Tuesday Odds and Ends: French Fringe Farce, Meteor Religion, and Alt-Right Atheists
Before I get to my main topic today, I’d like to address a couple of odds and ends. First, I am aware that the Daily Grail reported today that fringe archaeology writers Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval have published a new article on the Sphinx in a pay-for-play open access Chinese academic journal. I am reading the piece, but it’s going to take me another day or so to digest it and decide what I think. I hope to have some thoughts about it tomorrow.
If you are a subscriber to my newsletter, you already know that Le Monde reported this week that a French philosopher suffered embarrassment when it was discovered that he had mistaken a fake news story from 2014 about the “discovery” of a Viking ship near Memphis, Tenn. for a genuine science report and gave the false information in his new book Decadence. You can read the details here.
You might have seen that The Daily Grail also has an article asking if meteorites were the inspiration for religion and for the pyramids, since many meteors have a conical shape. Since the pyramid shape is the only truly stable way to raise a massively tall structure without modern internal support structures, the second claim probably falls more into the category of pyramid builders seeing a similarity, not an inspiration. The former claim is an interesting and very old one. I have in my Library an article from 1896 that makes exactly the same case, with much of the same evidence. In his Pyramidographia in the 1600s, John Greaves argued that statues of the pagan gods were often meteors. The article quotes what it says is a quotation from Clement of Alexandria on the worship of stones as the first idolatry, but the “quote” is actually the words of Edward King from 1796, summarizing what he said was an argument from Cement’s Stromata 1. However, I can’t find anything like it in the first book of the Stromata. It is my understanding from old books that the source of the claim is actually Dionysus Vossius’s translation of Maimonides’ tractate on idolatry (Mishneh Torah, treatise 4, sec. 6), which has been read to say that Jacob’s stone pillow from Genesis was the progenitor of the idols. The claim appears in Thomas Lewis’s Origines Hebrææ (1725), where stones were explicitly said to be the oldest objects of worship.
But what I am interested in talking about today is an article by atheist Phil Torres (not to be confused with the TV host of the same name) that ran in Salon on Saturday. Torres argued that the so-called “New Atheism” has slowly but inexorably aligned itself with the so-called “alt-right,” embracing a raft of positions that are contrary to the movement’s stated aim of embracing science and reason but which are closely aligned with a rightwing agenda of grievance and Manichean absolutism.
I will leave it to you to read the full article, which at times is a bit too “inside baseball” to make good sense to a general audience, but his laundry list of examples makes the case that (a) skepticism, secular humanism, and atheism have joined together though they are not, technically, related, and (b) all three are becoming suffused with an alt-right mentality that takes as its foundational assumption the superiority of the traditional white male version of Western civilization. Torres notes the usual suspects: Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Islamic rhetoric shades beyond reason into full-on emotional hysteria; the same characters’ misogyny, including Harris’s claim that atheism is a male pursuit because it lacks an “estrogen vibe”; the broader anti-feminist tone of atheist leaders and their warm embrace of alt-right darlings like Milo Yiannopolous in the name of challenging “P.C. culture” and Charles Murray in the name of declaring Blacks to be racially inferior. Yes, Sam Harris praised Murray and said Blacks were less intelligent on average because of their genes.
Now I don’t agree with everything Torres said; for example, there is nothing inherently irrational about being conservative, nor incompatible with being ethical or atheist. One might even hold most of the same positions as Sam Harris and defend them rationally and ethically. Torres is proudly liberal, and he wrongly chides atheists for not all embracing his set of liberal social views. But Torres is right that the most famous of the New Atheists, and increasingly their allies in the skeptical movement, aren’t defending their beliefs rationally but are promoting an ideology that nods to science and reason the same way that Soviet communism nodded toward egalitarianism.
They say they care about facts, yet refuse to change their beliefs when inconvenient data are presented. They decry people who make strong assertions outside of their field and yet feel perfectly entitled to make fist-poundingly confident claims about issues they know little about. And they apparently don’t give a damn about alienating women and people of color, a truly huge demographic of potential allies in the battle against religious absurdity.
To be frank, the criticism focuses mostly on the celebrities who use atheism as a brand, primarily Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and the ghost of the dead Christopher Hitchens. Some of it applies to the second tier of atheist and skeptical leaders who mimic their style if not always their (lack of) substance.
But atheists and skeptics have picked the article apart over the past few days and I have little to add to that.
What I am interested in, however, is the question of why the alt-right has come to fore in both the atheist / skeptical movement and also the New Age / fringe movement. This is beyond weird considering the relatively small number of people who identify as alt-right and the much larger audience for both fringe history and skeptical views.
We have explored many times the rightward tilt of fringe history, a strange feature of the fringe in the past two or three decades and a complete turnaround from the middle twentieth century, when the fringe was more closely aligned with New Age liberal ideas. Today, fringe history is a parade of conservative and alt-right conspiracy theories, with a distinctive white supremacist bent. From pseudo-documentaries that propose a white master race and a sinister quasi-Semitic force planning literal or economic genocide against white people, to online hucksters who use the threat of aliens, Nephilim, or other imagined evils to sell survivalist gear and paranoia supplies, conspiracy culture is intimately tied to the right. Figures like Alex Jones, Steve Quayle, L. A. Marzulli, and Jim Marrs push the conservative line, while liberals in the fringe field like Giorgio Tsoukalos and Scott Wolter find themselves supporting and promoting rightwing conspiracies due to their participation in a systemically rightist field. The takeover came about because of the intentional marriage of rightwing anti-government conspiracy theories with UFO/alien theories and historically Eurocentric lost civilization theories. The depressing number of fringe leaders who are explicitly or implicitly racist shows that this is a feature and not a bug. Even William Shatner--Captain Kirk!—both hosted a fringe history show (Weird or What?) and offers vile alt-right commentary on his Twitter account. Leonard Nimoy he isn’t.
But how did skepticism and atheism come to promote figures with extreme conservative views on certain issues to so many positions of power? It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing a movement that once counted liberals like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and James Randi among its leaders would have ended up doing, much less one that devotes so much ink to creating elaborate ethical justifications for a range of generally center-left political positions that they mistake for universal constants, as well as scientific positions on evolution and climate change that are at odds with the right. And yet over the past two decades, atheism and skepticism has pushed forward leaders who have come to embrace a Western chauvinist model of social theory—one that I recently noted skeptic Michael Shermer promotes without even recognizing—along with extreme anti-Islamic views and an eagerness to support some (though by no means all) right-wing social views. (Shermer criticized the argument on Twitter yesterday, mistaking the New Atheist movement for atheism itself, a misleading position, and thus concluding that atheism itself cannot be in trouble.)
The mirroring of the two movements and their leaders’ rightward drift is interesting. I wonder why it is occurring. The facile answer is that everyone freaked out about 9/11 and tried to retrench by promoting a fantasy version of the 1950s. A paranoid person might suggest that there has been a concerted effort by a cadre of retrograde forces to infiltrate groups in order to promote a highly specific racist, misogynist, and Islamophobic agenda. But it seems difficult to imagine a project that coordinated. A soft version of this, however, might be the case, where a system of incentives leads to rightward drift because of the apparent rewards of tapping into a large, homogenous audience with a proven ability to spend on products and services that appeal to their core beliefs. While Torres is right that focusing on old white men leaves a lot of others on the table, this is only a concern if you are trying to maximize your audience. If, on the other hand, your goal is to create the strongest sense of loyalty and tribal connection in your audience, choosing a homogenous group whose shared prejudices unite them isn’t the worst choice. It’s why Fox News, the Republican Party, and the History Channel share the same base.
8/1/2017 09:35:08 am
9/11, 2005 London UG, Boston Marathon, Bataclan concert, Manchester Arena (children), 2016 Nice truck attack, Westminster Bridge van attack, London Bridge van attack.
8/1/2017 02:30:40 pm
If you want to gain political attention through violence, it helps to be somewhere which has rapid access to the mainstream media. So yeah, big city.
8/1/2017 10:23:45 am
"It’s why Fox News, the Republican Party, and the History Channel share the same base."
8/1/2017 10:29:14 am
A smear piece because it addresses a fact?
8/1/2017 10:29:55 am
It's funny that you read that as a smear to say that there is a similar target audience. Every piece of communication, to be effective, must target a particular audience. The more general the audience, the more diffuse the message and the less effective the overall result. It's not a criticism to say that they found a specific audience and target it; the criticism is the message they send to that audience. I specifically criticized Torres for assuming that liberalism was inherently the "ethical" position to take, and yet all you saw was "Republicans = bad" even though I am criticizing the so-called alt-right.
8/1/2017 10:32:32 am
And just to be clear--groups that share an ideology all have prejudices, too. It's not limited just to the right. The reason this is a problem in this case is because atheists / skeptics / humanists claim to evaluate situations without prejudices and biases to find the truth.
8/1/2017 11:31:39 am
"It's funny that you read that as a smear to say that there is a similar target audience."
8/1/2017 11:51:00 am
Theoretically, rational decision-making shouldn't be ideological at all. Neither conservatism nor liberalism, as practiced in the U.S. today, are closely aligned with reason. Both have intellectually inconsistent ideologies. Torres's concern was that atheists and skeptics are promoting ideological claims that are not based in science or reason as though they were scientific and rational.
8/1/2017 12:41:43 pm
"Torres's concern was that atheists and skeptics are promoting ideological claims that are not based in science or reason as though they were scientific and rational."
8/1/2017 02:37:04 pm
"atheists / skeptics / humanists claim to evaluate situations without prejudices and biases to find the truth."
8/1/2017 12:26:50 pm
"It’s why Fox News, the Republican Party, and the History Channel share the same base."
8/1/2017 06:40:35 pm
I stopped reading after the "...I watch Fox News all the time because it's the only trustworthy news outlet" comedy line.
8/1/2017 10:56:23 pm
>>>But as far as real news... yeah, no.<<<
8/1/2017 11:10:24 pm
Those were just two of MANY examples of how FOX is not a reliable news source. I simply wasn't in the mood to write a long post about them. But I'll give you the most recent example of how garbage their reporting is:
8/2/2017 12:27:42 am
My response was in the interest of fairness.
8/2/2017 09:57:12 am
8/2/2017 10:07:31 am
Only Me, you are wasting your time arguing with partisans. They will never recognize the good in their opponents, nor the bad in those they support.
8/2/2017 11:28:14 am
8/2/2017 01:04:28 pm
@ Only Me, I agree. We can always disagree without being disagreeable. Actually, it seems as if we're on the same side when it comes to most other things.
8/2/2017 01:09:11 pm
When partisans deride FOX News, I find it's generally in regard to their take on the evening entertainment shows; which are more editorializing than straight news. However, even their straight up news people can editorialize during their newscasts just like the other major networks, such as Shep Smith's clear anti-Trump bias. But you'd be hard pressed to watch Neil Cavuto and tell me he isn't fair and balanced, despite his conservative leanings. At least I would hope.
8/2/2017 01:09:25 pm
Civility is a white construct. When we were kings it was not needed.
8/2/2017 01:29:13 pm
"... disagreeing and holding strong beliefs based off of conclusions reached through the process of logic and reasoning doesn't make one a partisan."
8/2/2017 09:53:58 pm
8/3/2017 10:26:31 am
"...yet you responded to my last comment not once, but twice."
AT RISK'S ALTER EGO
8/1/2017 11:48:59 pm
Conspiracy theories, oh the bane of the well of knowledge! My other self glories in them, especially those that Fox News and Scott Wolter love to indulge in.
8/3/2017 11:38:51 pm
Hold up there, Mr Alter Ego! Context defines content, good sir: at the time of the beloved quote about religion being the opiate of the masses, opiates were the primary effective-if not only-widely known-strong painkiller within western medicine.
8/2/2017 08:27:24 pm
The only "trustworthy source"? Your skepticism is breaking apart. You do know a study has found that regular viewers of Fox News are as informed about events as those that don't watch any news? You saying Fox News is the most reliable is like saying CNN or MSNBC is the most reliable. If you haven't noticed Trump is not the most honest or reliable person to listen to. If are a skeptic then saying Fox News or MSNBC are God's word than it would be right to correct your thinking.
8/1/2017 12:41:51 pm
I can see a couple of reasons for the shift.
8/1/2017 08:25:29 pm
Not so much a 'backlash' as the fact that progressives present their ideas as detailed expositions which are about as interesting as a textbook. On the other hand, alt right presents ideas that appeal to primitive instincts and which are short and straight to the point (real or made up).
8/1/2017 11:43:48 pm
8/1/2017 01:36:46 pm
Maybe this blog needs a section to debate political spin doctoring. The topic had nothing to do with abortion. But then again, listening whole cloth to Fox News and taking it in as the truth, is as foolish as taking in CNN and MSNBC as the other side's truth. Still, it is not about the news media. It is about some alt right atheists.
8/1/2017 11:11:49 pm
Sorry to nit pick but that Einstein quote is usually entirely misunderstood. The quote is "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein's "God" was the mathematical laws that govern how the universe works - he believed that there was a determinable cause for everything that happens and with enough time and work the cause of every thing that happened, down to the sub-atomic level, could be found. He used that remark to justify his rejection of quantum mechanics, part of which states that there there are things that happen, at a sub-atomic level, that are literally random, with no cause whatsoever.
8/2/2017 02:53:49 pm
KAL, this topic has everything to do with abortion. Consider that when comparing moralities and immoralities associated with political parties, we have platforms. Platforms can be evil as well as good. If we're discussing and choosing (Jason) which political party is thought of as being better than another here, killing babies can enter into the conversation to hopefully offset the erroneous idea that the Democrat Party is superior to the Republican Party. Plus, I don't really need you to assign what is or is not on topic. You could be wrong. See here how:
8/2/2017 02:56:24 pm
The world needs more abortions. I'm ProFamilies, ProNotFundingYourKids and ProAbortion.
8/2/2017 04:24:09 pm
In this vein, I wonder how many future Hitlers were murdered in the womb today, so far?
8/2/2017 08:37:01 pm
Abortion? Are you religious At Risk? Science shows us that if life begins in conception then that means many "babies" die before being born. Two out of three embryos are rejected naturally by the uterus. Which means our own bodies are more dangerous to fetuses than the abortionist.
AT RISK'S ALTER EGO
8/2/2017 11:37:56 pm
Apologies, my dear friends. My head is wedged much further up my stick filled ass tonight than usual.
8/1/2017 04:37:49 pm
There have always been 'right wing' views in the 'atheist' movement. They're just more obvious under the current state of extreme polarization. Plenty of the more noxious reactionaries even identify as left wing, political movements being more or less arbitrary.
8/1/2017 06:48:26 pm
"Science education media has always had a problem about promoting the idea of the trustworthy multi-disciplinary expert."
8/1/2017 11:42:22 pm
David, your interpretation could not be more right.
8/2/2017 01:49:27 am
8/2/2017 04:00:03 am
8/2/2017 08:43:45 am
Wrong. The libel lawsuit is going on as we speak.
8/2/2017 09:04:52 am
Look up the story for yourself. A Washignton DC detective formerly investigating the case is suing FOX for attributing false statements to him. The DNC did not murder Seth Rich, and he never claimed that they did. But FOX ran the story anyway. Now they have retracted it and he is suing them for the harm it has done to his credibility.
8/2/2017 02:14:21 am
Again, I am posting this in the wrong place, because it is just too good. He didn't get the "were there no animals in Europe" thing. Seriously, if you're alive at all you've made it this far without following seal herds.
8/2/2017 08:44:37 am
That would certainly explain it.
8/2/2017 10:09:58 am
"... was convincing to many scholars and me."
8/3/2017 09:16:23 am
Nah, not really, since he's always thought of himself as smarter than the scholars.
8/2/2017 09:06:11 am
As much as i agree that a coordinated effort stretch the imagination, i think a case could be made for a concerted action from conservative forces. Concerted means here that a set of ideas were consciously and consistently elaborated and spread by some intellectuals and groups since the end of the seventies.
8/2/2017 02:14:41 pm
Brilliant. Thank you
8/3/2017 08:46:51 am
8/3/2017 05:49:37 pm
Double posting because of your double non-Indian balls?
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I 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.
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.
Terms & Conditions
Please 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.