these psychological abilities?
Our "prime directive" is to increase the potential of our genes being passed on - what aspect of human life do you see as going against this? Without basic rules for living together (morality), our chances of survival would be much decreased - as society, let alone civilisation, would be practically impossible.
"...the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us..."
The validity of this depends on the rarity of universes though. If this is the only one that's ever existed then the fact it supports life is indeed spectacular. If billions of universes come into being every second then it's hardly surprising.
...if there is no solid factor reinforcing the fanaticism, it dies out as a phenomenon.
Given that Muslims seem far more willing to die for their religion, does that make it more solid than Christianity or Judaism? Again, the fact that people are often willing to murder and die in the name of an abstract idea says far more about human psychology than the nature of the universe. In the 20th century, the biggest cause of fanaticism was political movements - give people an ideal, throw in some xenophobia (and maybe add some claims about eternal paradise) and we seem to be more than willing to go out and slaughter or be slaughtered. This is just, sadly, human nature.
If you start off with a belief, then go looking for evidence to support it, you'll find it. No matter what that belief is.
He doesn't know G-d does not exist. He has faith that He doesn't.
Only a small sub-set of extremely dogmatic atheists claim that they know with certainty that there is no god. Most just consider it extremely unlikely, given the lack of evidence.
Plus one double whammy they can't answer - the concept of inward spirituality which flows from the infusion of the spirit. That one usually stumps them.
It's stumped me. But only because I have no idea what it means. :-)
Matt, I see your position as more agnostic than atheist.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I'm willing to accept the existence of G-d because the sum total of evidence, great and small, over the millennia, indicates it does exist rather than doesn't.
For someone to say it doesn't, the onus is on him to prove that, not the other way round. This is the most fundamental disagreement before we go any further. The atheist usually doesn't accept this principle of the scientific need to prove what he is saying.
You make good points, especially on the level of devotion. However to judge by people's willingness to murder for an idea - that is another question.
"This is just, sadly, human nature."
So explain to me the nature of this nature? Why is it unique in humans?
"given the lack of evidence."
False premise. In an argument on this on Stephen Pollard's site two years ago, with the Indecent Left blogger, Stuart A, I produced evidence after evidence which he just attempted to swat away.
I quoted Tacitus and he said it didn't prove anything. He was right - it didn't but it WAS evidence. Then Josephus and other scribes.
When I asked him for his proof justifying this swatting away, he just said, "Well I don't believe it anyway," and "I don't have time for this."
Yet he came in as the supposed rationalist at the start.
"Inward spirituality"
When a devotee decides to believe, there is a phenomenon of euphoria which admittedly can be partly replicated by narcotics, esp acid. Whereas this experience dies away with narcotics, unless it is topped up, it doesn't die away in the devotee but builds instead.
This is one argument why devotees are so dangerous or on the other hand, why a man will defend his girlfriend to the death if he loves her. Devotees can become fanatics. Fanatics are a pain in the butt.
There really is a thing called talking in tongues and other weird phenomena which don't have physical explanations.
Now you're a Doctor Who fan and therefore one of the good people and I accept you'd say - well that's just a bit of fun - but you ARE open to new ideas though, Matt.
Yet on UFOs and the deity, you're closed. I suggest that is because Dr Who doesn't challenge your life set but the other ideas do.
It's a bit of a non-argument for Christians to trot out the "spiritual experience" and therefore there is no basis for rational argument between atheists and believers. There is no common ground for the discussion in the first place.
You can only discuss the relative merits of a cloud of euphoria if both have been there. The atheist hasn't so he can't comment.
Forgot to ask - what does Jeffery eat? I don't know much about unicorns.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I see your position as more agnostic than atheist.
ReplyDeleteI am agnostic - in that I accept that human knowledge has limits and my beliefs are provisional. I'm also an atheist in that I have no religious beliefs (I am non-theist). If someone were to present convincing evidence for a god I'd change my belief accordingly. So far none of the evidence I've encountered (both in discussions and my own searches) has been convincing.
(By-the-way, do you mind me using the g-word like this? I notice that you use "G-d" and I don't want to cause any unnecessary offence!)
For someone to say it doesn't, the onus is on him to prove that, not the other way round
The onus is on whoever wants to change someone else's mind on an issue. If I want you to stop believing in god, the onus is on me to find and present evidence. If you want me to start, the onus is on you to do likewise.
When I asked him for his proof justifying this swatting away, he just said, "Well I don't believe it anyway," and "I don't have time for this."
The fact that one person acted like a jerk doesn't alter the fact that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in any divine beings. Even the likes of Dawkins doesn't go so far as to claim that we can be certain about these matters. The universe is still a very strange place for us. Dogmatism and closed-mindedness, in my opinion, should be criticised - whether it's found in atheists or theists.
There really is a thing called talking in tongues and other weird phenomena which don't have physical explanations.
Are you sure they don't have any possible physical explanations? Aren't you the one being a bit close-minded on this one? The human brain is a wonderfully complex system which we still don't fully understand - so I'm incredibly sceptical of arguments that claim it must have this or that property. I've seen nothing in religious claims that seriously dent the materialist hypothesis of these phenomena.
Yet on UFOs and the deity, you're closed. I suggest that is because Dr Who doesn't challenge your life set but the other ideas do.
I'm not closed, merely unconvinced.
Forgot to ask - what does Jeffery eat? I don't know much about unicorns.
ReplyDeleteHe claims to exist purely on a diet of positive thoughts. However, I have noticed that any cheese I place in the fridge tends to go missing.
Shropshire seems to be the UFO capital!
ReplyDelete1. This was an entertaining read for an agnostic.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, I do agree to that one can worship the head of a dead sardine as long as one firmly enough believes in it.
Neither I'd have any problem with such strange behaviour - as long as one does not try to force me doing the same.
3. Stephen Hawking on the question, if he presumed intelligent life in the universe:
"Ah, does there exist intelligent life on earth?"
The peace of the night. :)
Where are people like Nick Bostrom in all this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nickbostrom.com/
Enjoyed that greatly today - sorry I had to go out - I've just come back now.
ReplyDeleteYou're fishing for a comment from me, and I can rarely resist. Isaac Asimov almost proved the existence of extraterrestrial civilisations, statistically, in his book of that title. My mother, not much of a believer in anything she couldn't see for herself, believed that there some UFO stpries were true - I think there was one incident/evidence on Clapham Common in the 70s!
ReplyDeleteAs to the theological-ontological debate, I've found that hardline atheists get upset when asked about the origin of the universe. Though even if you are a believer, the bare fact of the universe's existence leaves unanswered many questions about the nature of the creator.
Sackers - you caught me. :)
ReplyDelete