Front page material of the yesterday's Windsor Star included an article in which an American pilot gave thanks to Jesus Christ for an emergency landing he had been ardently preparing for over his 25 year, 24,000 hour pilot career:
A Missouri pilot conducting aerial pipeline inspections above Essex County is grateful to be alive after a power failure Tuesday forced him to glide to an emergency landing in a Lakeshore cornfield. "I'm doing good thanks to Jesus," said William 'Chuck' Wilson, standing beside his Cessna 182 Skylane at Rochester Town Line and Concession 3. "Jesus Christ was my co-pilot today, no doubt about it."Wilson, who has 25 years and 24,000 flying hours under his belt, said this was his first forced landing but that gliding a Cessna safely to a stop in a flat field was a relatively simple manoeuvre for an experienced pilot. "As far as textbook emergency landings go, it doesn't get any better than this -- beautiful day, perfect, flat cornfield with two-inch corn," said Wilson. "It was like landing in a runway."
I give the man full credit for his safe landing and skill in knowing what to do at a time where most would undoubtedly panic. However, I also believe he shouldn't belittle his own efforts by ascribing them to an invisible Jesus Christ co-pilot who didn't stop the airplane malfunctioning in the first place.
These types of stories, as often as they appear, still annoy me to no end. It would be just as appropriate to attribute horrific airplane accidents to an omnipotent and omniscient being, but no one seems to be doing that.
Posts
5 comments:
Konstantine, if the pilot had not cited Jesus as his co-pilot you would have had no reason to be annoyed. Also, if the pilot would admit that it was he, and not an invisible Jesis Christ who saved him, then the situation would be redressed, and your negative feeling would then subside. Ultimately, I can only conlude that you were annoyed because the pilot does not think the same way as you. I am genuinely curious as to why that is.
I believe our life experiences influence our world-view more than our reasoning or intellectual skills. Atheist usually have had negative experiences towards ideas of God, whereas theists would have had positive experiences. They identify with their worldview and defend it, oftentimes aggressively.
Ideally, I think that an intellectually honest person would be curious as to why the pilot interpreted the situation as he did. No judgements would have to be passed, since we are not dealing with an issue which affected anyone.
The fact that the pilot's response triggered your annoyance "to no end" I think proves that there is something deeper than reason and genuine intelletual inquiry that drove you to comment on the above article (and maybe this entire blog).
Can you identify those deeper emotions?
If someone had attributed gnomes or a unicorn for being their co-pilot during an emergency landing, a lot of eyebrows would be raised. Yet when god is given the credit, everyone is entirely accepting of it. A delusion is still a delusion.
This is my problem.
Konstantine,
Thank you kindly for your response. However there are two problems that I would like to address. The first is your categorical error and the second is that you failed to answer my question. On a side note, I see that you are busy with other articles and responses, so I will try to keep my response as concise as possible. Also understand that I, too, am trying to make better sense of our world and our relationship to it.
If someone attributed a gnome or a unicorn for being their co-pilot, I, too, would at first laugh. But having been raised around superstitious Italians who have a plethora of magical and healing items and rituals, I am more interested in understanding the relationships between people and their world, rather than criticizing their beliefs structures.
In the case of the pilot, if a gnome or unicorn represented safety and was the symbolic flight safety mascot of this particular pilot, then I too, would have had raised eyebrows. However, given what the gnome or unicorn represented to the pilot, than there we would have some basis for understanding its claimed presence.
By categorizing a gnome or unicorn with God I think would be considered a categorical error due to the qualities that God represents in contrast to the gnome or unicorn. I understand the problems with this claim because we can go anywhere once we begin assuming the qualities of God, or god, or bog. But, given the religious conviction of the pilot, I can assume that to him Jesus represented peace, security and love; that was the reason why he attributed his successful landing to him, and that is why God cannot be placed in the same category of a gnome or unicorn.
You may argue, however, that the gnome, the unicorn, and god are of the same category since these are entities do not exist in material form and cannot be scientifically proven. According to your worldview (and the propaganda surrounding it), you would logically infer that the gnome, the unicorn, and god do not exist, and are therefore delusional. But I think you should understand that your inference brings us into an entirely different discourse, one that leaves the material and comfortable realm of science and into the shaky terrain of metaphysics.
Since you are certain of what is not real, delusional, you then must be absolutely certain of what is real. Do you know what reality is? Can reality be explained scientifically? Are you able to scientifically test the first principles upon which your knowledge of reality and truth stem? You should be reminded that this question has already been posed to you by Anonymous in his comment in “Skepticism Explained”. Anonymous asks the following question: “I am asking you to explain why your metaphysics or your representation should the ground of viewing all reality, all the time? Metaphysically speaking, why is your "story" or "representation" about the moving lampshade ALWAYS better than mine? Why is your story real and my story delusional?” (Italics mine)
Below his comment you will find mine, also cited as Anonymous, but not the same Anonymous. I am a pseudo-Anonymous. Henceforth I will be known as Anonymous II. It was his comment that inspired my response, which is there for you to consider. The second and third paragraph hit upon what I am most curious about. I believe that fundamentally our interpretation of reality is faith based, which may be influenced by our life experiences, our freedom of choice, and maybe even our genetic makeup. The intellectual battles we engage in daily and our truth claims are cultural wars where we often aggressively try to convert the other to our side.
(continued)
This brings me back to my original question, which you did not answer. But first allow me to hypothesize an answer on your behalf. At the basis of all conflict are negative emotions, such as fear and anger. Competition, too, is driven by these emotions, since we fear that if we don’t fight we may not survive. This cultural or “intellectual war” between theists and atheists is not a battle of who has more facts, but rather a war of interpretation, which is shaped by our world-view. Our annoyance with another’s interpretation is evidence of these negative emotions creates what we perceive as a problem. The problem is their worldview, which differs from yours.
Many atheists and/or scientists believe it is their duty to free the mind of superstitious beliefs. They believe this because they are certain that their view of reality is in the right. Substitute the atheist and/or scientist with an evangelical Christian, or any fundamental religious person. History tells us that these people also believed they were in the right. They, too, believed that it was their duty to free the mind of superstitious beliefs. The similarities are frightening (I think of the Enlightenment caricature of the scientists slaying the bishop). I ask again, what emotions drive you to engage in this cultural war?
Anonymous II
I will reply soon. I apologize for the long silence, but as you have correctly noticed, my plate is generally full.
I appreciate your attention and will give a thorough response as soon as possible.
Konstantine
Post a Comment