Resisting Obscurantism
And André Glucksmann says what badly needs saying.
Offence for offence? Infringement for infringement? Can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent “beliefs” which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief.
Thank you. Finally! No, evidence-based facts are not the same kind of thing as religious beliefs. They are, in fact, in crucial ways opposites, diametrically opposed, incompatible. It’s about time we got that straight.
This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought…Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations – so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism (“I am the truth”) or they fall into nihilism (“nothing is true, nothing is false”). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.
And not only can be, but have to be, on pain of being consigned to the horrible mental prison where intensity of belief determines what is true.
A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion…It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think.
Damn right.
AG writes:
It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall …
Solemnity?
Solidarity?
So all we have to is ‘recall’ a few liberal principles and the threat of Eurabia will evaporate.
What is at stake is the basis of all morality….
No, what is at stake is the survival of our civilisation – i.e. whether we beat the living daylights out of them or whether they beat the living daylights out of us.
Any ideas of how to go about the living daylights business in a ‘humane’ manner?
I mean how to win, not how to demonstrate that one is the nice, moral guy who finishes last.
Cathal, do get a grip.
He didn’t say ‘all we have to do’, he didn’t say anything would evaporate – he said we have to remember, not that that’s all we have to do.
You take civilization and morality to be completely separate subjects, do you?
It’s just that “remembering” doesn’t get you very far.
And no, civilisation and morality are not ‘completely separate’, but sometimes one has to be pretty ‘immoral’ to preserve a moral civilisation.
Dresden? Hiroshima?
I’m glad I didn’t have to decide — after the event, one can always go into morality mode.
The everlasting question:
How closely do you have to resemble your enemy in order to win?
AG – he really is nice. There’s the rub.
Yes, I’m glad I didn’t have to decide too. A different AG – Anthony Grayling – has a new book out on Dresden, as it happens (also, and more, on Hamburg). Thing is, it probably wasn’t really necessary to do what was done at Dresden or Hamburg or Hiroshima. Different things could have been done (it appears). There was some unnecessary sliding going on. But, as you say, it’s easy to say that afterwards.
Still; it’s hardly Dresden-time now.
Glucksman rather loads his argument with his concluding paragraph:
“What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our belief.”
Do Holocaust denial laws refuse permission to call a gas chamber an abomination? Was Irving convicted because he denied gas chambers were abominations (a belief, which I hold, but still a belief)or because he lied about some facts of the Holocaust?
Much as I’m inclined to agree with Glucksmann’s distinctions, and yours OB, I suspect the distinction between fact and beliefs about facts can sometimes be quite blurry.
On a totally different topic, can anyone suggest why the comments section in Butterflies is accessible on IExplorer and XP Professional at work, but not at home with IE and XP Home? No other blog causes this problem, and Firefox at home accesses this blog without any problem.
Write in haste, repent at leisure.
I should have asked if Irving had said, “Yes, there were gas chambers, and what a good idea they were too”, could he have been prosecuted under Holocaust denial laws? Should he be prevented from uttering this belief?
Yes, I noticed that – he sort of goes back on his own argument at the end. Oops.
I think Holocaust denial laws are exactly that – so not about saying they were a good thing. I’m not sure though.
No idea about comments. IE and XP work for me at home (which is just as well, since that’s where I do all this). Other blogs would be different though, because JS made all this from scratch.
The problem is that to the religous, their god and all that follows is just as factual as the gas chambers, thus they see no difference. By definition they believe their particular brand of mythology is fact (else they would not be adherants of their faith!?).
The original problem the Allies faced in Germany and Austria wasn’t Holocaust denial; it was that all the Nazis, who had been proudly running everything and doing a few other things Himmler explained were just as important but shouldn’t be talked about, had vanished (slight exaggeration; by March 1947 over 370,000 had been excluded from “public and important private offices” because of their Nazi affiliations). The population was taken on forced tours of just-liberated camps and the policy of rubbing their noses in these deeds was softened by the idea that the less they regarded their conquerors as enemies, the more help they’d be against communism. Some people saw it as their duty then to preserve evidence so no one would later be able to say things like Irving and others have said, but with Rudolf Hoess, for example, still around to testify what happened at the camp he ran, denial wasn’t the biggest problem. What you do have from those years is stuff like the following, from 14th March 1947, relating to textbooks and teaching aids, where it is spelled out: “All verbal or written matter of such a nature as to maintain the spirit of Nazism or militarism or to glorify incidents of war will be excluded from the schools.”
I’m not sure I agree with this, but then I’m not entirely sure what point he’s making. Obviously denial of a historical fact is not on a par with denial of a historical fiction when we’re talking about the realm of facts. But when we’re talking about offence surely the offence is in the eye of the beholder?
So both denials may be equally offensive, but we may or may not think it is ok to do one and not the other (although, in terms of offense only, we’d not want legal restrictions in place on either).
PM writes:
“But when we’re talking about offence surely the offence is in the eye of the beholder?”
Precisely – any statement can cause ‘offence’ (“something that causes displeasure, humiliation, anger, resentment, or hurt” – Microsoft Encarta) regardless of its truth content. The belief that the Holy Ghost ‘proceeded’ through the Father and the Son (the filioque doctrine) caused great offence to those Eastern Christians who believed that the Holy Ghost ‘proceeded’ through the Father only, whatever that means. People incinerated one another for trivia like this. Ditto transsubstantiation, politically correct interpretations of ‘Das Kapital,’ etc.
For example, as a conservative secularist I am deeply offended and hurt and wounded at Ophelia Benson’s support for gender-egalitarianism. Indeed I am offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated and I call for public repentance and atonement at these instantiations of psychological harassment…..
But falsification of historical fact – Irving doesn’t just deny historical fact, he falsifies the evidence, extensively, so extensively that, as Richard Evans noted on ‘Today’ last week, it seems pretty clearly deliberate – are not a matter of offense, they’re a matter of falsification of the record. Offense is beside the point.
“The problem is that to the religous, their god and all that follows is just as factual as the gas chambers, thus they see no difference.”
Well…not entirely, or not always, or it depends. Some religious do at least some of the time point out that what they have is ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ – though all too many of them proceed to take that as more certain than mere facts or evidence.
At any rate, if they do think their beliefs are just as factual as the gas chambers, the rest of us need to point out the difference. That’s why the demands to ‘respect’ religious beliefs are such a mistake: they would rule that out.
Hope it’s not too off thread, but seems somehow relevant
– & OB, apologies if this gets into copyright stuff, feel free to edit…
Letter to Grauniad today
“An important anniversary is about to pass us by, almost unnoticed. Five years ago this week the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan – surely a far worse crime than a cartoon in a little-read Danish newspaper? Perhaps a demonstration is called for. “
Kiwi Dave – can access using either Firefox or XP at home, but I do have Office Professional loaded… no ideas there, sorry.
Not too off thread at all, Nick. Bamiyan buddhas always relevant (in my view). They play a part in Jeremy’s new book Why Truth Matters.
OB. Good. It jarred as badly as if Moroccan jihadidsts had bombed the Louvre.
It’s a pity the security services would have needed the bombing of Mount Rushmore to pay attention properly… it was one hell of a statement of intent pre 9/11.
In fairness, I do remember seeing a list of countries’ statements to the UN objecting to the Taliban’s threat in the days running up to that apalling act of nihilism, and Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia among others, all registered their unreserved condemnations. Yet we still get the apologists – the edifices were un-islamic portrayals of deities worshipped by an imperial invader or somesh@t…
“it seems pretty clearly deliberate – are not a matter of offense, they’re a matter of falsification of the record. Offense is beside the point.”
But it depends from what perspective you’re arguing. If we’re arguing that it is ok to publish cartoons because we can cause offence to anyone we like (within the bounds of not inciting etc) then we cannot object to Irving on the grounds that he is denying a real event, that would be hypocritical.
Therefore you have to make your argument from a position that does allow for a distinction between fact and fiction. I’m not convinced that arguments about the -danger- of the views truly asserts a relevant difference, but that is the sort of direction you need to go.
But at the end of the day, I don’t think we can justify legislating against people like Irving anymore, I think the present danger is gone, but that doesn’t stop you from saying that while you’re quite prepared for Holocaust denial and blasphemy to be legal, you roundly condemn the historical falsification that Holocaust denial represents, but have absolutely no problem with blasphemy since the holy scriptures are just so much paper(or some variation on that theme).
Five years, huh? That sounds about right. I wrote something rather vitriolic at the time in a column I then had, leading in with a dig at my own skills of timing, having independently decided (or so I claimed) to switch from writing to sculpture and move to Afghanistan. One of the first times I ever dared get really angry in print, but I couldn’t help myself.
Stewart – it never got the full attention it deserved though. ‘Blame the CIA.’ ‘Don’t interfere.’ ‘Western Cultural imperialsim.’ & ‘Who gives a sh@t anyways ?’
All these seemed to be some of the stances at the time..
There are various references on the web to plans to rebuild them though…
More like “no one goes to war over some statues.” Nor does anyone survive who can’t see, interpret and act on warning signs.
“If we’re arguing that it is ok to publish cartoons because we can cause offence to anyone we like (within the bounds of not inciting etc) then we cannot object to Irving on the grounds that he is denying a real event, that would be hypocritical.”
But I’ve been not arguing that all along. I’ve been arguing – rather insistently – all along that we have to consider specifics, we have to consider substance, not just issue blanket condemnations or endorsements of what is or is not ‘offensive’. I’ve been arguing all along that we have to make a distinction between silly empty ideas like blasphemy and taboo and sacred, and non-silly substantive ideas like true and false. I explicitly said that ‘sacred’ is exactly the wrong word to use about the Holocaust. That word and related words like ‘offense’ are designed precisely to muddle the issues.
I know that’s what -you’ve- been arguing OB, I was just not sure whether that was what Glucksmann meant.
Because it seems like lots of people have been arguing lots of things. Some of the people arguing equivalence of Irving and the Danes have done so specificially from an offence perspective, whilst others have not. Unless you know from what perspective they’re asserting equivalence you can’t judge if they’re justified or not.
Oh, I see, PM. Beg pardon.
Yes, exactly – lots of people have been arguing lots of things. It’s all over the map, this discussion, and most people don’t bother to specify what they mean by various vague terms. It all gets rather frustrating.
Glucksmann seemed to be being precise at the beginning, and then at the end not so much. Pity.