How has von Däniken managed to get such a grip on the curiosity of Europeans and Americans? I submit that his views are received so avidly because they appear to wed scientific method with religious doctrine. A decade ago, as Theodore Roszak and others have pointed out, our young people repudiated the West's scientific mind-set. But today's college students have turned away from the counterculture of the '60s and, like the older generation, profess to value science. At the same time, both groups are in quest of new religious foundations. Unfortunately, most of these people are not sophisticated enough in either science or religion to be able to discriminate between good and bad science and between true and false religion. That is why a book like Chariots of the Gods? has been so eagerly received. It seems to blend science and religion in an exciting and respectable way. In fact, however, it does nothing of the sort. Consider von Däniken's "science" first.

In his delightful Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science … [1957], Martin Gardner describes the characteristics which distinguish the pseudo-scientist, or crank, from the orthodox scientist. For one thing, the pseudo-scientist works in almost total isolation; i.e., he holds no fruitful dialogue with fellow researchers. Of course he insists that his isolation is not his fault but that of the established scientific community and its prejudice against new ideas. He never tires of citing the numerous novel scientific theories which were initially condemned but later proved true.

Second, the pseudo-scientist is likely to be paranoiac. Gardner lists five ways in which these paranoid tendencies manifest themselves: (1) the pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius and (2) regards his colleagues as ignorant blockheads; (3) he believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against; (4) he focuses his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories; and (5) he often employs a complex jargon and in many cases coins words and phrases (neologisms) of his own. Do any of these characteristics fit Erich von Däniken? Except for the fifth, I suggest that they do.

Von Däniken's thesis is this: the postulate that the earth was once visited by spacemen from another world serves better to account for ancient artifacts than do the scientific theories now accepted…. Why then has the scientific community either refused to consider von Däniken's position or rejected it out of hand? For several reasons. First, scientific investigation as now carried on is out of date, because the investigations do not ask of the past questions based on our knowledge of space travel; i.e., they presuppose that ancient man could not fly, consequently they cannot accurately assess evidence that he did when they find it…. Yet the only conclusions available to research are those which are arrived at in response to the questions asked. If you do not ask the right questions, the right answers will never appear. To put it another way, von Däniken claims that if archaeology does not question its data on the basis of what we now know about space travel, it cannot possibly set up an explanatory theory that takes account of space travel. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this claim; it is sound hermeneutics.

But the second reason von Däniken advances to explain orthodox science's prejudiced condemnation of his postulate sounds a bit more "pseudo." He argues that today's scientists stubbornly persist in refusing to admit that they need to change their methods and theories … Since they assume that ours is the most advanced civilization in the history of this planet, they are blind to any evidence that civilizations higher than our own once existed…. For example, present archaeological theory explains artifacts in terms of "primitive" religion and refuses to entertain other possibilities…. Thus the orthodox scientific community has shut itself off from the truth beforehand. Here is a clear symptom of the pseudo-scientist: the established scientists are blockheads who cannot see past their noses.

Von Däniken's third reason is an extension of the second. He claims that modern science will not consider any theoretical explanations which tend to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Jewish and Christian Bibles…. It is amazing that, after all we have been through with Galileo, Darwin, Freud and fundamentalism, von Däniken should still speak of a scientific-religious conspiracy to defend the literal authority of the Bible. In projecting a conspiracy against himself, the pseudo-scientist reveals one of the most serious symptoms of paranoia. Certainly von Däniken's ego seems to be of grandiose dimensions, for what greater establishment could a theorist seek to triumph over than a unified Judeo-Christian-scientific conspiracy?

Von Däniken's fourth argument for the credibility of his claim is that the orthodox scientific community has frequently erred in the past…. Here surely is the pseudo-scientist harping on an obvious theme to his own advantage.

An examination of von Däniken's argument from literary and archaeological evidence indicts him beyond appeal. Invariably he employs a four-step formula: (1) he reports an interesting archaeological discovery or cites a passage from ancient literature; (2) he describes it as only partly explained or even baffling; (3) he raises a hypothetical question regarding its origin, sometimes suggesting intervention from outer space; and (4) he goes on to another subject.

Thus von Däniken speaks about Easter Island and the hundreds of gigantic stone statues that have been standing there since time immemorial…. [Von Däniken] dangles questions before the reader: "… who did the work? And how did they manage it?"… This surely is an egregious case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam; it proceeds by way of an unanswerable challenge to disprove rather than by way of a serious attempt to prove. We are supposed to conclude that highly skilled technicians from space were responsible. Von Däniken then turns to another topic.

But let me cite a few facts about Easter Island that will reveal the "pseudo" quality of von Däniken's scientific investigation. The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl seems to have resolved the mystery in his book Aku-Aku: The Secret of Easter Island…. He persuaded some of the natives of the island to demonstrate [a] procedure for carving and erecting the statues…. Von Däniken quotes Heyerdahl in Chariots of the Gods?—but very selectively.

Von Däniken also plays the numbers game. He asks, for example, "… is it really a coincidence that the height of the pyramid of Cheops [in Egypt] multiplied by a thousand million—98 million miles—corresponds approximately to the distance between the earth and the sun?… But in Fads and Fallacies Gardner analyzes the baffling numbers technique. If you set about measuring a complicated structure like the pyramid of Cheops, he says, you will soon have dozens of measurements to play with; and if you have the patience to juggle them about in various ways, you are bound to come out with many figures that coincide with important historical dates or with scientific calculations. (pp. 560-62)

Bible readers will be interested in another of von Däniken's arguments. He writes: "… without actually consulting Exodus, I seem to remember that the Ark was often surrounded by flashing sparks…. Undoubtedly the Ark was electrically charged."… He goes on to insist that God was really a spaceman with whom Moses communicated via an electrical transmitter whenever he needed help or advice. Well, I have consulted Exodus and could not locate the flashing sparks. I am not flatly saying that von Däniken's thesis is wrong. But I say that if scholarly integrity is part of what defines genuine science, Erich von Däniken definitely belongs on the pseudo-science side of the ledger. (p. 562)

What such theories make clear, it seems to me, is that their authors are driven by a strong desire to reexplain the more mysterious dimensions of our spiritual existence in naturalistic categories. Theorists like von Däniken … believe that all reality is just a finite number of natural laws, all of which can in principle be known—and then perhaps manipulated—by the human mind. Obviously the mood or mind-set of naturalistic scientific thinking has a grip on these authors and their followers. But they are scientific only in mood, because in their haste to supply the ultimate explanation they have flouted the rules basic to scientific method: tedious experimentation and cautious hypothesizing.

It must be said, however, that the urge to reexplain religious mysteries is not unique to UFO theologians; it has been pervasive among religious intellectuals for the past two centuries. How often have we been told that the ecstatic prophets and demon-possessed characters of the Bible were merely victims of what we now know as epilepsy? Or that the fire and brimstone which the Lord sent down on Sodom and Gomorrah were really the result of an explosion of the sulphur beds underlying those cities? No, the naturalistic perspective is as much a part of our religious consciousness today as is the Bible itself. In this sense, von Däniken is simply doing what other theologians are doing. What is at issue is whether he does it well or not. In my opinion he does not do it well at all. (p. 563)