Islamophobia, Liberalism and Epistemophobia (from Quora)

There are people who believe that criticising Islam is Islamophobia, but such people are not liberals.

Genuine liberals, following the precepts of J S Mill’s “On Liberty”, believe in free speech. The only constraint on free speech, for Mill, is where it would result in serious harm to an individual other than the speaker. By harm, he did not mean hurt feelings or taking offence. A fortiori, he would not have included the taking of vicarious offence on behalf of someone else. Liberalism recognises no right not to be offended. If it did, then, in many cases, it would be necessary to ban speaking the truth.

Any religion is a belief system, and although the adherents of a religion may hold that their particular belief system embodies the truth, they have absolutely no right to demand that other people should believe or behave likewise.

If a religion, for example, forbids the eating of pork, adherents of that religion have no right to demand that non-adherents should abstain from pork. It may, historically, have been the case that such abstinence was justified by the hygiene standards of the day; it is so no longer, and if the only justification is an outdated religious prohibition, then it would be quite unreasonable to expect non-adherents of that religion to practice it.

Now, in describing the above problem, it might be argued that I have criticised Islam. In fact, I have also criticised Judaism, and indeed any other religion which prohibits the consumption of particular foodstuffs on the basis of historic rules. Does that criticism make me Islamophobic? Obviously not. I am not giving vent to irrational fear or dislike, I am offering rational grounds for no longer pursuing what I consider to be archaic practices. The adherents of a religion do not have to abide by what I think, any more than I have to abide by what they think.
In today’s politically-correct environment, an awful lot of people are prone to demand what they call “respect” for their point of view, but they then fail to reciprocate by displaying respect for the contrary or differing views of others. A common method of displaying that disrespect is to burn flags or damage memorials which are valued, or assumed to be valued, by their opponents. But that way lies vendetta, not reconciliation. That way lies the opposite of respect.

The “…ist” words or “…phobia” words are regularly employed as a device for preventing or ending discussion. However, since those words are intended as pejorative, those who use them appear to be reasoning, “I may criticise or abuse others, but if people criticise me, I will condemn them for being prejudiced”.

In condemning reasoned criticism of religions, we are in danger of allowing the introduction of a blasphemy law by the back door. It is not hateful to criticise. It is not disrespectful to criticise. Indeed, if a religion advocates violence or socially harmful behaviour, it is, at least arguably, a citizen’s duty to criticise it.

We should remember that stifling of dissent is not only a tool of the totalitarian, but also a barrier to progress and innovation. This world is not perfect. Anyone who believes that there is no more truth to be revealed than has already been revealed, or that no research or discoveries should be allowed that might lead people to doubt what they think they know already, is someone whose mind is closed and who does not wish for knowledge.

Such a person is epistemophobic. An irrational fear of knowledge is more of a threat to human progress than is criticism of any religion.

What worries me about UK politics.

To begin with, let me declare an interest. In 1979 I stood for election to parliament as a Liberal, back in the days when there was a Liberal Party. I was one of the 100 prominent Liberals (‘prominent’ being a relative term in this context) whose names were listed in the press as opponents of the Lib-Lab Pact.

There is no longer any British political party representing my broadly centrist position. I have to say with regret that since the merger with the Social Democrats my former party has turned into something neither liberal (in the classic sense) nor democratic (as demonstrated by its attitude to the EU Referendum result). For me, this explains its failure to fill the vacuum in moderate politics created by the polarisation of the two main UK parties and the rise of fissiparous nationalism in Scotland.

I am troubled by the seemingly inexorable rise of identity politics. In politics, I do not care about a person’s identity, I care about the quality and rationality of his or her ideas. To value ideas only insofar as they are uttered by an approved sort of person and to dismiss ideas uttered by any disapproved sort is a classic ad hominem fallacy, offering no hope of reaching the truth. Identity politics emphasizes irrelevant divisions and breaks down social cohesion to our collective diminution as citizens.

Another major concern is the diminishing respect for free speech. Extreme political correctness is the new fascism. No-platforming, shouting down, political violence and other forms of mob censorship are rapidly destroying our free society. I find it so tragic that things for which my father’s generation fought and died are so little valued and so lightly cast away by people who have the nerve to call themselves liberals. I’m sorry, but such people do not know the meaning of liberalism; they should read JS Mill’s On Liberty and learn what it is.

I value social media. Living as I do in rural isolation, forums such as this allow me to feel close to people all over the world. At the same time, I worry about the apparently deliberate policy of some media to create what has been called ‘echo chambers’; self-reinforcing factions rarely exposed to alternative views. When the certainty of one’s own righteousness becomes intense, there is an unfortunate tendency to respond to contrary views with hostility and belligerence rather than reasoned argument.

(In passing, may I mention that as a former philosophy teacher I know a thing or two about rational discussion. It was frequently necessary for me to play devil’s advocate, putting forward arguments for a view I didn’t actually support because it was necessary that someone should. You cannot convincingly claim to be correct if you are not familiar with the main objections to your view and able to offer reasoned refutations thereof. Without this there is only emotion and prejudice.)

I am disturbed by an increasing willingness to define ourselves by what we are against, rather than what we are for. Admittedly, this is often instinctive and reactionary. During the Scottish Independence referendum the unionist campaign understandably resorted to playing down the prospects of an independent Scotland but I would have preferred to see far more emphasis on what the UK had achieved and could in future achieve through integration. Likewise, the Remain campaign’s scaremongering about the dangers of leaving the EU was far more prominent than any enumeration of the benefits of membership.

I know politics has always been a bear pit. Confrontation is the nature of the beast. Yet it is vital to keep in sight the underlying truth that the UK collectively is far more than the sum of its parts. Split its countries or its society apart and we all suffer.

I wish I could have said the same for the EU. Sadly I can’t. The direction it has chosen is one which benefits just some citizens at the almost unbearable expense of others.

Truth and Error

It's always easy to critique our opponents because, of course, they're always wrong. If they weren't wrong they wouldn't be our opponents,would they? Unfortunately our critical regard has to look both ways.

It's a lot more difficult to critique ourselves. I write as someone who once stood for election to the UK parliament as a Liberal.

The intolerance of dissent displayed by large numbers of self-styled liberal people today is about as far from classical liberalism as it's possible to get.

From the very inception of liberal philosophy it has been a fundamental principle that everyone has a right to his or her view and a right to express that view without being subjected to ostracism or vilification. The liberal response to perceived error is calm, rational argument, not howling, bullying abuse.

The totalitarian response to perceived error is to ban and suppress. You can never persuade anyone by these means, you can only alienate and increase social division.

If we want people to hanker even more for the good old days when, in rose-tinted retrospect, life was relatively comfortable and stress-free, then the way we are most likely to achieve it is to keep making the present as unpleasant for them and as unlike those fondly-remembered old days as we possibly can.

Which is pretty much exactly what we're currently doing.

Error cannot be overcome by stifling expression or shouting down; it only withers when exposed to rationally-demonstrable truth.

Truth, by contrast, cannot be destroyed by exposure to error, it can only be strengthened.

In fact, truth that is unwilling to listen to error and show error why it is wrong will soon itself become a mindlessly-recited dead letter.

The current attempt to deny any platform to error and protect us from each and every exposure to it will, perversely, conclude by destroying truth.