To review the purpose of this thread, I suggested at the outset that there were four aspects to the Christian fundamentalist view of UFOs and aliens (i.e., that UFOs that are not man-made or other natural phenomena are demonic and alleged alien life forms are demonic). They were:

1. Abductee testimony of the forcible trauma of their experience.

2. The similarity of abductee testimony to early Christian (and otherwise) reports of demonization.

3. The similarity of abductee testimony to the events described in Genesis 6:1-4 (and other ancient Jewish texts).

4. A belief that the events of Genesis 6 (and so, an alien presence) is a specific touchpoint in New Testament teaching about the Second Coming (or, for many, the notion of a rapture — which is not the same as what is broadly thought of as the Second Coming).

In the first installment I focused on number one. Toward getting uninitiated readers up to speed, I produced six pages from the conference proceedings of the alien abduction conference at MIT (1992) detailing what abductees say happens to them, and how that testimony overlaps in multiple ways with testimony from people who were ritually or satanically abused. My point therefore was that, for the Christian fundamentalist this sort of trauma is evil. As such, its roots are satanic or demonic, and the presumed non-human perpetrators are demons, not beings from another planet.

I think it’s fair to say that anyone with a conscience or moral compass focused on human rights would agree that inflicting such harm and trauma on people is evil. One isn’t required to believe in God or supernatural beings to say that much. To this extent, the Christian fundamentalist and the atheist believer that alien abductions are really perpetrated by aliens could agree. Both could conclude what is done to people is evil.  Where they disagree is on who’s doing it. I think it must further be granted that, even if one doesn’t believe in God or the supernatural, it is perfectly reasonable that, given a belief in God and demons, the Christian fundamentalist view of the trauma is coherent and understandable. But someone who believes that abductions are really being performed by aliens would think *that* view is more coherent.

Both sides could, therefore, be willing to agree to disagree on the matter of who’s doing the traumatizing, so long as we call a spade a spade: evil is as evil does.  But the disagreement often does *not* end there. I have personally had people (researchers, abductees) try to convince me or someone else, where I was listening to the conversation, that the aliens who are traumatizing their victims aren’t really evil since “it was for our own good.” As many writers on abductions would point out, this is a common part of the abduction narrative.  Christian fundamentalists don’t buy this explanation or rationale. They consider it incoherent for several reasons.

1. What is done to people can’t be evil and not evil at the same time. If we accept “it’s for our own good” then we really cannot logically also maintain at the same time that it is evil. In other words, this is talking out of both sides of one’s mouth and disingenuous. The person who wants genuine extraterrestrials to be behind this bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that this traumatization of people isn’t evil.

2. If we grant that there are aliens, and that these aliens are vastly superior to us in technological terms, this excuse for their behavior evaporates. For example, would the alien defender really be willing to endorse the idea that causing pain *unnecessarily* to someone else is virtuous or ethical because “it’s for their own good”?  This rationale *might* be a coherent trajectory if there were no alternative. For instance, we could say that a doctor who had to remove the limb of a person pinned under a pile of rubble without anesthesia so as to extract that person and save his/her life before another imminent collapse was acting virtuously. But if that doctor didn’t need to do something so excruciating, we would not look at the decision with favor at all (putting it mildly). If the life (and limb) could have been saved another way, or anesthesia was available and there was time for it to take hold, it’s pretty obvious that the doctor’s decision to amputate without anesthesia would be viewed as cruel and perhaps sadistic –despite the life being saved.  As Jacques Vallee pointed out many years ago with respect to alien abductions, the narrative suffers from a significant technology gap. If intellectually superior beings could develop technology to traverse space (conquer the speed of light) or use wormholes (circumventing the speed of light problem), surely they could come up with a non-traumatic way of extracting sperm and eggs. Surely, if the goal is knowledge of human anatomy, they’d be smart enough (at least as smart as us) to use cadavers or imaging technology. The fact that they don’t suggests to the Christian fundamentalist that these beings are evil, and this kind of evil is best explained in demonic terms.

3. Another layer of this excuse is to compare what aliens are doing to humans with what humans do to animals (lesser life forms) for study. On the surface, the two sides appear analogous.  But are they?  Suppose a dog or cat or polar bear could communicate with the scientist through language or telepathy (or vice versa) so that the scientist could learn how traumatized the subject really was. Would the scientist continue? This brings us back to #2 above. While humans can’t communicate with animals this way, according to abductee testimony, there is plenty of communication back and forth between alien and abductee.  And so (back to #2) why doesn’t this vastly superior race either stop what it’s doing or find a better way to do it — equipped as it is with superior technology and plenty of experience learning from abductees how traumatizing the experience is? Again, the fact that they don’t suggests to the Christian fundamentalist that these beings are evil, and this kind of evil is best explained in demonic terms.

What it comes down to is that the alien can tell the victim how it’s all for their own good but if you put the alien on the witness stand and asked these questions you wouldn’t get a coherent answer. This is one reason (but not the only one) that the Christian fundamentalist presumes that these alleged aliens are evil to the core and demonic.