A British history magazine ran an article this week profiling Erich von Däniken and discussing the Swiss author’s longstanding belief that space aliens are the force animating human history. For an opposing view, the magazine turned to me, and I am quoted extensively in deconstructing von Däniken’s carefully crafted image as a nice old man who is just asking questions. He is, after all, the man who once said that Black Africans were a mistake that space aliens rectified by creating whites. The article presents many of my conclusions about von Däniken’s accidental influence from H. P. Lovecraft, whose space gods were given a nonfiction sheen by von Däniken’s direct source, The Morning of the Magicians, written by Lovecraft super-fans Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier. We find in this most recent interview (which I had not seen prior to my own interview for the article) that the elderly author of Chariots of the Gods? is still offering the same old lines that we find in Chariots, nearly 50 years ago. His argument, however, for why he believes that the Old Testament God is not a divinity has modern resonance because so-called “alt-right” pseudo-intellectual Jason Reza Jorjani lifted the exact same ideas in order to condemn Yahweh as a malign alien in Prometheus and Atlas (2016), a book meant to be an intellectual foundation for the political groups that everyone but Jorjani admits to be a white nationalist movement. According to von Däniken, speaking last month, “My God had to have some minimum clarities. Such as ‘God can never make a mistake’ or ‘God cannot use a vehicle to travel from point A to point B’. Making these translations, I realised God in the Bible uses vehicles to move around.” Compare this to his Chariots from 1968, where he first claims that Yahweh is a plural set of multiple beings: “They were certainly not ‘gods’ in the traditional sense of the word, or they would not have needed a vehicle to move from one place to another. This kind of locomotion seems to me to be quite incompatible with the idea of an almighty God.” Now in the twilight of his life, von Däniken has become more insistent on the spiritual nature of his message. This has always been part of his work—he wrote a book on Christian miracles three decades ago—but now it is becoming more insistent. He told writer Martyn Conterio that he believes that God is the first cause of the universe, inspiring the first aliens, who influenced other aliens, who influenced still more aliens, until the divine wave, traveling from species to species, reached us. Thus can he reconcile a seemingly non-theistic ancient astronaut theory with the lingering love of God leftover from his lapsed Catholicism. But I was most interested in the braggadocios way that von Däniken paints himself as embracing criticism: I love the critics. Sometimes they are absolutely right and I am wrong. But I always learn. When I get scientific critics, mostly they have never read the book or never speak with me. When we sit together correctly – not blindly, not lying, not trying to convince someone with false arguments – after an hour or two I always learn something from the critic. The other side [of the debate] is a critic says to me: ‘Erich, I did not know about these ancient texts,’ and both sides learn. [That is] how it should be in an organised society. In other words, von Däniken claims that critics are ignorant and will come around as soon as they are confronted with ancient texts. This seemingly happy accident is a far cry from how he presents himself in his books, where he frequently lashes out at critics and claims any number of unfair conspiracies are being waged against him and his ideas. For example, in 2015 he said that “the television professors and debunkers want to make Erich von Däniken look like an idiot.” Even though I have read nearly all of his books, and he alleges to be open to speaking with his critics, he has refused to speak to me.
He isn’t alone in that: Last year Alien Con offered me interviews with ancient astronaut theorists from Ancient Aliens and then reneged, lest I ask challenging questions. Last week National Geographic offered me an interview with Simcha Jacobovici and Richard Freund about their claim to have discovered Atlantis. I accepted, and as of this writing NatGeo’s PR team stopped all communication with me three days ago and have not scheduled the interview or provided the promised screener of the documentary. Reading between the lines about the availability of a screener, the network also isn’t letting the people they are allowing to speak with the filmmakers actually see the documentary before it airs. Could it be because they don’t want any challenging questions? Without a screener, interviewers can only guess at the show’s content and report uncritically what the claimants have to say. That is not reporting so much as stenography. Anyway, I will leave it to you to read the remainder of the profile of Erich von Däniken and my comments on the grand old man of kooky claims.
42 Comments
A Buddhist
1/26/2017 10:58:38 am
The First Cause argument is contrary to the Tipitaka and illogical. Easier to posit infinite regression of causes than to posit an infinitely existing first cause God. Both scenarios involve the invocation of infinity as an origin, but only the God theory involves creating something not perceived in life. But causes and effects are easy to recognize.
Reply
Uncle Ron
1/26/2017 12:14:21 pm
A day or two ago you said that Buddhism was superior to every religion; yet Buddhism has it's own metaphysical aspects so it is not entirely based is on what can be "perceived in life." Your smug condescension is as tiring as that of Christians, Muslims, and every other spiritual group. "Infinite regression of causes" is no more an explanation of a first cause than God is. The question "what was before that?" can never be answered.
Reply
A Buddhist
1/26/2017 12:46:45 pm
Uncle Ron
TheBigMike
1/26/2017 04:48:32 pm
You said that in the Tipitaka there are listed six senses and you accept that there are solox senses. On reality, there are far more than six senses. Sight, hearing, and smell are usually simple enough to identify, but it could be argued that taste is multiple senses as each flavor that the tongue and olfactory organs are able to differentiate between could be described as individual senses. The sense of sweetness, the sense of sourness, etc.
Reply
A Buddhist
1/26/2017 06:18:01 pm
The six senses are
Scott Hamilton
1/26/2017 06:42:13 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A Buddhist is just as lame when he has to defend his irrational, non-scientific beliefs as all the Christian apologists he's constantly complaining about! Too bad his "six senses" omits the sense of shame, or he might realize what a hypocrite he his. No need to listen to that troll ever again.
V
1/26/2017 07:46:02 pm
A Buddhist, "mind" is not a sense. "Mind" is its own category--"MIND." It cannot be a sense in and of itself because "mind" interprets "taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight."
A Buddhist
1/26/2017 09:44:52 pm
V,
Americanegro
1/26/2017 09:56:29 pm
A Buddhitst, please stop trying to hit people with your head and please consider using the more standard "Tripiṭaka" and while you're at it, use it less. I will now correct your work.
Americanegro
1/26/2017 10:11:15 pm
p.p.s. I was wrong about the ṭ. I blame my lying eyes.
Americanegro
1/27/2017 08:04:56 am
I use the term Tipitaka because that is the term used by the Pali language, which is the language of Theravada Buddhism, which is the school of Buddhism that I mostly follow. Tripitaka is the Sanskrit equivalent term (and I am sorry for not putting in diacritics).
Americanegro
1/27/2017 10:00:13 am
FIRST AND GD MF'ING FOREMOST: DO NOT POST UNDER MY NAME. I'm the guy who knows what you're talking about and you're the guy who doesn't know what you're talking about.
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 10:33:05 am
Americanegro: Please accept my apologies about using your name. I got confused when typing in the names field and forgot to enter my name, rather entering yours. I meant to enter your name at the beginning as I did in this message, but forgot. I am so sorry.
Americanegro
1/27/2017 12:32:33 pm
If you get confused to the point where you mix up your own name and someone else's, that's a problem.
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 01:24:06 pm
Americanegro,
An Over-Educated Grunt
1/27/2017 09:12:37 am
Now, I'm just a dumb grunt, and raised Catholic to boot, which means according to you I'm a priori wrong and under the sway of demons, but where in your Eightfold Path is it specified that you have to beat those around you over the head with your beliefs while also non-stop criticizing theirs as, as I said, under the sway of demons? You want us to care about your religion beyond being at this point flat-out offensive? Set the example. You want to show how much better your religion is? Quit proselytizing. According to your own belief system my salvation is inevitable on a long enough timeline anyway so quit trying to sell something that you have made unattractive by your sales technique.
Reply
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 10:21:30 am
You assume that I adhere to the Lotus Sutra when you say "According to your own belief system my salvation is inevitable on a long enough timeline anyway". But I am Theravada; I reject the Lotus Sutra. All must put in effort in order to achieve nirvana/nibanna.
An Over-Educated Grunt
1/27/2017 11:57:14 am
You really want a list?
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 01:42:10 pm
An Over-Educated Grunt,
An Over-Educated Grunt
1/27/2017 02:00:42 pm
You know, instead of depleted uranium, they could make anti-tank rounds out of you. You are THAT dense. Even when asking what exactly you've done that pissed people in general, and me specifically, off, rather than read it and ask whether any of it is accurate, you feel the need to correct. It's a wonder if you can see McCoy in the opening scene of Star Trek 2, because you're incapable of seeing DeForrest for the trees.
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 02:21:12 pm
Over-Educated Gent:
Americanegro
1/28/2017 07:11:35 am
As someone else said to you specifically: "quit trying to sell something that you have made unattractive by your sales technique."
Tom
1/26/2017 11:48:13 am
Since every bizzare historical claim by Von Daniken has been refuted by those with the true expertise to judge sources his move into the wonderland of theology was not unexpected.
Reply
A Buddhist
1/26/2017 12:52:29 pm
Those who write theological claims may find it easier to get their claims accepted. See, for example, the anti-evolutionist creation "science", or the willingness of Christians to publish long tomes defending the historicity of every aspect of Jesus's resurrection (except for the zombies in Jerusalem, but that attracted controversy).
Reply
Jonathan
1/26/2017 12:43:55 pm
That was very well said, Jason, and well done to the magazine for including your perspectives.
Reply
Americanegro
1/26/2017 10:07:05 pm
Let me add my congratulations for getting some physical ink, sadly not enough.
Reply
DaveR
1/26/2017 01:07:24 pm
Jason,
Reply
Weatherwax
1/26/2017 02:47:48 pm
That's possible, but I suspect the producers are trying to drum up publicity without discussing it with the fringe personalities involved first. Once they tell von Däniken (or whoever) "we've arranged for you to debate Jason Colavito for some extra publicity", it quickly gets shot down.
Reply
1/26/2017 03:01:02 pm
To be fair, they send out press releases to every journalist on their list with the same offer to arrange an interview. 90% of recipients ignore such releases, but I say yes to them. Then, typically, "talent" refuses to agree to an interview because they don't want to talk to me. It's usually not the PR firm's fault.
Reply
Mike Morgan
1/26/2017 04:40:30 pm
Or sometimes, the <cough> "talent" <cough>, is so fearful of you, that one refused to honor a commitment to speak before a college class, not because he didn't want to talk to you, but simply because you were going to appear before the same class a month or more later speaking on a completely different subject ala Scott Wolter. Now that's power!
DaveR
1/27/2017 08:17:15 am
Jason,
Only Me
1/26/2017 06:17:32 pm
Why is anyone still giving this fossil the time of day? I refuse to believe he still has relevance when so much of his "legacy" has been clearly debunked as the garbage it is.
Reply
Kilbuck
1/26/2017 09:10:48 pm
Jason- I have the episode of Codes and Conspiracies saved on my DVR about E Von D where you contributed. Whenever I need a little protection from the purveyors of sham and woo, i kick back, put it on and enjoy some critical thinking.
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
1/27/2017 09:33:45 am
Given how frustrated I know you get with the process, I would call this an overdue win.
Reply
Pop Goes The Reason
1/27/2017 12:08:50 pm
Good one Jason. It won't work, though, the world has decided to make do without reason and there's nowt we can do about it.
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
1/27/2017 12:23:14 pm
... The Ikko sect in Japan... hell, the popularity of Zen among the military class in Japan from the Sengoku period onward...
Reply
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 02:12:47 pm
I am not claiming to be the only true Buddhist. Others who meditate are better at Buddhism than I am. I am indeed tormented by the knowledge that I cannot be a better Buddhist through meditation, missionary work (such as that done by Fotudeng in China), etc.
Pop Goes The Reason
1/27/2017 02:30:32 pm
"ndonesia is over 80% Muslim, and Buddhists are a minority. ". But buddhists joined in the massacres of communists in 1965. It's irrelevant that others did.
Reply
A Buddhist
1/27/2017 06:26:20 pm
I am glad that you seem to be getting an understanding of how my mind works. I tend to be very literal in interpreting remarks. For example, I wonder why you call me smug, when I do not seem, as I see it, to be exuding an aura of satisfied superiority. Maybe such an aura is said to arise always in given circumstances.
Reply
Pop Goes The Reason
1/28/2017 04:50:35 am
Agreed. I'd much rather talk about dead skulls that theobollocks. Though note I didn't say I was "no longer a Catholic".
Shane Sullivan
1/28/2017 03:35:02 pm
I think he's mistaken you for Over-Educated Grunt, who said he was raised Catholic.
Americanegro
1/28/2017 07:44:57 pm
"If you will be so kind, I must cease this conversation in favour of studying." Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|