Counterknowledge is everywhere
I’m a fan of Damian Thompson’s counterknowledge concept (’misinformation packaged to look like fact’) and it’s blog- I’m less of a fan of his Holy Smoke blog, if only because it’s a tad depressing to watch him skim over abuses of facts by Catholics that he’d tear apart as counterknowledge if anyone else had made them.
Case in point: He had a post the other day on the unjust ‘heckling’ of Catholic Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue (who I mentioned last week) in a select committee. Now I have no idea if it was an unjustly harsh grilling, but personally I think that someone who can say that teaching safe sex is part of a “deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against Aids” and writes policy for sex education in schools probably should be questioned harshly. Now, I’m not really expecting high-ranking church officials to come out against their insane approach to sex education; I do ask that they don’t lie about the facts. Telling people condoms are wrong is one thing, telling them that condoms don’t work or, this can’t be brought up enough, are actually infected with HIV is another thing altogether. Its counterknowledge, pure and simple, being used to scare people who don’t know better by people who have no excuse not to know better.
In the article he also venerates Tory MP Douglas Carswell for saying that the bishop had a harsh reception:
Mr Carswell told this week’s Catholic Herald: “I think the bishop was slightly taken aback, and I felt slightly embarrassed. I give people a hard time, but only if they are on the public payroll, a recipient of public money, in the civil service or quangos – they’re fair game. But otherwise, if they’re members of civic society, they’re kind of guests. He wouldn’t have got that sort of treatment if he were an imam.”
Now, I think all people are entitled to a basic amount of respect, but Mr Carswell misses the basic point here: We’re talking about Catholic tax-payer funded schools; he IS a recipient of public money! Why wasn’t Mr Carswell giving him a hard time? Why, because he happens to be a bishop, should he not get held to account?
People who deal in counterknowledge like the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs should be chased out of anything relating to education policy, and if it were anyone other than a Catholic bishop who’s using counterknowledge to advance a moral view that Thompson happens to agree with, I’m sure he’d be leading the charge.
—
And so I can get all my Catholic Church related anger out in one post (and I blame rhetorically speaking for bringing this to my attention), here’s what Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s response was to the idea of meeting with scientists so they explain their work with hybrid embryos:
” have been approached by MPs and asked by others in the media to consider meeting with leading scientists who are currently involved in this area. I would be only too happy to agree to such a meeting and I am sure other Church representatives and leaders of other faiths would also agree…….In agreeing to such a meeting my only condition would be that the scientists were also willing to accept instruction from our Churches and peoples of faith on basic morality, on what human life really is, on the purpose of our life on earth”
These scientists want to come and meet with the church leaders in the perhaps naive hope that they’re simply ill-informed rather than actively shit-stirring, and their response? Ok, sure, I’d do that; I’m a reasonable man after all! My only condition, and it’s not really a biggie, is that they acknowledge that we’re really the most moralist people EVER and defer to us in all moral judgements from now on. Note the way it’s phrased, it’s these scientists who are willing to come and explain themselves rather than the cardinal, who’s been viciously lying about what their work involves, who lack basic morality!
And to round off with some Daily Mail moralising:
The orchestrated attacks on the Roman Catholic church by ministers, scientists and medical charities have done nothing to advance the debate over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
In sneering language, they have portrayed the Church as rooted in the Dark Ages - wilfully blocking research which could help millions who suffer from such dreadful ailments as Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy and Parkinson’s. Bishops and cardinals have been accused by fertility expert Lord Winston of lying to the public, by health minister Ben Bradshaw of being intemperate, emotive and plain wrong, and by other Labour MPs of “scaremongering”.
What, an attack on the Church? Totally unprovoked I might add? And crude as well, pointing out the other side is lying (even if they are) is just unsporting!
Posted on March 29th, 2008 in Faith Schools, Religion |














March 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Actually, I think you have me bang to rights here, and I think I’m going to have to revisit the case of Bishop O’Donoghue.
I can understand why the Catholic Church tells people not to use condoms as contraceptives; I disagree strongly that the condom ban should extend to their use in disease prevention; and when it comes to claiming that condoms don’t work to stop the spread of Aids, then I get really angry. I did, however, attack the Church on these grounds in my book Counterknowledge. But if the bishop is repeating this dreadful myth, then he should be condemned for it.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
That’s fantastic to hear and I’m glad my take on your motives were wrong! Apologies for that - I haven’t yet got as far as reading the book, but that’s a shortcoming I now feel a slight obligation to correct.