Space Angels: Arguing a Point

There are few odder space exploration stories than the claim that six cosmonauts saw angels, and that the Soviet authorities covered it all up.

What are Christians to make of it?

1. The Alleged Incident(s)

On July 12, 1984 Oleg Atkov, Vladimir Solovyov and Leonid Kizim were on the Soviet Space station Salyut 7. They were in their fifth month of orbiting the earth.

Suddenly they found a bright orange light all around them. They hurriedly looked out of the window. Outside they saw seven large insubstantial shapes which looked like “angels” with smiling faces, wings and halos. The “angels” kept pace with the orbiting space station for around 10 minutes, before fading and disappearing.

Twelve days later, the incident was repeated. This time Soyuz T-12 had just docked with cosmonauts Svetlana Savitskaya, Igor Volk and Vladimir Dzhanibekov on board. All six cosmonauts were reported as witnessing the phenomena.

There are alleged records of conversations with ground control about the incident(s), and debriefing documents. But apparently the Soviet government classified all information relating to the incident. And no one named in the incident has been prepared to talk about it.

The story was partially leaked at the end of 1985 and can be found in several Western newspapers of that time.

2. What Should Christians Make of It?

Christians do not have to take a view on stories like this. They are not a part of the Christian faith, so it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and to reject (or accept) these kinds of stories.

If there is no specifically Christian approach to issues like this, then it means that Christians should deal with these kinds of stories like any other human being. This means treating them “rationally.”

3. Being Rational

Some Christians think reasoning about religious matters is inappropriate. They argue that reasoning is a human “idol.” Christians should just read the Bible with faith instead of reasoning about religious issues.

It is true that excessive reasoning can be inopportune. It can even be a distraction from more pressing concerns. And reasoning can be misused to try and justify wrongdoing. But that does not make reasoning about religious matters morally wrong.

Reasoning, when used properly, diagnoses illnesses and identifies dangers to be avoided. In religious matters it helps people analyze religious claims and avoid falling victim to murderous cults like the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments.

Reasoning is an important tool for ensuring human health and wellbeing.

Furthermore, the Bible states that Christians should always be prepared to explain their faith (1 Peter 3:15). It is impossible to explain without giving reasons. So reasoning (i.e., rationality) is an essential aspect of Christianity.

This means that it is appropriate for Christians to use “rationality” about issues such as Space Angels.

But what is rationality?

4. Rationality as a Process

There are at least two ideas within the concept of “rationality.”

1. It is a process for dealing with information.
2. It is a content of information.

As a process, being rational is a matter of being logical and following methodologies which lead to accurate, safe conclusions. Some conclusions are very accurate (and so very safe), such as logically necessary truths like 2+2=4. Some conclusions are relatively accurate, such as probabilistic conclusions about the likelihood of causes leading to effects.

Trying to maximize accuracy (or minimize inaccuracy) means preferring thinking which avoids fallacies, and which reduces distorting factors such as biases.

It also means using evidence. Yes, it is always possible to make a lucky guess, but (all things being equal) conclusions which are based on evidence are more likely to be accurate and safe. Thus, using evidence is an essential part of being rational.

To examine the question of Space Angels rationally, means asking what evidence there is to support the story.

But this immediately raises another issue. What we mean by evidence, and what we mean by reliable rational processes, depends partially upon what premises (assumptions) we start our thinking with.

5. Rationality as a Content

Rationality as a “content” is the set of basic assumptions which we bring to our thinking. It includes unprovable claims about our senses and about logic.

When we look and see a tree, no one can prove that the tree really exists outside of our minds. Any proof would have to trust our senses, and thus assume the very point at issue.

Similarly, no one can prove logical principles, such as the claim that contradictions cannot occur. The logic of proof only works if we already assume that answers cannot be contradictory.

Our basic assumptions about our senses, and about logic, are the pre-rational conditions of our ability to think rationally.

Being a rational person means starting the thinking process with a reasonable set of (pre-rational) assumptions.

So, before we can think rationally about the issue of Space Angels, we need to clarify that we are starting the thinking process with a reasonable set of assumptions.

6. Foundationalism(s)

The basic assumptions upon which rationality rests are the foundational principles. As these cannot be proven, people typically try to minimize their risk of error by keeping the set of foundational principles as small as possible.

It includes trusting our senses and accepting principles of logic (although there are disagreements about specific principles). It also includes unprovable ideas such as that causality occurs, and that other people have conscious minds like yourself.

Some philosophers have insisted that “God exists” is a warranted foundational principle, so thinking can only be properly rational when it assumes God’s existence.

Other philosophers think that God’s existence is an inference (of Natural Theology). Still other philosophers think that there is no God, and that rationality means excluding God from all thinking processes.

Clarifying foundational principles is important, and so is the question of whether God exists. This is because the existence of God can have a direct impact upon the probability of religious issues, such as angels in space.

7. Probabilities

Bayes Theorem provides the basic model for probabilistic thinking. It essentially says that the probability of a claim depends upon its evidence and the background contextual information (the “prior probability”).

For example, there is a principle of reasoning which states “when you hear hooves, look for horses not zebras.” What this means is that (rationally) we should always look for the most obvious answer, not the rarest possible answer. Yes, hearing hooves could mean that there is a stray zebra nearby. But (in Europe or America) the sound of hooves is more likely to mean that there is a horse.

However, if you are sitting in a zebra sanctuary then the probabilities would be reversed. It would be more rational to think a zebra is nearby. So, the “prior” context can change the rationality of conclusions.

For example, alien conspiracists argue that aliens have built a Monolith on Phobos (a moon of Mars). If there is no reason to think aliens exist (i.e., no prior probability), then it becomes unlikely that the non-existent aliens could have built the Monolith. If, however, we approach this issue with evidence in favor of aliens (i.e., a prior probability that they exist), then the likelihood of aliens building the Monolith would be (slightly) greater.

When we explore religious issues like miracles in the Bible or Space Angels, the question of prior probabilities becomes critically important. Depending on the assumptions which people start with, very different outcomes can seem more, or less, rational.

8. Explaining Away

When it comes to asking whether Space Angels is a true story, there is another risk to our thinking. It is the tendency to explain away.

This arises when people give “a” reason, and immediately assume it is “the” reason. For example, if you see a wet patch on the ground, it could be “an” instance of rain. But it could also be due to a spillage. Just because an explanation is possible, it doesn’t mean that it is the actual (real) explanation.

This “jumping to conclusions,” by assuming a claim is wrong and explaining it away, is sometimes called Bulverism. It often occurs in discussion of Bible miracles. People will argue that Jesus was born of a virgin. Pagan god X was born of a virgin, therefore that “explains away” the Virgin Birth. But copying a pagan story is just “a” reason for the Biblical story of the Virgin Birth. It is not a reason to jump to the conclusion that it is “the” reason.

When it comes to the story of Space Angels, we must also be alert to the issue of “explaining away.” Space Angels could be explained away as Cold War Western propaganda attempting to embarrass the Soviets.

Some people also “explain away” Space Angels as a hallucination due to the exhaustion of a long space flight. The second apparition with a fresh crew makes that explanation less plausible. But it leads to the counter claim that perhaps the second apparition is suspiciously convenient, precisely to avoid the objection of an exhaustion hallucination.

One of the key issues in deciding whether it is appropriate (or inappropriate) to explain away the Space Angels, is the question of whether the claims were sincere.

9. Are the Claims Sincere?

The story of Space Angels could be fabricated. The probability of it being fake rises if all those involved in the incident think it is fake, as that would mean that there were no witnesses for it as a real incident.

So it is important to see whether the cosmonauts themselves believe the claim of Space Angels. But no one involved has been prepared to talk about it.

In the absence of words, we can look at the cosmonauts’ actions and see if their lives changed following the incident. There is no evidence that they did.

To understand the significance of this, we can compare it to the Fatima apparitions of 1917. Regardless of whether a miracle took place, witnesses thought a miracle had occurred. For example, some of the witnesses were communists who changed their religion and lost their livelihood over what they thought they had seen. This does not prove that a miracle occurred, as the witnesses could have been mistaken. But the actions of the witnesses represent a sincerity check that the Space Angels story cannot meet.

This is a major problem for the credibility of the Space Angels story. It effectively means that there is no credible witness evidence, just hearsay evidence about the witnesses.

So, on the evidence available, it does not seem rational to believe that Angels appeared to the cosmonauts.

Conclusion

In the absence of evidence it is impossible for us to know for sure what happened on July 12, 1984. There is a case to be made that it is irrational to think angels appeared. But others differ in their assessment of the situation.

The story of Space Angels is irrelevant to many Christians. But it is interesting because it is a good opportunity to explore how we think about religious issues, without the polemics and biases which can vitiate discussion of more central religious tenets. Stories like this mean that people can focus on just the thinking skills involved in exploring a religious issue.

It is possible that many of the arguments between Christians (and with non-Christians) are not actually about the surface level issues which trigger the arguments. Arguments may be a clash of underlying assumptions, or a clash of prior probabilities, leading to differing conclusions seeming more, or less, rational.

If people can understand this and look beneath the surface of arguments to find where the real disagreement is, then there is a better possibility of people being able to resolve disagreements to reach conclusions.

So… reflecting on whimsical stories about Space Angels may be a helpful way of sharpening thinking to resolve substantial and serious theological problems.