Author Archives: Laurence Boyce

Last year, there was a slightly embarrassing moment in the race to become Republican nominee for the White House. In answer to the question “do you believe in evolution?”, at least three of the candidates indicated that they did not. Senator John McCain, it must be said, passed the test with flying colours. The question was in fact directed at him and, after a short pause to weigh up his options, he plumped for a straight “yes” – though he then rather spoiled things by saying, “I also believe when I hike the Grand Canyon and see a sunset that the hand of God is there also.” Doubtless with this addendum, he sought to retrieve a few of the votes he had so recklessly thrown away a moment before.

But just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water from which we first emerged over 300 million years ago, along comes the delightful Sarah Palin who appears to be some sort of creationist, or so it is being widely reported in the media. It shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise I suppose; polling regularly reveals over half of Americans to be creationists. But even so, the question has to be asked: how is it that views which are considered crazy amongst intelligent Europeans have come to seem almost normal in the context of American political discourse, particularly that of the right-wing?

I have a somewhat convoluted and highly speculative theory about all of this which borrows heavily from a very important book – perhaps even the most significant book published so far this century. But despite its relevance to political thought, I have yet to see it mentioned in any of the book lists that political types are often asked to draw up as essential reading matter. It wasn’t listed among the favourite books of Chris Huhne or Nick Clegg, nor indeed among those of our leading Lib Dem bloggers (here and here). The book in question is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.

Pinker’s book concerns a question that is as old as the hills, and yet in many ways remains central to one’s entire outlook, be it political, philosophical, or moral. The question is: which is the greater determinant of human behaviour – nature or nurture? Yes, that old chestnut! Are we principally fashioned by our genetic inheritance, or are we instead shaped by the environment in which we find ourselves situated? Do we start out in life with a “blank slate” so to speak, or is the slate already covered with writing before we even begin?

The answer, of course, is that there is plenty to be said in support of both of these positions but, once the argument begins, it is astonishing how rapidly tempers flare. For some reason, this stuff is dynamite. Opposing viewpoints are often characterised as being on one extreme or the other. So people like Pinker are “genetic determinists” who believe that our genes control every aspect of our lives, and every decision we make; while Pinker’s opponents are the “out-and-out blank-slaters” who think that every child is born with equal potential, and how we turn out as adults is entirely due to social conditioning. In reality, virtually nobody holds these positions today.

But leaving these caricatures to one side, Pinker’s thesis is that we have, for far too long, erred towards the blank slate end of the philosophical spectrum. I have to say that in general I agree. While I have yet to meet the mythical out-and-out blank-slater, I would nevertheless like to suggest that we are genetically determined to a far greater extent than many people would appear to be comfortable with. The principal opponents of this viewpoint are some on the political left, and the Marxist or feminist academics with whom Pinker seems to have been battling for most of his adult life.

So why all the discomfort?

Recently, James Graham has called me a bigot on Lib Dem Voice. (gasp!) As James is a blogger whom I admire and respect – blogger of the year no less – I have been stung into writing a riposte to this scurrilous charge. It was in the context of yet another debate on religion and the problem of Islam, that James essentially accused me of tarring all religious believers with the same brush. According to the big man, “religions are ultimately what you make of them.” When pressed as to whether Marxism, say, is also ultimately what you make of it, James replied, “I would have thought that is self-evident.” Excuse me?

Let us get one thing straight: Marxism is not simply what you might choose to make of it. While the task of nailing down the principles of Marxism might not be entirely trivial, we can nevertheless be clear in the main about what Marxism does and does not entail. For instance, it is surely uncontroversial to assert that Marxism comprises a belief in the common ownership of property and the means of production (a terrible idea by the way). Now I suppose there is nothing to stop somebody from saying, “I’m a Marxist, though I don’t believe in the common ownership of property and the means of production.” But on the whole, I prefer the simpler, “I’m not a Marxist.” It’s brief and to the point, and has the compelling advantage of not stretching the meaning of words beyond the bounds of reason.

Likewise, we can be clear about what religious belief entails, and what its consequences might be. And yet whenever I assert that the claims of religion are false, I know that I am bound to be met with the stunning insight that there is no homogenous object called “religion,” that religion comprises many different strands and styles of belief (no shit Sherlock!), and that I am therefore making a sweeping, and indeed bigoted, generalisation. I am not. Having been raised a Catholic, and having observed religion in its many forms, I think I know roughly what the deal is, and it is this: That there exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, prophets, prayer, and miracles. He wishes us to praise him, obey him, and love him unceasingly. Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.

This, I submit, is a reasonable definition of monotheistic religion which pretty much covers the faiths that are causing all the trouble at the present moment. Too broad a definition to be useful maybe? Not at all. Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth. And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.

Why is it so hard for us to speak plainly about the absurdity of religious belief? Why is Nick Clegg already brown-nosing faith groups when he is barely out of the traps? Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing? Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith? Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story? Why do we stay silent when millions of women worldwide suffer under the yoke of clerical oppression? Why are we still fiddling while the Middle East burns?

Following on from my previous article having a go at Nick Clegg over DNA databases, it is now time to turn to Christopher Huhne and some disappointing remarks concerning GM crops. He says, “Ministers should not give any go-ahead for commercial planting until they can state confidently that GM varieties would not contaminate non-GM foods and that they are safe.” Oh dear. You would have thought that after several years’ worth of GM food trials yielding precious little by way of cause for concern, the onus might at last be upon the …

Some days it’s great to be a Liberal Democrat. Tuesday, October 30 was just such a day – the day when one person alone was conspicuous by his absence from a state banquet hosted in the sumptuous surroundings of the Buckingham Palace ballroom. Yes, the only politician to take such a principled stand, eschewed the fillet of sole with salmon mousse, noisettes of venison with stuffed tomatoes and braised lettuce, and raspberry shortbread tartlet, all washed down with Puligny-Montrachet, Pichon Lalande, and Bollinger Grande Année 1996 – such was the determination of our …

“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ … the example of his life, the purpose of his death and the hope that comes from his resurrection brings that special dimension to leadership and to life itself.” Isn’t it reassuring to know that the commander in chief of the British Army is more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt?

For those were the reported comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, who managed to take time off from fighting two wars, in order to address a recent conference for evangelical Christians in Swanwick, Derbyshire. To my ears, it would have been scarcely less bizarre had he been extolling the virtues of the goddess Aphrodite, discussing his private conversations with Elvis, or perhaps suggesting that every soldier be equipped with a voodoo doll of Osama bin Laden as a key weapon in the war against terror. And yet, with one notable exception, the General’s remarks produced barely a murmur in the press; while our politicians, fearful as ever of losing the God vote, maintained a strict radio silence – such is the absurd degree of respect we routinely afford those who would order their lives (and indeed everyone else’s given half a chance) around the delusions of one or other of the ancient mythologies.

But what makes this latest public display of deranged thinking at once astonishing and deeply disturbing, is Sir Richard’s explicit invocation of a metaphysics of life after death. Failing to explain to our brave soldiers that this life is but a trivial prelude to the eternal life to come, would in his words amount to a “betrayal.” Has he forgotten so soon the apocalyptic events (if you pardon the expression) which brought on our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East? When the 9/11 hijackers ploughed into the World Trade Center in 2001, they did so with a huge grin on their faces. For they believed with chilling certainty that they were merely seconds away from entering a paradise flowing with milk and honey, scented wine and delicious fruits, and never forgetting of course the seventy-two dark-eyed rechargeable virgins (or whatever it is that devout Muslims actually believe). So it was that 16 acres of Lower Manhattan were duly demolished in the name of the “religion of peace.”

Yet now we learn that Sir Richard himself holds beliefs which, though arising from Christian culture, are qualitatively no different to those held by the 19 gentlemen who managed six years ago to upend our world in such spectacular fashion. So, whilst it seems most unlikely that the General will soon be perpetrating a terrorist atrocity of his own, do we really think that he is a fit person to be commanding the British Army?

Notwithstanding the somewhat tenuous connection between peace and the weather, I was more than happy to see Al Gore scoop this year’s Nobel prize for his tireless efforts to raise awareness of the threat posed by global warming to the future of life on Earth. But, in my view, his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth is totally unsuitable for viewing in schools, and it puzzles me that anyone ever thought otherwise. It’s got nothing to do with last week’s court ruling. While it is certainly unfortunate if the film contains “nine scientific errors,” they are unlikely to register strongly in the minds of children. Most people, while accepting the judge’s clarifications, will see them as essentially nit-picking. No, the problem with An Inconvenient Truth in the context of schooling, is that it is so clearly and overtly political in character.

The first of many side-swipes at the Bush administration comes seven minutes into the film. Then, after about half an hour, we are treated to a reprise of the farcical 2000 presidential election. We see Gore making his final concession speech – “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.” The clear implication is that he was robbed. Further on, we see clips of Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior, indulging in a spot of climate change denial. Republican Senator James Inhofe suggests that the threat of global warming might be, “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” These guys are the baddies, make no mistake about it. The Philip Cooney affair – where scientific research papers were doctored by a White House official connected to the oil industry – is covered in some detail, again placing the administration in a very poor light.

A tragedy of epic proportions has been unfolding before our eyes. A national treasure has been lost – a glorious piece of our maritime history – the ““Concorde of the waves” no less. A majestic ship, which for years ruled the South China Sea, as she conveyed to the nation that most essential of commodities – a nice cup of tea. But at the risk of becoming the most reviled person in the country, I have to say that I was not in the least bit upset to learn on Monday morning that the Cutty Sark had been burnt to a cinder.

Ironically, the old vessel was undergoing a “restoration” effort worth some £25 million, which seems like rather a lot of money to spend on a ship which was last sold for a mere £3,750 in 1922. Of the £25 million, £13 million came from the Heritage Lottery Fund or HLF. Since 1994, the HLF has awarded over £3.6 billion to more than 22,500 projects across Britain. Well I suppose that nobody is forcing anyone to buy a lottery ticket, but even so I thought it might be worth checking out a few items of expenditure.

Transport projects in general are well favoured by the HLF. More than £58 million has been awarded for over 70 old boats of various descriptions, including the Cutty Sark. More millions have gone on a variety of trams, trolley buses, and trains. But when I say trains, I mean more Thomas the Tank Engine rather than anything which is likely to convey you to a useful destination. Historic buildings have also been well endowed. For instance, £447,500 was awarded to conserve the Harrogate Turkish Baths – the perfect setting to unwind after a tense day at conference, I’m sure you’ll agree.

A dismal tale of betrayal and failure in our education system has been penned by Francis Beckett in recent times. In The Great City Academy Fraud, Beckett exposes the con which lies at the heart of what is nothing more than the Conservative’s old City Technology Colleges scheme, rehashed and reheated by New Labour. The present facts are these: that that a sponsor willing to put up £2 million may effectively control and run a City Academy, towards which the taxpayer will have paid a vastly greater sum, not to mention running costs and salaries in perpetuity.

In fact Beckett shows that even the £2 million is not all that it appears, frequently comprising “payment in kind” – pretend money in the form of consultancy services and the like – as the government has been forced to water down its funding requirements in a desperate bid to attract new sponsors. And yet for the sake of this moth-eaten contribution from the private sector, unenthusiastic parents and local authorities are encumbered with a school which need form no part of a local education strategy, and which is entirely exempt from the body of education law built up since 1944.

While Academies were supposed to replace failing schools, Beckett reports how they have all too often disrupted the life of well loved schools against local wishes, with the aid of bullying tactics which emanate straight from the top. Of course parents may object to a proposed Academy, and sometimes they even get their way, but they are then made to feel as though they have deprived their patch of millions in education investment, which in a sense they have. The deal is that they can either have the school which the government and sponsor wish to impose on them, or they can go to hell.