John Cleese
has issued a few tweets over recent weeks suggesting that a better word for
what is often called Islamophobia should be called Islamosceptic.
Dr Cleese
has had a few bad takes in his time but a look at his feed shows he’s mostly on
the right side. I can respect anyone whose opinion on any given subject isn’t
instantly predictable based on their other opinions, and I wish to take him up on his point in the intellectual spirit it was offered in.
I accept Dr
Cleese’s definition of a phobia as an “irrational over-reaction, as with
spiders.”
Here’s the
problem:
We are not
always rational about what makes something rational or irrational.
I have two
major phobias – heights, and large bodies of water.
I have
argued (albeit facetiously) that being afraid of falling to my doom from a
great height or drowning in the ocean are perfectly rational fears.
However,
history has shown us that so long as the risks are respected and proper safety procedures followed, there is no rational reason to be afraid of either. That doesn’t stop
my balls from shrinking up towards my intestines any time I’m in such a
situation – or even when I see such a situation on television. In fact, media
induced trauma has a lot to do with what we’re talking about and we’ll get to
that a little later.
Perhaps I
should call myself an acrosceptic.
I’m none too
fond of spiders either, but where-ever possible I live and let live.
So while
John’s points about ‘phobia’ being an emotive term which implies irrationality,
and scepticism being a indispensable part of scientific method are well taken,
it doesn’t tell the whole story.
For example:
there are people who disagree with the interpretation of scientific data on
human induced climate change which is accepted by 97% of climate scientists.
While I may
butt up against the appeal to authority fallacy here, this is not a rational position for anyone who is not a
climate scientist to take. Yet those who adopt it get to call themselves “climate
sceptics.”
To be a
climate ‘sceptic’ today is not to hold a rational doubt in pursuit of the truth.
This is shown in the way most of their arguments are non-scientific, from
conspiracy theories to “it was cold where I live last week.”
None of this
fits a valid definition of ‘sceptic.’ But it would be wrong to call them
sciencephobes. They are not scared of science per se. They happily accept air
travel, pain killers, plastics, the internet. Some even accept vaccines.
No, they only
fear science when the science is inconvenient to them. Or not even to them, but
to those they have been listening to. For, what is there to fear from
mitigating climate change? Renewable energy sources? Cleaner air and water? New
industries and employment opportunities?
To find a
rational fear of reducing climate change, we have to look to who has the most
to lose from it. That is, of course, those who profit the most from the fossil
fuel industry. And it turns out, a lot of them own media companies too. Those
who don’t directly own media companies make large contributions to those who
do.
I’m not
saying it’s only the fat cats who benefit from the fossil fuels industry. There
are thousands, if not millions of oil rig workers and miners who will have to
retrain and find other jobs if we do this properly. Just as there were
thousands of workers in the photographic film industry whose jobs evaporated in
a space of about five years. Unless you thought for five seconds about their
plight before ditching your instamatic for a digicam and then an iPhone, I
respectfully ask that you pipe down about job losses.
Now that we
have discussed phobia vs scepticism on a less emotive example than religion,
let’s return to whether we should be saying Islamophobe or Islamosceptic.
The problem
with both terms is they treat Islam as a monolith, which is it not, any more
than Christianity, conservatism, or Collingwood supporters.
To question
the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, and the tenets of the Quran is to be
sceptical. It is not just part of scientific thinking but also theological
thinking.
To fear for
your safety because you saw someone on public transport in religious garb is
irrational and can correctly be described as a phobia. The same goes for assuming
a mosque is a terrorist hub for no other reason than that it is a mosque.
We all know
(well, most of us do) that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church (Hey! They
call it a church!) is not broadly representative of Christianity, despite the
disproportionate amount of media coverage they receive. To assume it is would
be phobic, not sceptic.
Dr Cleese
makes the very valid point that Life of
Brian is in no way Christophobic. But based on his own explanation, he would
be right to take umbrage at the film being called Christosceptic too. As he says,
it is not sceptical of Christianity, just certain types of Christians.
Valid criticism
of Westboro has nothing to with criticising Christianity. This much is obvious.
What apparently isn’t so obvious is that criticism Islam as a whole is a long
way from criticising how certain adherents practice particular facets of their
faith.
It’s a pity
that no one seems to be able to tell the difference.
