Stop sharing 'illusion of knowledge' meme misattributed to Hawking

Please stop sharing this "Hawking" quote, people; it's misattributed to Hawking. The actual author is Daniel J. Boorstin.

I created the meme below as an alternative 2.5 years ago because I grew tired of all these misattributions (mostly to Einstein, Hawking and Sagan). It's very ironic when this quote, warning against the 'illusion of knowledge', is shared without checking the source, especially when skeptics do it. (remember what Lincoln said about Internet quotes ;) ).

Czech skeptics overdose on homeopathy

Did Hitler talk about gassing Jews in Mein Kampf?

I'm currently improving the Dutch Wikipedia page about the Holocaust, together with Hanno Lans. Such an atrocious event in the history of mankind should be documented accurately, and it certainly wasn't well-written when I bumped into it at the beginning of September 2016.

One of the main issues I'd like to solve is the question of whether the term 'Holocaust' should also be applied to non-Jewish victims of the genocide(s) committed by the Nazis during World War II. This started when someone reverted my categorisation of a rather famous freethinker, Anton Constandse, who was imprisoned in Buchenwald and Herzogenbusch concentration camp, as a 'Holocaust survivor', because he was not a Jew. Apparently some people, especially Jews, argue the term 'Holocaust' should be reserved only for Jewish victims for several reasons, whilst other victim groups are claiming the right to be included under that label. Although I personally favour a broader definition, I need to be neutral as a Wikipedian, and can only write about the debate between experts on the matter. So I did and am doing that. So far, there are no edit wars or people calling me antisemitic or neonazi or whatever, so I guess I'm doing it right. 

The talk page is full with people discussing this issue over and over again, but they seem to come up with personal views instead of reliable sources, and so nothing is ever done about it. This is a place where I as a historian come in.

One remarkable thing that I'd like to point out is that there are still a lot of unsourced claims. One stands out in particular as a reason why the Holocaust happened: a quote from Hitler blaming the Jews for the German defeat in World War I was rendered as:

"Long before Hitler got into power, he claimed in Mein Kampf that World War I wouldn't have been lost if the Germans had "ten or twelve thousand of these people's traitors has been put under poison gas."

I was skeptical, because this implies that Hitler already envisioned building gas chambers to kill (the) Jews in 1924. Although the idea of exterminating the Jews was not completely new, this wouldn't become the primary policy of the Nazi regime until 1941. Other, less violent plans to solve the "Jewish problem" dominated before then such as 'voluntary' emigration, deportation or assimilation (e.g. Christianisation and Germanisation). It is agreed that these other plans were not carried out, because Germany was surrounded during World War II, making the Madagascar Plan impossible. Moreover, I didn't think gassing was already a preferred killing method by then (I checked, and indeed the first Zyklon B experiment on humans wasn't conducted until August 1941).

So, the quote implies a complete conspiracy that actually didn't exist until 17 years later. Hitler probably neither had the intent nor the method in 1924. The Holocaust was a plan that evolved gradually, and, the evidence indicates it was mostly concocted in 1941 and 1942; earlier schemes weren't nearly as detailed. (Hanno uploaded a lecture by Dutch historian Bart van der Boom who explains what a shaky, non-linear process the decision (or actually, 5 decisions) to execute the Holocaust was).

Luckily I could find a digital Dutch translation of Mein Kampf (unfortunately I don't know who wrote it, when or why, there are no translator's notes). Such publications of Hitler's notorious autobiography and centrepiece of his ideology are no longer illegal since the copyright expired last year; a real test for free speech, as many would claim the contents are too dangerous to be publicly accessible.
Turns out the actual quote is different, and should be seen in historical context. Hitler was propagating the "stab-in-the-back myth", a conspiracy theory that Marxist revolutionaries betrayed the 'invincible' German army at the end of WWI by suing for peace with the Allies (actually, the army was all but defeated, but the generals decided to blame the new social democratic government). Because Marx was a Jew, Hitler regarded Marxism as a Jewish conspiracy, and so the Jews were responsible for betraying the German army. It's important to note here that Hitler himself had been a volunteer soldier, fighting the Allies in the trenches on the Western front in Belgium.

He says that some soldiers and labourers revolted in November 1918 and overthrew the German government because their minds had been contaminated with Marxism. Hitler wished they had been fighting in the trenches instead of him:

"If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

So, he's clearly not referring to gas chambers for civilian prisoners, but to chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) used in combat situations. He is angry that he and his comrades in the army suffered and died in the trenches because of gas attacks (amongst other things), but 'those lazy, cowardly politicians, those Jewish Marxist conspirators, they signed peace and thus made us die for nothing; if only they knew what it was like in the trenches.' So, is this quote proof that Hitler already intended to gas all the Jews back in 1924? In all likelihood it isn't. He was certainly angry at them, and in his rage he perhaps wanted to kill some of them, but we're not reading an entire genocide plan here.If anyone uses this to argue Hitler already planned the Holocaust in 1924, it's quote mining.

My podcast appearances so far...

The European Skeptics Podcast
On 10 February 2016, I featured on The European Skeptics Podcast (50:20–1:06:20). My friends András Pintér, Jelena Levin and Pontus Böckman interviewed me about how I got involved with the skeptical / freethought movement, the three major organisations in the Netherlands battling pseudoscience and superstition and promoting critical thinking (De Vrije Gedachte [The Free Thought], Stichting Skepsis and the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij [Association Against Quackery]), and my part in this movement, e.g. as board member of De Vrije Gedachte and the Dutch team leader of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW).

Skepticule

On 4 May 2015, I featured on Skepticule (a.k.a. The Three Pauls Podcast, as both the host and two co-hosts are named 'Paul'), which was recorded at QED: Question, Explore Discover (28:45–46:25).


< Here we are, left to right: Paul Orton, Paul S Jenkins, me and Paul Thompson at QED in The Palace Hotel in Manchester.

They asked me about my experience of the conference and the previous one when we first met, my current projects on Wikipedia (of which I mentioned Skeptical organisations in Europe), my involvement in the Dutch freethinkers association De Vrije Gedachte (The Free Thought), my article in Skepter about GSoW, our skeptical Wikipedia project, with a special focus on the Rob Nanninga biography, and the state of secularism, atheism and free speech in the Netherlands.

Skepticality III: QED 2015

On 12 May 2015, Skepticality published a conversation that András Pintér, Jelena Levin, Pontus Böckman (the future team of the ESP), James Williams and I recorded at QED 2015 about our experiences editing Wikipedia and attending and meeting each other at that wonderful conference (25:00–37:00).

Skepticality II: The Vaccination Project
On 16 February 2015, Susan Gerbic interviewed me for Skepticality. Our conversation centred on how I was never vaccinated as a child, but when I learnt about the evidence, decided to do so in 2014, and started lecturing and writing on Wikipedia about the dangers of the antivaxx movement. The broadcast version is here (11:10–17:20), the full interview is available below.

Kritisch Denken

On 16 November 2014, my first (and so far only) solo podcast recording was published for the Dutch-speaking Belgian (Flemish) skeptical podcast Kritisch Denken ("Critical Thinking"), a Russells Theepot production. I explain why Wikipedia is a crucial battleground between science and pseudoscience, and skeptics should be there to correct misinformation and present the facts in the place where many ordinary people are looking for answers to their questions. The Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW) seeks to coordinate the efforts of skeptical Wikipedians to accomplish this.

Skepticality I: QED 2014
This was my first multi-day skeptical conference, where I also met some people I had acquainted on the Internet in real life, some of whom have grown out to become great friends. It's obvious that I'm nervous, my English speaking vocabulary and accent were pretty bad at that time. I'm not sure if I didn't know we were videotaped instead of just audiotaped, or that I just didn't dare look into the camera.
The first recording is about Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW), that brought all of us together. My part is from 4:55 to 6:20. This first recording also featured on Skepticality of 13 May 2014 (2:55–13:10), but the sound quality there is quite poor, unfortunately.

The second recording was about how cool going to skeptical conferences is. My part is from 4:45 to 6:16.

Deconversion is hard, but possible

Texan freethinkers 'debaptise' using a hair dryer.
It's very rare for people to publicly renounce formerly
held beliefs, and this one is obviously tongue-in-cheek.

Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands.

A good friend of mine who likes to discuss with religious people, conspiracy theorists, tin foil hats and others, recently asked in frustration why she had never deconverted anyone, despite having shown with great effort that some conspiracy theory is wrong, a certain 'medicine' is quackery, research was conducted pseudoscientifically, dogma is flawed and so on. Can you never actually talk someone out of a bullshit idea? Well, you certainly can, as I can confirm from amongst other things my own experience: other people talked lots of misconceptions out of my head as well, for which I'm quite grateful to them now. But don't expect someone to immediately shout out loud: 'Oh wow, I was so stupid!'

In most cases people won't convert instantly, let alone publicly. This is because everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, and so they take great pride in knowing what they think they know. Realising they're wrong about something, especially if you've been promoting it for years, induces shame, and even more to admit openly. (For example, Mark Lynas says he is ashamed it took him '15 years to learn to think for myself on [GMOs]' (2:04)). When you can no longer  reduce your cognitive dissonance, you tend to quietly change your mind and henceforth pretend you've always thought the way you do now, so you don't have to lose face. It's very human and understandable that someone won't publicly admit being wrong, especially because you run the risk that others will laugh at you and mock you for having believed nonsense. That fear keeps you 'in the closet', and forces you to maintain your old standpoint for a while longer, even though you know better by then. It is therefore important to anyone who tries to convince someone else to not attack her or him personally, also because this feeds the idea that a belief is part of their –considered unchangeable– identity. (At present, you see this is a huge problem when you criticise Islam; before you know it, one says 'you've just offended 1.some billions of Muslims!'). A belief should be regarded as something independent from the individual, which anyone could fall for, but also everyone could reject  (again) for rational reasons.

As a freethinker/skeptic, I try to not be too emotionally invested in ideas in the first place. The expected disappointment if they would turn out to be untrue, makes you seek the weirdest excuses, and wrestle yourself into the most illogical positions, just to be able to maintain the belief. It's much better to maintain an attitude of doubt, as Theo Maassen said: 'Doubt is important, if only to prepare yourself for the possibility that things are different than you think.'

I know our brain is flawed, that we constantly make mistakes, and all of us fall for nonsense sometimes. We can best resolve that to be ready to correct ourselves when we discover, or others point out, that an idea of ours is erroneous. If you're brave enough, you give the right example and publicly admit that you could be wrong, and if you dare also when you think you actually got something wrong (past or present). Show others that it's ok to make mistakes, as long as you correct them and are honest; perhaps they will also more easily come forward when they've freed themselves from a delusion. And consider that you've perhaps already quietly changed lots of people's minds already, even if they don't dare admit it publicly.

My dad came out agnostic

My dad came out as an 'agnostic' to me two days ago (26 September 2015). I knew he had been struggling with the dogmatism of his and my mum's church, The Christian Community (in which they also raised me and my siblings; all of us left it), and tried a Remonstrant church for a while because they are known as very liberal Protestants, but it surprised me nonetheless.

He told me, smiling: 'I've got some news that might please you.' I jokingly said: 'You're not religious anymore.' He: 'Well almost, but not quite. I'm done with church.' I was genuinely taken aback. 'Oh, well, why then? What happened? Didn't you try that liberal church?' He: 'Yeah, and it was liberating at first, they were not so dogmatic, you didn't have to believe x, y and z about Jesus, you can just see his message as an inspiration. But later they started to proselytise: 'I see there's a woman living at the same address as you, I assume that's your wife? Would you like to bring her along some time?' 'Oh well, maybe.' And they kept asking, but as you know mum's still fine in her church. And they started emailing me stuff I didn't ask for, asked my colleagues to come to church as well, and in a group conversation the pastor shut me up when I was talking about The Christian Community. I don't understand. Is this supposed to be the most liberal church in the country? I'm done with it. I don't want to be associated with Christianity anymore.'

I held back in bashing religion, even defended the liberal church a bit ("this is just how they believe, secular associations also want more members" etc.) but politely agreed with his criticism. 'So what do you believe now?' I asked. He: 'I don't need church anymore to tell me what to believe, I can believe outside the church. I'm not an atheist, I'm not sure about God, but I'm certain there has to be *something*! So I'm an agnostic now, I think.' I: 'Ok, but don't you mean you're a 'somethingist' (ietsist) then? I said, smiling. He: 'Oh hehe, I don't know, could be, I still have to find that out.' wink emoticon

I was so glad to hear it. We've had many arguments about religion in the past, several of them were unpleasant, mostly because I was frustrated and wanted to show why I thought it was all bullshit, rather than trying to gently convince my parents and help them reach that conclusion themselves. In recent years I tried to take a more diplomatic approach. I also gave my dad The Greatest Show on Earth as birthday present when he saw he found intelligent design plausible, because he couldn't imagine how complexity could arise through evolution. He only read a third of it because he found it repetitive, but admitted he now did see how evolution *could* explain complexity. I don't know how much influence I've had in his deconversion, maybe he was just mostly disappointed with organised religion, but I'm glad either way.

I just hope it won't cause a rift in his marriage with my mum, who still firmly believes and wants him to come back to church (she left her own parents' fundamentalist Protestant church in her late teens, but seems at home in The Christian Community). He: 'I also told [your] mum two weeks ago that when I die, I don't want a pastor doing the memorial service. She still does, but I insisted. It's my life, my death. I don't want any religious stuff at my funeral.'

'I tried being a Christian for decades, but I couldn't. Maybe my upbringing was too atheist,' my dad said. I laughed and answered: 'I don't believe upbringing entirely determines your religion. For example, you raised me as a Christian, but I'm now an atheist. So there may yet be redemption for you one way or the other.' wink emoticon 'Haha, one way or the other, yeah,' he repeated, smiling.

Kerk en staat: keep 'em separated!

Afshin Ellian.

Ongeveer tien vrijdenkers mengden zich in het debat 'Kerk en staat gescheiden' gisteren in In De Driehoek in Utrecht. De ruimte was een niet meer dienstdoende oudkatholieke kerk met veel christelijke kunst en teksten; ik grapte tegen mijn beste vriend Tijmen van Assen dat de christenen een thuiswedstrijd speelden omdat het gebouw partijdig was, maar hij wees erop dat de gereformeerden al die beelden ook maar afgoderij zouden vinden. De bijeenkomst was georganiseerd door de TeldersStichting en de Guido de Brès-stichting, de wetenschappelijke bureaus van de VVD respectievelijk SGP. Namens de christenen spraken Sophie van Bijsterveld (hoogleraar Religie, recht en samenleving Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen) en Kees van der Staaij (SGP-fractievoorzitter Tweede Kamer), namens de secularisten Afshin Ellian (hoogleraar Encyclopedie van de rechtswetenschap Universiteit Leiden) en Joost Taverne (Tweede Kamerlid VVD).

Vanuit christelijke zijde werd vooral gesproken van 'koudwatervrees' vanuit de overheid ten opzichte van kerken in allerlei maatschappelijke kwesties. Van Bijsterveld (CDA) zei dat die scheiding eigenlijk helemaal niet zo strak te maken is tussen publiek en privé en dat in de praktijk, kerk en staat elkaar nodig hebben en soms wel samen móeten werken waar de behoefte daarvoor bestaat vanuit de samenleving in plaats van top down. Eerlijk gezegd ontging een groot deel van de rest van haar betoog me nogal omdat het heel vaag en abstract bleef over hoe publiek, privé en maatschappelijk elkaar overlappen. Echt concrete praktijkvoorbeelden noemde ze niet, op het huwelijk en huiselijk geweld na, twee kwesties die zowel publiek als privé zijn.

Afshin Ellian, een politieke vluchteling uit Iran, hield een fel betoog voor scheiding van kerk en staat, waarvan hij beweerde dat het een uitgesproken christelijk concept was. Niet omdat christenen zichzelf zo graag uit de politiek wilden houden, maar omdat verschillende christelijke sekten (katholieken en protestanten) het elkaar niet gunden om de staat te domineren. De andere monotheïstische zendingsgodsdienst, de islam, kent echter geen scheiding van religie en staat en zal waar mogelijk proberen de staat te overheersen. Ellian betoogde dat salafisme het voorportaal was voor jihadisme. De salafisten die ook in Nederland voet aan de grond willen krijgen, misbruiken de tolerantie en vrijheid die zij genieten om diezelfde tolerantie en vrijheid af te schaffen zodra ze de kans krijgen. Wat Ellian betreft hebben salafisten geen recht om hun antidemocratische, theocratische, misogyne, homofobe, hatelijke mening te verkondigen en zouden ze beter uitgezet worden naar Saoedi-Arabië, in Nederland horen ze niet thuis. Hoe ongemakkelijk ik me ook bij die ferme uitspraak voelde, ik wilde het er graag mee eens zijn, maar kon het toch niet helemaal. Ellian besloot dat de staat geen plicht heeft om religies te beschermen, dat mogen de goden zelf wel doen.

Naar aanleiding van een kort videofragment waarin de katholieke diaconie in Oegstgeest een deel van de ouderenzorg overnam waar de overheid een stap terugdeed, juichte Van der Staaij toe dat de kerken de gaten in de verzorgingsstaat opvullen. Taverne vond dat weliswaar kunnen, maar benadrukte dat kerken geen monopolie op het verlenen van zorg moeten hebben en dat seculiere organisaties dat ook best kunnen. (Ik fluisterde naar Hans de Vries, voorzitter Partij van de Rede, naast me dat er ook best humanistische organisaties zoals de Stichting HBSB bestaan voor ouderen, maar hij wist te vertellen dat dat helaas niet zoveel meer voorstelde als vroeger. We waren het er onderling over eens dat de overheid beter geen gaten kan laten vallen waar de kerken in kunnen springen). Een belangrijk discussiepunt was de megamoskee in Gouda waar plaats zou zijn voor 1500 tot 2000 bezoekers, compleet met school en kinderdagverblijf. Er werd een fragment getoond uit het RTL-nieuws waarin buurtbewoners, die sterk gekant waren tegen de bouw, maar nauwelijks wilden reageren omdat ze niet voor 'racist' uitgemaakt wilden worden zodra ze kritiek zouden leveren op de islam in het algemeen of deze moskeebouw in het bijzonder. Men kwam vooral met logistieke argumenten, dat in een wijk van 1500 mensen het overvol zou worden als er zo veel mensen naar die moskee zouden komen. Ellian had in zijn toespraak er al zijn sterke twijfels over uitgesproken dat zulk soort projecten dikwijls gefinancierd worden vanuit Turkije, de Golfstaten of Saoedi-Arabië, terwijl er hier in Nederland ter plekke helemaal geen behoefte voor zou zijn en er helemaal geen moslims zijn om die moskeeën te vullen, maar dat er eerder sprake zou zijn van architectonische provocatie. (Later beweerde VVD-coryfee Frits Bolkestein echter dat in het geval van Gouda dat '99,5% van de financiering uit eigen zak van de lokale moslimverenigingen was betaald').

In het debat daarna mochten mensen vanuit het publiek vragen stellen. Onze voorzitter Anton van Hooff daagde Van der Staaij uit met de vraag: 'Als vrijdenker zal ik nooit gelovigen de toegang naar de kerk versperren en roepen dat ze niet naar binnen mogen gaan omdat religie onzin is. Waarom vinden gelovigen als u het dan wel nodig om via de wet uw geloof aan de rest op te dringen?' Ik begon te applaudisseren en alle vrijdenkers en enkele anderen klapten mee, waarop Van der Staaij lachend reageerde: 'Ah, ik kan zo al zien wie er in deze zaal niet van de SGP is.' Later beweerde een vrouw uit het publiek dat Willem van Oranje de godsdienstvrijheid min of meer in zijn eentje had uitgevonden en vervolgens stak ze een eenzijdig verhaal af dat de katholieken zo veel protestanten op de brandstapel had gezet en dat het allemaal de schuld was van de katholieke Rennenberg die in de Tachtigjarige Oorlog hem in de steek gelaten had. Mijn handen begonnen te jeuken als een gek, want deze kwestie, het "Verraad van Rennenberg", heb ik als geschiedenisstudent uitgebreid bestudeerd en beschreven op Wikipedia (zie link), en zij zette een zeer ongenuanceerd protestants traditioneel orangistisch beeld neer van de geschiedenis die totaal niet overeenkomt met de feiten. Gelukkig werd daarna de beurt gegeven aan een katholieke man die haar terecht wees: 'Ik was vroeger protestant en werd op school heel goed geïnformeerd over alle protestantse martelaren, maar ik had een katholiek vriendje en die werd op zijn school heel goed geïnformeerd over de Martelaren van Gorcum en de misdaden van Oranjes geuzenbendes. Het punt is dat er van beide kanten over en weer veel gruwelen gepleegd zijn en de ene partij niet onschuldiger was dan de andere.' Vanuit de hele zaal kreeg de katholiek bijval, ook van veel vrijdenkers die luid klapten.

Naderhand had ik nog verscheidene interessante gesprekken. Twee mannen die ik vertelde wat DVG was bleken niet zo geïnteresseerd, het waren ongelovige VVD'ers. Een veel interessanter gesprek had ik met die vrouw die Oranje verdedigde. Ze wist verbijsterend veel details over diens leven, en over de Tachtigjarige Oorlog in het algemeen vond ik in haar eindelijk iemand die aan mij gewaagd was. Volgens haar was Oranje bijna zo onfeilbaar als haar god, maar ik kon haar wel laten toegeven dat Oranje aan het eind van zijn leven helemaal niet zo populair meer was omdat zijn pro-Franse politiek keihard had gefaald, wat ze een 'misrekening' noemde. Een knap meisje dat erbij stond wilde weten wie wij waren en waar we het over hadden. De vrouw bleek vroeger lerares te zijn geweest en SGP te stemmen. Ik zei dat ik van De Vrije Gedachte was, christelijk opgevoed maar ongelovig geworden. Ik stal meteen haar aandacht, ze wilde alles weten van mijn geloofsafval. Ik begon met: 'Nou dat is niet zo heel interessant want ik ben nooit supergelovig geweest of zo, niet grondig genoeg geïndoctrineerd, dus het was ook relatief makkelijk om weer los van te komen. Hoezo? Heb jij je geloof ook verloren?' 'Ja,' zei ze, 'ik was islamitisch'. Ik zei hoe geweldig ik dat vond en dat ik graag meer van haar hoorde, maar helaas moest ze vertrekken voor de laatste trein, en de vrouw ook; ik heb adressen uitgewisseld met beide.

Terwijl ik folders van DVG (die ik van Anton had gekregen) ging verspreiden over alle tafels, kwam er een SGP-meisje dat folders van de Guide de Brès-stichting over een DVG-folder heen legde. Dat pikte ik niet, dus ludiek ging ik provocerend een DVG-folder bovenop een Guido de Brès-folder leggen aan het tafeltje waar zij stond, en zei 'Zo!'. Daarop raakte ik met haar in gesprek over wat DVG is en wil. Zij vond het toch moeilijk voor te stellen dat ongelovigen ook voor andere mensen willen zorgen als er geen god is die hen dat vertelt. Helpen atheïsten ook asielzoekers en ouderen? Toen kwam Jan ten Cate het gesprek binnen en noemde onder meer Humanitas.  Tijmen en twee SGP-jongens waren er ook bij komen staan en er ontstond een vrij felle discussie toen één van de SGP-jongens zei: 'Ja maar, Stalin was ook een atheïst en moet je kijken wat hij heeft gedaan!' Toen ging ik er echt goed voor staan en bevlogen debatteren, heerlijk, om het verschil tussen communistische ideologie en een seculier humanistische moraal uit te leggen. Naderhand sprak ik dat meisje nog, ze was eigenlijk best aardig en bleek ook in Nijmegen te hebben gestudeerd. We wisselden visitekaartjes uit en zouden later nog wel contact opnemen (dat is inmiddels gebeurd, ben benieuwd). Toen was het helaas voor ons ook tijd om naar huis te gaan. Al met al een zeer geslaagde avond, die echter helaas –zoals zo vaak– veel te kort was.

Dit artikel verscheen op 31 maart 2015 op de blog van De Vrije Gedachte en tevens in De Vrijdenker 46(5): 22-23 (mei 2015).