The problem with the Wilders film is that we do not know whether the situation of the corn dealer applies.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Michael Walzer on the Value of Voting Twice
University graduates are as likely as anyone else to be hasty, prejudiced, and self-regarding.
-
‘Unscientific’ to Scorn ‘Complementary’ Medicine
Madeleine Bunting goes all sciencey.
-
Ben Goldacre on Hadacol
Hadacol was made from B vitamins and alcohol in barrels behind the barn. It was a miracle.
-
Bishops Deny Misleading the Public
‘If you stop obeying God you start to limit the rights of human beings and this is a case in point.’
-
Pick of Day: Ben Goldacre on Lifestyle Nutritionists
You’ll particularly enjoy the segment about John Harvey Kellogg, the enema-obsessed cornflake-inventor.
-
The Counter-Enlightenment
His pockets were stuffed with fifty different kinds of conflicting literature – pamphlets for all seasons, rhetoric for all reasons. When this man handed you a tract you took it no matter what the subject: the dangers of atomic power plants, the role played by the International Jewish Cartel in the overthrow of friendly governments, the CIA-Contra-cocaine connection, the farm workers’ unions, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (If You Can Answer These Ten Questions ‘Yes’, You Have Been SAVED!) the Blacks for Militant Equality, the Kode of the Klan. He had them all, and more, too. [Stephen King, The Stand]
The man (although not really a man) in the extract above is Randall Flagg, an agent of chaos and destruction who brings down a plague on twentieth-century America.
If Flagg (or is it Walter O’Dim?) stalked our land today, the tracts in his jacket would be different. He would offer you a DVD explaining how 9/11 was arranged by the US government, a pamphlet revealing how reflexology can cure cancer, another that let you know that condoms cause AIDS (or one that said that AIDS doesn’t exist); a leaflet picking at the holes in the theory of evolution; a pamphlet from Gillian McKeith (‘YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT!’) claiming that human beings are capable of photosynthesis; a newspaper report linking the MMR vaccine to autism; an article challenging the historicity of the Holocaust.
Damian Thompson demolishes all these snake-oil merchants and more in his fantastic book Counterknowledge – perhaps the nearest thing we have to Hemingway’s fabled bullshit detector.
Yet his work sounds a little like a Louis Theroux-style giggle at the fringes of society, and indeed Thompson does have his laugh-out-loud moments. Here’s his account of a tour of Ohio’s creationist museum:
[Daily Telegraph journalist] Russell was shown animatronic children and dinosaurs playing together in the Garden of Eden. His guide, Ken Ham, from the fast-growing Young Earth organisation Answers in Genesis, explained that dinosaurs survived Noah’s Flood and roamed the earth until quite recently. ‘There are dragon legends all over the world. Why? Because they have a basis in truth, a basis in real animals. So, even though the word dinosaur wasn’t coined until 1841, we would say that it’s very possible that what people today call dinosaurs were known as dragons.’ But how did they manage to fit such gigantic creatures onto Noah’s Ark? ‘They only took young dinosaurs on board.’
But the joke is on us sceptics, because fringe ideas are taken increasingly seriously. The British government spends millions of pounds on building homeopathic hospitals, despite the fact that homeopathy has no medical value; charalatans like Gillian McKeith are given their own TV series and treated as experts in their fields; London houses publish books explaining that China discovered America in 1421 and that Jesus’s descendants are alive and well in France; a former UK government minister, Michael Meacher (also a onetime candidate for the governing Labour Party leadership) subscribes to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The enhanced status of counterknowledge makes it dangerous. This is especially true in the field of ‘alternative medicine’ (i.e: not medicine). If you take the advice of quack nutritionist Patrick Holford and give your child a homeopathic vaccination for meningitis instead of an actual vaccination, you are exposing that child to a deadly disease. Putting alternative medicine on a level with actual medicine takes us into a world we thought was gone: the medieval age, where millions died because the alternative was all there was.
And that is just in the developed world. 5.5 million South Africans are HIV positive, yet its government refuses to distribute the antiretroviral drugs its people need. The administration’s insane arguments are bolstered by Western AIDS denialists, who take a Gillian McKeith-style approach to the condition.
The world’s leaning denialist is Peter Deusberg, a molecular biologist who argues that to prevent AIDS, and even cure the disease, it is necessary only to eat properly and abstain from toxic drugs. The American government’s top AIDS adviser, Anthony Fauci, takes a different view, as the New Yorker reported in March 2007. After hearing Deusberg speak at an AIDS research conference, the normally mild-mannered Fauci erupted. ‘This is murder,’ he said. ‘It’s really that simple.’
Thompson adds that Deusberg was appointed to a South African presidential panel in the late nineties.
Why counterknowledge? Conservatives would say that its popularity is caused by the decline of traditional religion, and I think this is Thompson’s view, too:
Consider the following statistics. Between 1980 and 2005, British church attendance fell from 4.7 million to 3.3 million… The number of weddings in the UK dropped from 480,000 in 1972 to 284,000 in 2005. Each of these trends reflects the fragmentation of traditional authority structures – churches, political parties and the two-parent family – that previous generations rarely questioned… The subjective side of human experience takes over from the objective.
Humans have an innate need to believe, and in the absence of churches they will turn to cultic superstitions. The fevers started in the 1960s when social revolution destroyed the authority of the family and the church. As the old saying goes, if you don’t believe in God, you’ll believe anything.
Personally, I agree with Francis Wheen: if you believe in God, you’ll believe anything. State-sanctioned faiths (and what is a religion but a very successful cult?) don’t keep the lid on popular delusions: they set a precedent, ripping open the lining at the edge of rational thought. Let’s face it, if you can believe that a virginal woman gave birth to the son of God, who is later killed only to be brought back to life – then acupuncture and healing crystals will be quite easy to get your head around. Why favour one form of counterknowledge over another?
In any case, the phenomenon is indulged by conservatives as much as leftists. (If you don’t believe me you should read a copy of the Daily Mail, a newspaper whose mission is – in Ben Goldacre’s words – to divide the world’s inanimate objects into those that either cause, or cure, cancer.) As Thompson says, the free market loves counterknowledge. The idea underlying quack healthcare, that you can beat disease by cultivating a spiritual purity (or ‘SAY NO TO CANCER!’ as Patrick Holford puts it) is more than compatible with Victorian conservatism and social Darwinism. If all ailments are preventable by looking after the inner harnonies and eating the right foods, then people who get sick have only themselves to blame. There’s no need for governments to spend money on universal heathcare because if anyone becomes ill then they must jolly well deserve it.
But across the political spectrum there is widespread disillusionment with rationalism and Enlightenment values, which are now associated with the Iraq project and seen as concepts of a purely Western elite determined to impose ‘our’ idea of democracy and human rights across the world. (The quotemarks are an essential part of the argument.) The Enlightenment is for hopeless idealists, conniving politicians, fuddy-duddy Oxford professors and militant atheists.
Above all the Enlightement is mainstream, and people despise the mainstream. The mainstream is McDonalds and Ian McEwan and George W Bush. The mainstream is hated above all else, which explains the strange convergences of thought between ostensibly opposed fringe groups like the SWP and Hamas, between American creationists and fundamentalist Muslims, and between leftwing 9/11 deniers and Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. This happens even when their theories mutually contradict each other. As Thompson says:
An author who believes that Stonehenge was built by Aztecs will cheerfully recommend the work of someone who thinks it was built by the Priory of Sion, because they both recognise their real enemy as orthodox scholarship.
Anything that’s against the mainstream can’t be all bad: and having rejected the mainstream, intellectuals then throw themselves behind another. Gavin Menzies, who wrote a book claiming that China discovered America (it didn’t) now does speaking tours of Chinese universities and has senior-level friends in the regime.
Thompson quotes the writer and editor Michael Shermer on the roots of counterknowledge: ‘I think the problem lies deeper than this. To get to it we must dig through the layers of culture and society into the individual human mind and heart.’ And indeed, people trying to explain the appeal of irrationalism will inevitably turn to psychological analysis.
Imagine being a 9/11 Truther or a believer in homeopathy. You have unearthed a vast, hidden conspiracy that most of the world has completely missed. Either it is the conspiracy of PNAC engineering the Twin Towers demolitions as a pretext to declare war against the Middle East, or a secret plan by the medical/scientific/pharmaceutical establishment to cover up the healing powers of alternative medicine so they can carry on selling useless drug treatments.
You can dismiss the testimony of most doctors, scientists, physicists or engineers because their very experience and qualifications show that they are part of the elite and therefore have an interest in covering up the scam. Indeed, any contradictory evidence can be ignored – it will have been planted. Your own lack of evidence doesn’t bother you; obviously, the conspirators are going to cover their tracks. The absence of proof is proof. Ignorance is the smoking gun.
Most people reject your explanations because they are brainwashed by the corporate media. Only you, and a handful of fellow Truthers, are smart enough to see through the lies. What a boost! And presumably, when the conspiracy is found out, your greater intelligence and heroism will be recognised and you will be given the power and rewards such qualities accord you.
Finally, I think that the conspiracy minded are people in need of reassurance. They can’t handle the random, the chaos of life, the disasters that can come out of a clear blue sky. It is more comforting to believe that George Bush destroyed the Twin Towers than Osama bin Laden. It’s more comforting because we can vote Bush out, and put him in jail. At the heart of conspiracism is a message of subliminal succour: don’t worry, your government is in control. Go to sleep. Sssshhh…
Purveyors of counterknowledge are not revolutionaries. They are reactionaries, seeking comfort and status from dark dreams.
Counterknowledge, Damian Thompson, Atlantic 2008
-
If you stop obeying God you go all wrong
The Bishop of Lichfield explains about embryos.
It’s a very important part of our society and a very important part of the Christian faith that you should have respect for human embryos.
Is it? How does that play out in real life? Where in our society do we see respect for human embryos being performed or exemplified? What does it look like? What does it make happen? Do embryos enroll in school? Do they get promotions? Do they take part in athletic competitions? Do they win prizes? Do they run for office? In what situations do people get an opportunity to show respect for them, and what is it that the respect respects?
And in what sense is that respect a very important part of the Christian faith? Where does that come from? Where is it written? How long has it been the case? What is it based on? Anything? Did Jesus say anything about it? Did (even) Paul? Did Augustine? Tertullian? Aquinas? Luther?
To be blunt, I don’t think that is a very important part of the Christian faith, I think it’s a recently invented rule that some Christians have made an enormous fetish of for the simple reason that there is nothing much else they can make a fetish of because they’ve been superseded. We don’t need Christianity in order to work for human rights or equality or animal rights or justice or peace or benevolence. There is little room left for Christians to exercise moral scrupulosity, so they have to find little neglected corners that are neglected because they are in fact bogus. So the poor sad underemployed Christians trundle around finding embryos and cells to protect, since real people with real needs can be protected by atheists just as well as by theists. It’s sad for them. Soon they’ll be making ethical fusses about molecules and atoms.
If you stop obeying God you start to limit the rights of human beings and this is a case in point.
Oh really. Whereas people who do obey God never limit the rights of human beings, as we see every day. Well done, bishop.
-
Bishop’s ‘Frankenstein’ Attack Smacks of Ignorance
‘The Bill is not about creating monsters or mocking the sanctity of human life,’ says Colin Blakemore.
-
Winston Disputes Cardinal on Embryo Research
Winston, an authority on human reproductive health, said the cardinal was deliberately misleading the public.
-
News From Nasim Fekrat in Afghanistan
Situation of women terrible. No free media in Afghanistan. Basir Ahang safe in Italy.
-
Charities Urge MPs to Support Research Bill
Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation among more than 200 charities urging support.
-
Those whose sensitivity relates to their faith
Cancer Research and other charities are urging MPs to support the pre-embryonic cell research bill. But that doesn’t mean an end to bullshit.
Alan Johnson told Sky News: “I believe… once we have discussed all these issues and seen all the safeguards in the bill, that there will not be a split. But there will be an accommodation for those who have a particular sensitivity around this, including those whose sensitivity relates to their faith.”
Why? Why should there be an accommodation for ‘particular sensitivity’ about nothing? Suppose some people developed a fixed belief that sewage treatment violated the will of their deity? Should there be an accommodation for that? Why is there all this deference for completely absurd whacked-out meaningless beliefs for whose sake people try to prevent useful medical research?
Because it ‘relates to their faith’; I know. But that’s not a good reason.
Johnson did say the important thing though.
Mr Johnson said the bill tackles deadly and debilitating diseases. “For people out there suffering from Parkinson’s disease and motor neurone disease, this is not a question of some issue about the procedure through the House of Commons,” he told BBC News 24. “This is an issue about whether we can find the drugs that can cure their illnesses. So this is the heart of the matter.”
Yeah it is. Footling nonsense about the dignity of pre-embryonic cells is not.
-
All hail the sacred cell
More reckless irresponsible callous pro-disease intervention from Catholic clerics and MPs.
The Government is braced for further criticism today when the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor signals that Catholic MPs should vote against the legislation…“There are some aspects, not all, of this Bill for which I believe there ought to be a free vote because Catholics and others will want to vote according to their conscience.”
Catholics and others will want to vote ‘according to their conscience’ to reject medical research on frivolous willful sanctimonious trivial grounds. ‘According to their conscience’ means pretending to think a pre-embryonic cell is the exact equivalent of a developed human being – and they seem to be proud of this, rather than hotly ashamed, which is what they should be.
Former cabinet minister Stephen Byers:
On some of these issues, like whether we should allow the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos, I remain undecided. There is a strong case that can be made on both sides of the argument: On the one hand the desire to be able to tackle diseases like MS and Alzheimers, on the other hand respect for the dignity and sacredness of all human life.
The second one is not a strong case – it’s an absurdity. You might as well talk about respect for the dignity and sacredness of all human eyelashes, or dandruff, or spit. Does Stephen Byers stage a funeral when his dentist pulls one of his teeth? Does he collect the stuff the dental hygienist scrapes off his teeth and keep it in a little shrine? Dignity and sacredness bullshit – suffering is important, artificial pseudo-reverence for human cells is just self-flattery.
[T]he health minister Ben Bradshaw hit back at the bishops…Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions he said: “If it was about the things the cardinal referred to, creating babies for spare parts or raiding dead people’s tissue then there would be justification for a free vote. But it’s not about those things. He (Cardinal O’Brien) was wrong in fact, and I think rather intemperate and emotive in the way that he criticised this legislation. This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country. The Government has taken a view that this is a good thing. The Government is absolutely right to try to push this through to the potential benefit of many people in this country.”
Suffering. Well you see suffering is not what they care about – what they care about is sacredness.
-
Intelligent Design Movie Is Not for Heathens
Russell Blackford on the curious incident at the Mall of America.
-
Catholics Continue to Fight Medical Research
‘Catholics will want to vote according to their conscience’ to protect horrible diseases.
-
Joe Dunckley on the Church’s Embryology
Fertilised eggs can think and feel, recite their twelve times tables, and lead missions into pagan lands, right?
-
‘Witch’ Exiled From London to Kinshasa
When I ask her to tell me why her father and step-mother accused her of witchcraft, she does not reply.
-
Report Finds Discrimination in Iran’s Textbooks
Describe Iran’s political order as ‘sacred’ and warn that criticism constitutes opposition to divine will.
-
Landover Baptist Church Weighs In
‘Shocking information that PZ Meyers trophy wife (paid for by the tax payers of state of Minnesota)…’
