Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are You Certain About That?
National Review Online ^ | By Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 12/27/2006 6:45:47 AM PST by Grig

Have you heard the news? Belief is bad.

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine, or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you’ll soon hear someone explain that real conviction — dogmatism! — is dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan, in his new book The Conservative Soul, declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist “Christianists” — the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there’s a war afoot for “the soul of the American Republic” between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.

Much of this stems from the popularity of Bush hatred these days. Bush’s alleged “messianic certainty” — to use Sen. Barack Obama’s words — is dangerous and evil in the eyes of supposedly meek and nuanced liberals.

The rot, not surprisingly, has reached Hollywood. For example, in Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas caved to the fashionable anti-absolutism that comes with Bush hatred by having a young Obi-Wan Kenobi proclaim, “Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes!” Translation: Only evil people see the world as black-and-white. This signaled that Lucas’s descent into hackery was complete, since it was Lucas himself who originally explained that the entire universe is divided into light and dark sides.

Longtime New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis captured the thought nicely a few years ago when he said that a primary lesson of his entire career was that “certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft.”

Whenever I hear people say such things, I like to ask them, “Are you sure about that?” When they say yes, which they always do, I follow up by asking, “No, no: Are you really, really certain that certainty is bad?” At some point even the irony-deficient get the joke.

But they still don’t understand that the joke is on them. Virtually every hero in human history has been driven by certainty, by the courage of their convictions. Sir Thomas More and Socrates chose certain death, pun intended, over uncertain life. Martin Luther King Jr. — to pick liberalism’s most iconic hero — was hardly plagued with doubt about the rightness of his cause. A Rosa Parks charged with today’s reigning moral imperative not to be too sure of herself might not have sat at the front of the bus. An FDR certain that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity might have declined to declare total war on Nazism for fear of becoming as bad as his enemy.

The fact is that unless you know where you stand, it’s unlikely you’ll have the courage to understand where someone else is coming from.

Obviously, there’s more than a grain of truth to the view that closed-mindedness is bad. Immunity to new facts and a smug confidence that you couldn’t possibly be wrong are serious character flaws and the source of grave mistakes. Yes, of course, dogmatism can be very bad, if the dogma in question is bad. But, as Chesterton teaches, a dogmatic conviction can also be morally praiseworthy and socially valuable. If you doubt that, let us now commence the war on the certainty that murder is wrong, that racism is bad and that a parent’s love should be unconditional.

This ultimately is my problem with the anti-certainty chorus: They aren’t offended by conviction per se, but by convictions they do not hold. Jean-Paul Sartre famously wrote that “hell is other people.” Well, for the new “liberal” champions of skepticism and philosophical humility, hell is the certainty of other people.

“Closed-minded” has come to mean “people who disagree with me.” (This is a corollary to the popular tendency of defining “diversity” as a bunch of people who look different but think alike). So, for example, pro-lifers have an unshakable “dogmatic” and “faith-based” certainty that abortion is wrong. But, we are told, pro-choicers are merely open-minded and realists. People who are certain gay marriage is good are “enlightened” people, while those whose convictions point elsewhere are zealots.

In other words, certainty has become code among the intellectual priesthood for people and ideas that can be dismissed out of hand. That’s what is so offensive about this fashionable nonsense: It breeds the very closed-mindedness it pretends to fight.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/27/2006 6:45:48 AM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Grig

BTTT


2 posted on 12/27/2006 6:47:41 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Andrew Sullivan, in his new book The Conservative Soul, declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist “Christianists”

Andrew Sullivan is certain of only one thing in this life - where he wants to put his penis!

3 posted on 12/27/2006 6:52:31 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

I have long argued that there is no such thing as neutral. That humans by virtue of their survival instainct must necessarily pick a side.


4 posted on 12/27/2006 6:54:11 AM PST by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
But they still don’t understand that the joke is on them.

They never will.

5 posted on 12/27/2006 6:54:49 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator

A car won't go far in neutral (hey, I just made that up)


6 posted on 12/27/2006 6:55:13 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Prominent figures in history books took a stand on what is right or wrong. Everyone else is just a sentence at best. The big reason why liberalism (and similar ilk) always fail in the long run is that they fail to see that there are real evil people, real saints among us.


7 posted on 12/27/2006 6:55:27 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Ask the morons if there is global warming and if so if it is caused by man...

No Dogma there...


8 posted on 12/27/2006 6:56:29 AM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Only evil people see the world as black-and-white.

Except, of course, Islamists, since by this enlightened thinking, theirs is only a reaction of the oppressed to the evil "certainty" of the Judeo-Christian west. Islam is really all about "peace and luuuuv," save for millions of dogma-crazed "freedom fighters," whose only wish is to enslave the world, poor darlings.

9 posted on 12/27/2006 7:10:01 AM PST by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Unlike television comedy shows [Seinfeld], civilizations cannot be based on nothing. Civilizations must be sustained by beliefs, strong beliefs. If the leadership of a civilization does not transmit certainties about the value of that civilization to its populace, that civilization will wither and die, and be overrun by some other civilization that DOES have strong beliefs. For instance: today's Europe, based on nothing but the pleasure principle, is being overrun by Islam. And America is not immune from this fate.


10 posted on 12/27/2006 7:13:53 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Certainly, I'm certain. But, are you certain that you are certain? For certain is, as certain does...


11 posted on 12/27/2006 7:23:44 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

read later


12 posted on 12/27/2006 8:24:29 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

It can go downhill.


13 posted on 12/27/2006 9:03:52 AM PST by Huck (Soylent Green is People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Exactly.


14 posted on 12/27/2006 9:48:23 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Grig
The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology.

Wheezing! Collapsing! Tears in my eyes! Funniest thing I've seen on FR in months! ;)

15 posted on 12/27/2006 3:59:41 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson