I sent in the corrections to my thesis last week for approval by the examiner. If she gives the nod then it is all done. Otherwise, I hope that it doesn’t lead to the degree being downgraded. I’m reasonably confident that I have covered everything but you can never tell. Any spare prayers or thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Professor Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of physics at the University of Greenwich has been championing the achievements of medieval Islam in science in the Telegraph and the Guardian. Naturally, this has gone down like a lead balloon with some people as you can see. I found the Christian creationist commenting here, who refused to give an ounce of credit to Islam, particularly unfortunate but restricted my comments to taking on the Telegraph’s village atheist. I do have a policy of not arguing with fellow Christians in public no matter how much I disagree with them as it just gives succour to the real enemy.
Respected opponent Charles Freeman has a new book out called 381AD. It appears to run back over the same ground as Closing of the Western Mind but dealing with the years around the end of the fourth century in more detail. There is a glowing and utterly ignorant review by John Carey in the Sunday Times. Freeman’s problem is with ‘authoritarian’ Christianity rather than the ‘touchy-feely’ sort. I can see what he means here and it is certainly true that the religion lost its innocence by cosying up to the Roman Empire. Where he is wrong is to imagine that the Empire became more authoritarian as a result of Christianity rather than the other way around. As usual, St Augustine is the one dug up and placed on the throne for trial. As usual, he is found guilty of speaking the truth about human nature that progressives just don’t want to hear. I’ll try to get around to reading and reviewing 381AD later in the year.
I will be re-activating the search for a publisher of my book in the near future. If possible, I want to have the PhD done and dusted first, if only for appearance’s sake. My agent will be shifting his attention to America and hopefully also some of the smaller houses in the UK which we have not considered to date.
Finally, my article on the closure of the School of Athens by Emperor Justinian is up at Bede’s Library. It looks at the few primary sources related to the event and weighs up the evidence, asking what happened and what the effects were. One of the most interesting points that came out of my research was that the school closed by Justinian was not the same as the one founded by Plato. Plato’s academy had been closed by the (pagan) Romans when they first annexed Athens in the second century BC. It had been refounded as a neo-Platonic school around the third century AD. Despite the four hundred year break in existence, the neo-Platonists were happy to encourage the Platonic pedigree and many modern authors have imagined the school had been in existence for a millennium when Justinian (probably) closed it.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Rowan Williams and the Sharia Law
Oh dear. The AB of C has a history of accidentally generating lurid headlines. I recall when The Sunday Telegraph assured us that the Asian Tsunami had led him to doubt the existence of God when Dr Williams had said no such thing. This time, though, it seems he deserved the opprobrium being poured upon him. I’ve been trying to figure out what he said and what he meant before coming to a conclusion about the validity of his remarks.
Here in England, we have an ex-judicial system called binding arbitration. What happens is that two parties in dispute both agree to be bound by the decision of a mutually agreed expert. The point of the exercise is to save the money and time involved in taking a case to court. The Jewish community has, for a long time, used this system to allow their rabbis to act as arbitrators in inheritance and business disputes. In effect, Jews use religious courts. But as far as the law of the land is concerned, there is nothing special about agreeing to be bound by the decision of a rabbi or a local council reconciliation officer. That the rabbis use Jewish law is a private matter between them and the parties concerned. The only legal contract, as far as I can tell, is the initial agreement to be bound by whatever decision the expert in question reaches. In principle, I would think, if the expert suggests something loopy or illegal, you can still go to the courts to get the contract voided.
Now there is no reason that an Imam, applying the principles of Sharia law, should not act as the arbitrator in a dispute between Moslems who contractually agree to be bound by his decision (subject, as ever to reasonableness and legality). In fact, this already happens quite frequently and has no bearing on the universal validity of English law. But Dr Williams appeared to want to go further and enshrine certain Sharia principles in the secular law of the land. Now this idea, if he meant it, is the purest kind of lunacy. His Grace appears to be a wafer short of a monstrance. My initial thought was that he can’t mean this but having read his words I think he probably did. Clearly, in a secular society, a religious court can only hand down religious penalties. Their ultimate sanction can only be to ban you from mass or the local mosque. This seems something that no secularist could argue with.
There are also special tax rules because Islamic Banks can't charge interest. They have various ways around this but as our tax system is based on the idea that banks make money from charging interest, special tax provisions have been made for Islamic finance.
I fear Dr Williams, for whom I had high hopes, is now a busted flush. Perhaps his difficulties with the issue of homosexuality (an insolvable problem in the context of Anglicanism whose solution will lead to the dissolution or schism of that church) has left him demob happy. In retirement one has licence to speak ones mind a little more. He might consider that to be the best answer to his problems. York is ready and waiting for translation to Canterbury.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Here in England, we have an ex-judicial system called binding arbitration. What happens is that two parties in dispute both agree to be bound by the decision of a mutually agreed expert. The point of the exercise is to save the money and time involved in taking a case to court. The Jewish community has, for a long time, used this system to allow their rabbis to act as arbitrators in inheritance and business disputes. In effect, Jews use religious courts. But as far as the law of the land is concerned, there is nothing special about agreeing to be bound by the decision of a rabbi or a local council reconciliation officer. That the rabbis use Jewish law is a private matter between them and the parties concerned. The only legal contract, as far as I can tell, is the initial agreement to be bound by whatever decision the expert in question reaches. In principle, I would think, if the expert suggests something loopy or illegal, you can still go to the courts to get the contract voided.
Now there is no reason that an Imam, applying the principles of Sharia law, should not act as the arbitrator in a dispute between Moslems who contractually agree to be bound by his decision (subject, as ever to reasonableness and legality). In fact, this already happens quite frequently and has no bearing on the universal validity of English law. But Dr Williams appeared to want to go further and enshrine certain Sharia principles in the secular law of the land. Now this idea, if he meant it, is the purest kind of lunacy. His Grace appears to be a wafer short of a monstrance. My initial thought was that he can’t mean this but having read his words I think he probably did. Clearly, in a secular society, a religious court can only hand down religious penalties. Their ultimate sanction can only be to ban you from mass or the local mosque. This seems something that no secularist could argue with.
There are also special tax rules because Islamic Banks can't charge interest. They have various ways around this but as our tax system is based on the idea that banks make money from charging interest, special tax provisions have been made for Islamic finance.
I fear Dr Williams, for whom I had high hopes, is now a busted flush. Perhaps his difficulties with the issue of homosexuality (an insolvable problem in the context of Anglicanism whose solution will lead to the dissolution or schism of that church) has left him demob happy. In retirement one has licence to speak ones mind a little more. He might consider that to be the best answer to his problems. York is ready and waiting for translation to Canterbury.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Steven Pinker of the Evolution of Morality
In an excellent recent article for the New York Times, Steven Pinker outlined current research into the evolutionary origin of morality. He explains how researchers have shown that morality can been categorised into five universal headings: fairness, purity, authority, harm and community. Translated into language that we all understand, these five categories mean: do unto others as you would have done to you; do not commit adultery; honour your father and mother; do no murder; and do not covet your neighbour’s ox. Although there are huge variations in morals in different societies, Pinker is convincing that all fit into these categories. When the moral order changes, as it did, for instance, over slavery, the priority attached to the relevant categories is rebalanced. In the case of slavery, fairness trumped authority although most of the arguments in favour before the American Civil War were based on preserving the southern way of life (that is, community).
Pinker’s article covers a lot more ground, but two points stand out. The first is that conservatives seem to value all five kinds of morality in roughly equal measure. Liberals (which means the left in this context), on the other hand, tend to privilege fairness and community. You can see many aspects of the culture wars in a new light by slotting the arguments on both sides into the relevant moral categories. Pornography? Conservatives object on the grounds of purity, liberals get stuck in for fairness’s sake. Animal rights? Wrong, say conservatives protecting their (human) community. Right, say liberals avoiding harm to others. The only point where I am a bit lost is figuring out which moral category applies to people who are pro-choice on abortion. The antis are obviously saying do no harm. I suppose those in favour could cite community much as conservatives do for animal rights.
Ultimately, the categories you use to play this game don’t matter so much as the fact that they are innate. The moral imperative is part of our basic human nature. As such, we can be pretty sure that it has evolved. The advantage, I suppose, of the five categories mentioned above is that it is quite easy to come up with some just-so stories about exactly how we evolved them.
I won’t bother with that but want, instead, to move onto my second point. For many people, the idea that morality evolved leaves them a bit disconcerted. But they should not be. Christian theologians have been almost unanimous in finding that natural law is a part of the natural world. It is a universal property of healthy humans regardless of their religion or culture. But it is only machinery. The software of specific morality and ethics requires something more. The evolutionary explanation for morality does not actually explain why slavery and abortion are wrong, it only explains how we became creatures who are capable of having the argument in the first place.
We are forced back to the position that almost all the specific morality of our society is a product of our Christian heritage, not our genes. Towards the end of his article, Pinker speculates on some of the ways that morality might be ‘objective’ in a universe without God. But he doesn’t get very far with it. Almost any discussion of where our ethics came from must acknowledge that a major part of the answer is Christianity.
By the way, one of the commentators on this blog recommended Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism blog. It covers similar ground to Pinker at a more adavanced level. Well worth a look.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Pinker’s article covers a lot more ground, but two points stand out. The first is that conservatives seem to value all five kinds of morality in roughly equal measure. Liberals (which means the left in this context), on the other hand, tend to privilege fairness and community. You can see many aspects of the culture wars in a new light by slotting the arguments on both sides into the relevant moral categories. Pornography? Conservatives object on the grounds of purity, liberals get stuck in for fairness’s sake. Animal rights? Wrong, say conservatives protecting their (human) community. Right, say liberals avoiding harm to others. The only point where I am a bit lost is figuring out which moral category applies to people who are pro-choice on abortion. The antis are obviously saying do no harm. I suppose those in favour could cite community much as conservatives do for animal rights.
Ultimately, the categories you use to play this game don’t matter so much as the fact that they are innate. The moral imperative is part of our basic human nature. As such, we can be pretty sure that it has evolved. The advantage, I suppose, of the five categories mentioned above is that it is quite easy to come up with some just-so stories about exactly how we evolved them.
I won’t bother with that but want, instead, to move onto my second point. For many people, the idea that morality evolved leaves them a bit disconcerted. But they should not be. Christian theologians have been almost unanimous in finding that natural law is a part of the natural world. It is a universal property of healthy humans regardless of their religion or culture. But it is only machinery. The software of specific morality and ethics requires something more. The evolutionary explanation for morality does not actually explain why slavery and abortion are wrong, it only explains how we became creatures who are capable of having the argument in the first place.
We are forced back to the position that almost all the specific morality of our society is a product of our Christian heritage, not our genes. Towards the end of his article, Pinker speculates on some of the ways that morality might be ‘objective’ in a universe without God. But he doesn’t get very far with it. Almost any discussion of where our ethics came from must acknowledge that a major part of the answer is Christianity.
By the way, one of the commentators on this blog recommended Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism blog. It covers similar ground to Pinker at a more adavanced level. Well worth a look.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Oliver Kamm
I have been enjoying the blog of Oliver Kamm. Kamm is a true rationalist. Most of my readers will be aware that people who call themselves rationalists tend to be suffering from more delusions than most. They have simply substituted what they took to be one set of myths (usually religious) for another set (usually reductionist and political). Kamm is far more clear-eyed. In fact, the only illusion he allows himself is that he is a member of the political left. And yet his main literary activity is to puncture the bubbles that make up the worldview of certain members of mainstream left.
For some of this group, to call yourself leftwing requires that you hold to certain propositions. These include that America is to blame for most of the world’s problems, that the Soviet Union was a glorious experiment that went wrong and that the Palestinians are entirely innocent of the causes of their suffering. Economically, you must be anti-globalisation, against free trade, in favour of protectionism (which you call fair trade) and impatiently awaiting the collapse of capitalism. On the domestic front, you must hate Margaret Thatcher, laud the Trade Unions, believe that the Argentine battle cruiser, the Belgrano, represented no threat to the British fleet when it was sunk during the Falklands War and blame the Middle Classes for everything that is wrong with the British education system.
As far as I can gather, Kamm does not subscribe to any of these propositions. Nor, I should hasten to add, do many people in the Labour Government, which could be described as social democratic but never as socialist. The Labour Party’s activist base, on the other hand, is well to the left of the leadership.
So Kamm is a liberal who delights in destroying the myths of the left (and occasionally the far right too, although he restricts himself to holocaust denial debunking in this respect). Anyone who enjoys forensic prose coupled with high intelligence laced with a Tabasco of arrogance will find his blog well worth perusing. He is especially strong on the continuing legends of the Cold War, especially those that seek to show a moral equivalence between the democratic United States and the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
Like many other signatories of the Euston Manifesto, on one subject he is quite misguided. As an atheist, he occasionally feels a need to be rude about religion. This has also led him to praise the recent books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I can only assume that this is one area of study where he is not as well briefed as he is in modern history and contemporary politics. Consequently, he is unable to distinguish between useful scholarship on the subject and the rhetoric that he despises in other areas. Not that he would convert; but he should be aware that the history and science of religious belief bears little resemblance to Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ caricature. Sadly, I don’t think he would consider brushing up on theological questions would be a valuable use of his time and so this flaw in his thinking is likely to be maintained.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
For some of this group, to call yourself leftwing requires that you hold to certain propositions. These include that America is to blame for most of the world’s problems, that the Soviet Union was a glorious experiment that went wrong and that the Palestinians are entirely innocent of the causes of their suffering. Economically, you must be anti-globalisation, against free trade, in favour of protectionism (which you call fair trade) and impatiently awaiting the collapse of capitalism. On the domestic front, you must hate Margaret Thatcher, laud the Trade Unions, believe that the Argentine battle cruiser, the Belgrano, represented no threat to the British fleet when it was sunk during the Falklands War and blame the Middle Classes for everything that is wrong with the British education system.
As far as I can gather, Kamm does not subscribe to any of these propositions. Nor, I should hasten to add, do many people in the Labour Government, which could be described as social democratic but never as socialist. The Labour Party’s activist base, on the other hand, is well to the left of the leadership.
So Kamm is a liberal who delights in destroying the myths of the left (and occasionally the far right too, although he restricts himself to holocaust denial debunking in this respect). Anyone who enjoys forensic prose coupled with high intelligence laced with a Tabasco of arrogance will find his blog well worth perusing. He is especially strong on the continuing legends of the Cold War, especially those that seek to show a moral equivalence between the democratic United States and the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
Like many other signatories of the Euston Manifesto, on one subject he is quite misguided. As an atheist, he occasionally feels a need to be rude about religion. This has also led him to praise the recent books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I can only assume that this is one area of study where he is not as well briefed as he is in modern history and contemporary politics. Consequently, he is unable to distinguish between useful scholarship on the subject and the rhetoric that he despises in other areas. Not that he would convert; but he should be aware that the history and science of religious belief bears little resemblance to Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ caricature. Sadly, I don’t think he would consider brushing up on theological questions would be a valuable use of his time and so this flaw in his thinking is likely to be maintained.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Battle over Church Schools
American readers might be slightly surprised to find that church schools (nowadays often called faith schools so as not to discriminate against non-Christian religions) should be a big issue in the UK. The argument has historical roots. Once upon a time, most free schools in the country were run by the Church of England. From the mid-nineteenth century, the Catholic Church also began to set up schools, which tended, because of demographics, to be in quite poor areas. In the 1940s, schools were nationalised and the state started to pay for most of their upkeep. Despite increasing levels of regulation, many church schools have retained some independence, especially over admissions and ‘ethos’.
The arguments for church schools are two-fold. Firstly, people have a right to have their children brought up within their own tradition. Secondly, church schools tend to be better than non-church schools. The reasons for the later fact are hotly debated. Some claim that it is purely due to the middle classes packing church schools while leaving secular schools to deal with the socially disadvantaged. Others claim it is due to the culture of discipline and hard work at church schools which leads to their success. I would think that both factors contribute but that it is the strong ethos that leads to middle class parents being attracted to the school in the first place, thus further improving its image and results.
The propensity to blame the middle classes for clogging up the best schools has even infected the Conservative Party. Their schools spokesman, Michael Gove (him again), recently referred to the sharp elbows of the middle classes, presumably forcing their way past the worthy poor to bag all the desks at the local school. The Conservative leader, David Cameron also got himself into a muddle on the Church Schools issue. In a recent Times interview he said he would not blame parents trying to do the best for their children. This was interpreted as condoning atheists who pretend to a Christian faith so as to get their kids into a church school. Journalists often peddle the idea that non-believers turn up at church each Sunday just to improve their chances of getting their children into the attached school. I’ve always found the image of worthy Dawkinistas laying aside their copies of The God Delusion to march off to Communion on Sunday rather ridiculous. What probably does happen is people who never really bothered with religion one way or the other suddenly find they have an urge to investigate it if the local church school is any good. I rather suspect that David Cameron himself falls into this category.
There is no doubt that the stakes for us middle class parents are frighteningly high. State schools are free but vary between excellent and utterly dire. No self-respecting parent will accept a poor school for their offspring but the allocation of places to the best state schools is a lottery, increasingly quite literally so. The alternative private schools start at around £8,000 a year. Many middle class parents, unsurprisingly, decide that kind of money is worth a Mass.
The argument against church schools is harder to pin down because it is only usually made by ranters like Polly Toynbee. The traditional objection is that church schools encourage religious segregation although no one seems to provide any evidence for this beyond insisting that it is ‘obvious’. Some of it is ideological egalitarianism which would rather all schools were poor than some were better than others. The fact that church schools do generally appear to be better than secular schools is clearly a red rag to the bulls who refuse to see any good in religion. Perhaps they are also worried that parents who are attending church to ease access to a school might fall under religion’s wicked spell as well. The arguments have now been confused by concern from all sides about Muslim state schools (of which there are so far only one or two). Some on the left would rather close down all church schools than admit to discriminating against Islam. If Islamic schools funded by the taxpayer do take off, we can expect that this argument will get a lot louder.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
The arguments for church schools are two-fold. Firstly, people have a right to have their children brought up within their own tradition. Secondly, church schools tend to be better than non-church schools. The reasons for the later fact are hotly debated. Some claim that it is purely due to the middle classes packing church schools while leaving secular schools to deal with the socially disadvantaged. Others claim it is due to the culture of discipline and hard work at church schools which leads to their success. I would think that both factors contribute but that it is the strong ethos that leads to middle class parents being attracted to the school in the first place, thus further improving its image and results.
The propensity to blame the middle classes for clogging up the best schools has even infected the Conservative Party. Their schools spokesman, Michael Gove (him again), recently referred to the sharp elbows of the middle classes, presumably forcing their way past the worthy poor to bag all the desks at the local school. The Conservative leader, David Cameron also got himself into a muddle on the Church Schools issue. In a recent Times interview he said he would not blame parents trying to do the best for their children. This was interpreted as condoning atheists who pretend to a Christian faith so as to get their kids into a church school. Journalists often peddle the idea that non-believers turn up at church each Sunday just to improve their chances of getting their children into the attached school. I’ve always found the image of worthy Dawkinistas laying aside their copies of The God Delusion to march off to Communion on Sunday rather ridiculous. What probably does happen is people who never really bothered with religion one way or the other suddenly find they have an urge to investigate it if the local church school is any good. I rather suspect that David Cameron himself falls into this category.
There is no doubt that the stakes for us middle class parents are frighteningly high. State schools are free but vary between excellent and utterly dire. No self-respecting parent will accept a poor school for their offspring but the allocation of places to the best state schools is a lottery, increasingly quite literally so. The alternative private schools start at around £8,000 a year. Many middle class parents, unsurprisingly, decide that kind of money is worth a Mass.
The argument against church schools is harder to pin down because it is only usually made by ranters like Polly Toynbee. The traditional objection is that church schools encourage religious segregation although no one seems to provide any evidence for this beyond insisting that it is ‘obvious’. Some of it is ideological egalitarianism which would rather all schools were poor than some were better than others. The fact that church schools do generally appear to be better than secular schools is clearly a red rag to the bulls who refuse to see any good in religion. Perhaps they are also worried that parents who are attending church to ease access to a school might fall under religion’s wicked spell as well. The arguments have now been confused by concern from all sides about Muslim state schools (of which there are so far only one or two). Some on the left would rather close down all church schools than admit to discriminating against Islam. If Islamic schools funded by the taxpayer do take off, we can expect that this argument will get a lot louder.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Can a Christian believe in Free Markets?
There has been some debate below Friday’s post about to what extent being an economic left-winger is a valid choice. We all know that socialism is not a successful way to achieve economic growth. It is less widely accepted, but I think still true, that the best way for a country to become rich is following an unfettered free-market and free-trade policy. For example, before 1990 India followed an economic policy that was centrally planned and protectionist. This resulted in an average growth rate of 3% per annum – respectable for an industrialised country but disastrous where it could not even keep pace with population increases. After over a decade of free market reform, growth is up to 10% a year and ordinary Indians are finally getting richer. Some are getting extremely rich and herein lies the left-winger’s gripe.
To be economically left wing is, I think, to value social justice and fairness more highly than economic growth. A left-winger would sacrifice some of the gains from an unfettered free market to even up the benefits. There are two powerful arguments in favour of this approach. The first is that, beyond a certain level, increased wealth does not seem to make us happier. Indeed, people are likely to be made unhappy by a neighbour who is clearly prospering more than they are (what we in England call having to keep up with the Joneses). Pop-psychologist Oliver James has written a couple of books claiming being rich has actually made us miserable but as he has declined to provide any evidence for his assertions, they must stand unproven.
The second powerful argument for the left winger is not one that many of them are inclined to make. It concerns equal opportunities. It is true that the best way to create opportunities for those willing and able to take them is an unfettered free market. However, many are either unwilling or cannot take their chances. The left will blame lack of education or other social disadvantages for this, but the real reason is the genetic lottery whereby many people do not have the raw brainpower or determination to give things a go. Thus, an unfettered market will always fail some people who are not, through their own efforts, able to do much about it. This might be what Jesus, whom we must at least credit with a shrewd idea of human nature, meant when he said that the poor would always be with us. He also blesses them and charges the rest of us with looking after them. Thus, I think it is possible to construct a left wing and Christian argument against leaving the market to its own devices.
Where do I stand? With a billion critically poor, I am not sure we have the luxury to worry about inequality. The quickest way to generate the trillions of dollars needed to lift the poor above the subsistence line is through global markets and free trade. That this money will end up very unevenly distributed is not, for the moment, the most pressing problem. My argument is not with those on the left whose priorities are different from mine, but with those who go on pretending that capitalism-lite can do the job better at wealth creation than capitalism.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
To be economically left wing is, I think, to value social justice and fairness more highly than economic growth. A left-winger would sacrifice some of the gains from an unfettered free market to even up the benefits. There are two powerful arguments in favour of this approach. The first is that, beyond a certain level, increased wealth does not seem to make us happier. Indeed, people are likely to be made unhappy by a neighbour who is clearly prospering more than they are (what we in England call having to keep up with the Joneses). Pop-psychologist Oliver James has written a couple of books claiming being rich has actually made us miserable but as he has declined to provide any evidence for his assertions, they must stand unproven.
The second powerful argument for the left winger is not one that many of them are inclined to make. It concerns equal opportunities. It is true that the best way to create opportunities for those willing and able to take them is an unfettered free market. However, many are either unwilling or cannot take their chances. The left will blame lack of education or other social disadvantages for this, but the real reason is the genetic lottery whereby many people do not have the raw brainpower or determination to give things a go. Thus, an unfettered market will always fail some people who are not, through their own efforts, able to do much about it. This might be what Jesus, whom we must at least credit with a shrewd idea of human nature, meant when he said that the poor would always be with us. He also blesses them and charges the rest of us with looking after them. Thus, I think it is possible to construct a left wing and Christian argument against leaving the market to its own devices.
Where do I stand? With a billion critically poor, I am not sure we have the luxury to worry about inequality. The quickest way to generate the trillions of dollars needed to lift the poor above the subsistence line is through global markets and free trade. That this money will end up very unevenly distributed is not, for the moment, the most pressing problem. My argument is not with those on the left whose priorities are different from mine, but with those who go on pretending that capitalism-lite can do the job better at wealth creation than capitalism.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The English Neo-Cons
Over on this side of the Atlantic to call someone a neo-conservative is far ruder than to question the genus to which their mother belongs or make implications about their destination after death. Like ‘heretic’, ‘neo-con’ is a word that no one would use to describe themselves. It is a throwaway insult, usually used to describe someone supportive, if only in a broad way, of United States foreign policy. But it can be applied to anyone you don’t like. Today an article by a bona fide left-winger on breast milk earned him the insult from someone who apparently equates bottle-feeding with American imperialism.
For this reason, I am not going to use the term neo-con to describe the English neo-cons. But this does leave us lacking a collective noun to describe a group that, although disparate, has quite a lot in common.
Interestingly, they all tend to be journalists. Apart from Tony Blair, now retired, few British politicians ever appeared to give wholehearted support to the Iraq War. Fewer betrayed any liking for George Bush. This was the same on the opposition benches where their erstwhile leader, Iain Duncan Smith – himself an ex-soldier – was one of the few Conservatives to summon up much enthusiasm for the venture. The only full blooded supporter of Iraq now in the shadow cabinet, Michael Gove, has been parked in the (admittedly important) education portfolio where he can’t stir up any foreign policy hornets.
Most of the other not-to-be-called-neo-cons in England are journalists or writers – Nick Cohen, Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch, Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm and Martin Amis to name a few. Realising they have much in common, some have signed up to a document called the Euston Manifesto, which, in substance is a sort of mutual defence pact to watch each other’s backs in print. They tend to be from the left of the political spectrum. This echoes the situation of the original American neo-cons, whom, I understand, also found there way from Democratic or even socialist backgrounds. However, the English group claim that they continue to be left wingers and spend much of their time defending themselves from the old left for whom being anti-Israel and anti-American are articles of faith. The signatories of the Euston Manifesto supported the Iraq War because they believed that Saddam Hussein was a fascist and lefties should axiomatically be anti-Fascist. In this, together with their critical and some grudging support for Israel, I tend to agree with them.
However, the signatories extend their anti-fascist analysis to Islam as a whole. Many see this religion as a manifestation of evil that needs to be opposed wholeheartedly. Islam is, they say, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-feminist and anti-enlightenment. This contrasts with some of the mainstream left which will cuddle up to even quite extreme Islamists in search of allies for the ‘real’ struggle against America and Israel. Here I part company with the Euston signatories because I have rather more respect and hope for Islam than they do. It should also be said that they are vehemently anti-Christian, but unlike the cowardly Toynbees and Dawkins of the world, they are brave enough to attack a Muslim target which might bite them back. I also admire the way that they follow their principles rather than run with the herd. The insults that they put up with on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site do not end with neo-con. In fact, that is one of the milder put downs.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
For this reason, I am not going to use the term neo-con to describe the English neo-cons. But this does leave us lacking a collective noun to describe a group that, although disparate, has quite a lot in common.
Interestingly, they all tend to be journalists. Apart from Tony Blair, now retired, few British politicians ever appeared to give wholehearted support to the Iraq War. Fewer betrayed any liking for George Bush. This was the same on the opposition benches where their erstwhile leader, Iain Duncan Smith – himself an ex-soldier – was one of the few Conservatives to summon up much enthusiasm for the venture. The only full blooded supporter of Iraq now in the shadow cabinet, Michael Gove, has been parked in the (admittedly important) education portfolio where he can’t stir up any foreign policy hornets.
Most of the other not-to-be-called-neo-cons in England are journalists or writers – Nick Cohen, Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch, Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm and Martin Amis to name a few. Realising they have much in common, some have signed up to a document called the Euston Manifesto, which, in substance is a sort of mutual defence pact to watch each other’s backs in print. They tend to be from the left of the political spectrum. This echoes the situation of the original American neo-cons, whom, I understand, also found there way from Democratic or even socialist backgrounds. However, the English group claim that they continue to be left wingers and spend much of their time defending themselves from the old left for whom being anti-Israel and anti-American are articles of faith. The signatories of the Euston Manifesto supported the Iraq War because they believed that Saddam Hussein was a fascist and lefties should axiomatically be anti-Fascist. In this, together with their critical and some grudging support for Israel, I tend to agree with them.
However, the signatories extend their anti-fascist analysis to Islam as a whole. Many see this religion as a manifestation of evil that needs to be opposed wholeheartedly. Islam is, they say, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-feminist and anti-enlightenment. This contrasts with some of the mainstream left which will cuddle up to even quite extreme Islamists in search of allies for the ‘real’ struggle against America and Israel. Here I part company with the Euston signatories because I have rather more respect and hope for Islam than they do. It should also be said that they are vehemently anti-Christian, but unlike the cowardly Toynbees and Dawkins of the world, they are brave enough to attack a Muslim target which might bite them back. I also admire the way that they follow their principles rather than run with the herd. The insults that they put up with on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site do not end with neo-con. In fact, that is one of the milder put downs.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Books for the Centre-Right
When I am drawn into a bookshop, which happens quite often, I am struck by the political bias of its contents. Heading for the politics section, usually found hugging the newly created environmentalism section to its chest, I find shelves packed with the works of Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and their various disciples. Tome after tome condemns globalisation, the West and America in particular. All things green are praised and all things corporate condemned. Supermarkets which have brought us unprecedented choice and value are accused of all sorts of crimes against humanity. Where are the books explaining how free trade has lifted hundreds of millions from poverty, why the market is the only sensible economic system and that Chomsky is full of it?
I can’t believe that conservatives don’t read. And I know they can write – star newspaper columnists like Daniel Finkelstein, Michael Gove and Matthew D’Ancona are essential to my week. The conservative Spectator is an infinitely better bet for a train journey than the dull-as-dishwater New Statesman. So where are the books for the centre-right? Why do we have the progressive Verso publishing in the UK, but not the reactionary Regnery? The only conservative book I regularly see is James Delingpole’s How to be Right. Not intended to be serious, it is, in fact, sad to say, a bit silly.
So, as a public service, let me list a rare few of the essential reads for moderate conservatives. In the field of history, things are a bit better with Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson both in action for the right, so I will stick to politics, economics and science. Further suggestions would be very welcome.
The Blank Slate – Steven Pinker’s best book to date demolishes the idea that nurture trumps nature. In forensic detail, it explains why everything that the left think about human nature is wrong. Occasional dud chapters on art and violence do little to soften its overall impact.
Freakonomics – An academic and a journalist explain how to use statistics to understand the world. There is not all that much about straight economics and not everything here will gladden the conservative’s heart. But the sections on political funding, law and order and education provide much satisfying food for thought.
The World is Flat РOr why globalisation is a good thing. Taking a truly worldwide perspective, we learn how India and China are outpacing the West. Most of the myths about globalisation are attacked but the best thing about the book is the examples are all real people, not statistics. The problem is it is overlong and written in an annoying dialect of journalistic clich̩.
The Undercover Economist – A journalist from the Financial Times elucidates economics for idiots (like me). This book explains why markets and free trade work and why the socialist alternatives don’t. We find out why Africa is really poor (it’s not western imperialism) and China is getting richer. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the driving forces of today’s world.
What’s Left? – An attack on leftist shibboleths by Nick Cohen, one of their own. I’ll be looking at the phenomena of the English neo-cons a bit later.
Just out is Sex, Science and Profits which explicitly links the rise of capitalism to the rise of science. It claims all those scientists demanding public funding for their work would be better off without it. It’s something else to add to the reading list. Any further ideas would be most welcome.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
I can’t believe that conservatives don’t read. And I know they can write – star newspaper columnists like Daniel Finkelstein, Michael Gove and Matthew D’Ancona are essential to my week. The conservative Spectator is an infinitely better bet for a train journey than the dull-as-dishwater New Statesman. So where are the books for the centre-right? Why do we have the progressive Verso publishing in the UK, but not the reactionary Regnery? The only conservative book I regularly see is James Delingpole’s How to be Right. Not intended to be serious, it is, in fact, sad to say, a bit silly.
So, as a public service, let me list a rare few of the essential reads for moderate conservatives. In the field of history, things are a bit better with Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson both in action for the right, so I will stick to politics, economics and science. Further suggestions would be very welcome.
The Blank Slate – Steven Pinker’s best book to date demolishes the idea that nurture trumps nature. In forensic detail, it explains why everything that the left think about human nature is wrong. Occasional dud chapters on art and violence do little to soften its overall impact.
Freakonomics – An academic and a journalist explain how to use statistics to understand the world. There is not all that much about straight economics and not everything here will gladden the conservative’s heart. But the sections on political funding, law and order and education provide much satisfying food for thought.
The World is Flat РOr why globalisation is a good thing. Taking a truly worldwide perspective, we learn how India and China are outpacing the West. Most of the myths about globalisation are attacked but the best thing about the book is the examples are all real people, not statistics. The problem is it is overlong and written in an annoying dialect of journalistic clich̩.
The Undercover Economist – A journalist from the Financial Times elucidates economics for idiots (like me). This book explains why markets and free trade work and why the socialist alternatives don’t. We find out why Africa is really poor (it’s not western imperialism) and China is getting richer. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the driving forces of today’s world.
What’s Left? – An attack on leftist shibboleths by Nick Cohen, one of their own. I’ll be looking at the phenomena of the English neo-cons a bit later.
Just out is Sex, Science and Profits which explicitly links the rise of capitalism to the rise of science. It claims all those scientists demanding public funding for their work would be better off without it. It’s something else to add to the reading list. Any further ideas would be most welcome.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Religion and Politics Part Two
I should update my post from last year on the religious views of Britain’s political leaders. Nick Clegg, newly anointed as the head of the Liberal Democrats, is now the only admitted non-believer leading a major political party in England. He claims to be an agnostic rather than an atheist. His wife, however, is a committed Catholic. Clegg’s first significant act as leader was to break his party’s manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the European Union’s rewritten constitution. However, I hesitate to suggest that some religious feeling might have translated into greater probity on Clegg’s part. The deeply devout Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has done exactly the same thing.
Which brings me to 2007’s highest profile conversion – Tony Blair’s reception by Rome. I have to admit to being singularly unmoved by this. Newspaper comment was confined to some bitchy remarks from columnists who have never forgiven him for the Iraq war. This led to inevitable non-sequiturs but told us very little of substance. I would only say that the Catholic Church allows confession to be heard in private and does not require a public mea culpa from its converts. For this reason, those wanting to hear Blair apologise, whether they were exercised by his support for George Bush or his supporting abortion, have no right to feel disappointed. It is striking that Blair has as many enemies on the red extreme of the political spectrum as on the blue. He has become almost as much a hate figure on the left as Mrs Thatcher was. I suppose she still is among those lefties who keep the socialist flame alive.
Blair’s conversion led to one columnist making a fool of himself. Matthew Parris, who is usually quite sensible, has a bad case of Russell’s syndrome. Regular readers will know that this condition afflicts men and women of high intelligence who are, in most respects, indistinguishable from their fellow members of the academic elite. However, the sufferer of Russell’s Syndrome (first identified in the third Earl [Bertrand] Russell), looses all his common sense, discrimination and reason when his mind turns to religion. Parris, who has long believed Blair to be insane, thought to prove that because British Prime Ministers tended towards agnosticism at best, religion was bunk. The trouble was, the historical record was unhelpful and he had to mould it to his prejudices. One example will suffice. He mentions that he "never sensed any abiding belief on Ted Heath's part". I found this an odd remark. It may well be that Sir Edward Heath chose to spend his retirement in a house situated on the close of Salisbury Cathedral for purely aesthetic reasons. It is, after all, one of the most beautiful places in the world, dominated by the architectural colossus of the great church itself. Still, it is hard to see why a man of no faith would wish to live in a spot dominated by a place of worship.
Furthermore, from personal experience, I can supply an anecdote even more fatal to Parris’s argument. When I was a pupil at Marlborough College, Edward Heath came and preached to us in the school chapel. As Marlborough is your archetypical minor public school and Sir Edward had no particular connection with it, I assume he must have been doing the rounds. To live in the shadow of a spire is one thing, but to spend ones days in a pulpit is quite another. At the time, teenage atheist that I was, I had the ill grace to demand of the chaplain why Sir Edward should want to talk about the boring subject of God when he could instead have enlightened us on the fine art of politics. Today, with a better grasp of history, I realise that Ted Heath would have been able to tell us very little of use about his inglorious career as Prime Minister. I only wish I’d listened to his thoughts on God.
Suffice to say, in the only case where I have some information to add to the case, I find Parris’s grasp of the facts seriously wanting. His other examples of non-religious Prime Ministers may be more accurate. But as he is clearly in the throes of Russell’s Syndrome, I doubt it.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Which brings me to 2007’s highest profile conversion – Tony Blair’s reception by Rome. I have to admit to being singularly unmoved by this. Newspaper comment was confined to some bitchy remarks from columnists who have never forgiven him for the Iraq war. This led to inevitable non-sequiturs but told us very little of substance. I would only say that the Catholic Church allows confession to be heard in private and does not require a public mea culpa from its converts. For this reason, those wanting to hear Blair apologise, whether they were exercised by his support for George Bush or his supporting abortion, have no right to feel disappointed. It is striking that Blair has as many enemies on the red extreme of the political spectrum as on the blue. He has become almost as much a hate figure on the left as Mrs Thatcher was. I suppose she still is among those lefties who keep the socialist flame alive.
Blair’s conversion led to one columnist making a fool of himself. Matthew Parris, who is usually quite sensible, has a bad case of Russell’s syndrome. Regular readers will know that this condition afflicts men and women of high intelligence who are, in most respects, indistinguishable from their fellow members of the academic elite. However, the sufferer of Russell’s Syndrome (first identified in the third Earl [Bertrand] Russell), looses all his common sense, discrimination and reason when his mind turns to religion. Parris, who has long believed Blair to be insane, thought to prove that because British Prime Ministers tended towards agnosticism at best, religion was bunk. The trouble was, the historical record was unhelpful and he had to mould it to his prejudices. One example will suffice. He mentions that he "never sensed any abiding belief on Ted Heath's part". I found this an odd remark. It may well be that Sir Edward Heath chose to spend his retirement in a house situated on the close of Salisbury Cathedral for purely aesthetic reasons. It is, after all, one of the most beautiful places in the world, dominated by the architectural colossus of the great church itself. Still, it is hard to see why a man of no faith would wish to live in a spot dominated by a place of worship.
Furthermore, from personal experience, I can supply an anecdote even more fatal to Parris’s argument. When I was a pupil at Marlborough College, Edward Heath came and preached to us in the school chapel. As Marlborough is your archetypical minor public school and Sir Edward had no particular connection with it, I assume he must have been doing the rounds. To live in the shadow of a spire is one thing, but to spend ones days in a pulpit is quite another. At the time, teenage atheist that I was, I had the ill grace to demand of the chaplain why Sir Edward should want to talk about the boring subject of God when he could instead have enlightened us on the fine art of politics. Today, with a better grasp of history, I realise that Ted Heath would have been able to tell us very little of use about his inglorious career as Prime Minister. I only wish I’d listened to his thoughts on God.
Suffice to say, in the only case where I have some information to add to the case, I find Parris’s grasp of the facts seriously wanting. His other examples of non-religious Prime Ministers may be more accurate. But as he is clearly in the throes of Russell’s Syndrome, I doubt it.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Monday, January 21, 2008
I'm Back
It’s been a while. The new job has allowed me little time to write anything here. I’ve been very flattered by a few emails imploring my return (very few in fact, but still nice) and have now hit upon a wheeze to re-activate this blog. A new laptop computer that I can use on the long train journey into work means I can finally find some time to write. I am not sure how well this system will work but I am prepared to give it a go. However much anyone missed my thoughts, I have missed inflicting them on the world far more. Apart from the new job and new child, I have little to report. My PhD is still not granted although the final hurdle is in sight. Nor has God’s Philosophers been published. If you have not had a chance to look over the first chapter and sign my register of people wanting to see it published, then do please spare a moment at the web site here.
Before I got the computer, I read on the train. This has meant a substantial number of books on the ‘to read’ list have been knocked off. They include Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct, John Julius Norwich’s A History of Venice, Francis Pryor's Britain in the Middle Ages, business bestseller The World is Flat and Jared Diamond’s Collapse. If anyone is keen on my thoughts about these, let me know. I may eventually get around to writing some brief reviews of them anyway. Of course, ‘to read’ lists never get any shorter. I’ve been adding to mine some big picture economic history – The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes and The Green History of the World by Clive Ponting among them. I’d like to see if the rumoured link between science and prosperity has been noticed by historians of the dismal as well as of natural science.
Lots of things have happened while I’ve been busy. Richard Dawkins has admitted he likes Christmas carols (although who will be left to sing them if he gets his way, I have no idea. For a tradition to survive, it needs to be alive and not just a quaint museum piece, which is how he views the festival of the Nativity). In Rome, Italian communists have kept the Pope from opening a university year by complaining about a remark he made seventeen years ago about an event nearly four centuries before. In 1990, Benedict XVI had said he agreed with the late Paul Feyerabend that the trial of Galileo was “rational and just.” As the final chapter of my book will make clear, this is true in a narrow sense, but it hardly exonerates the Church from the initial mistake of banning heliocentricism. I expect the Pope acknowledged that too, but he is just going to have to get used to be quoted out of context by troublemakers, whether Muslim or atheist.
The neo-atheist storm shows no signs of blowing itself out but neither has the standard of debate improved. I have now had one email from someone for whom Dawkins’ book has been a disturbing experience. I’m not sure if that is a great return from sales approaching a million, but then it is hardly a great book. Christopher Hitchens’ companion screed, God is Not Great was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement by none other than Dawkins himself. Needless to say, it was hardly a critical examinations of Hitchins’ arguments. Various other articles have appeared here and there. I’ll note a few of them over the next few posts. Having managed to type this post out, despite the train bouncing around like a revivalist minister, I am confident that there will be some more to come.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Before I got the computer, I read on the train. This has meant a substantial number of books on the ‘to read’ list have been knocked off. They include Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct, John Julius Norwich’s A History of Venice, Francis Pryor's Britain in the Middle Ages, business bestseller The World is Flat and Jared Diamond’s Collapse. If anyone is keen on my thoughts about these, let me know. I may eventually get around to writing some brief reviews of them anyway. Of course, ‘to read’ lists never get any shorter. I’ve been adding to mine some big picture economic history – The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes and The Green History of the World by Clive Ponting among them. I’d like to see if the rumoured link between science and prosperity has been noticed by historians of the dismal as well as of natural science.
Lots of things have happened while I’ve been busy. Richard Dawkins has admitted he likes Christmas carols (although who will be left to sing them if he gets his way, I have no idea. For a tradition to survive, it needs to be alive and not just a quaint museum piece, which is how he views the festival of the Nativity). In Rome, Italian communists have kept the Pope from opening a university year by complaining about a remark he made seventeen years ago about an event nearly four centuries before. In 1990, Benedict XVI had said he agreed with the late Paul Feyerabend that the trial of Galileo was “rational and just.” As the final chapter of my book will make clear, this is true in a narrow sense, but it hardly exonerates the Church from the initial mistake of banning heliocentricism. I expect the Pope acknowledged that too, but he is just going to have to get used to be quoted out of context by troublemakers, whether Muslim or atheist.
The neo-atheist storm shows no signs of blowing itself out but neither has the standard of debate improved. I have now had one email from someone for whom Dawkins’ book has been a disturbing experience. I’m not sure if that is a great return from sales approaching a million, but then it is hardly a great book. Christopher Hitchens’ companion screed, God is Not Great was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement by none other than Dawkins himself. Needless to say, it was hardly a critical examinations of Hitchins’ arguments. Various other articles have appeared here and there. I’ll note a few of them over the next few posts. Having managed to type this post out, despite the train bouncing around like a revivalist minister, I am confident that there will be some more to come.
Click here to read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science absolutely free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
