Monday, 12 March 2007

Confessions of a Student Wanker

Over on Journalology Matt Hodgkinson is talking about the close links between the RCP/Living Marxism/spiked crowd and a number of "pro-science" advocacy organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre.

All this talk of these political groupuscles reminded me of my student dalliance with the Socialist Workers Party. I never actually joined the party itself because, (a) I differed rather drastically from the party line on some major doctrinal issues, and (b) they make you do even more activism if you actually join, but I did join their student organisation. At the time, and in my locale I thought they were genuinely engaged in progressive activism. Although I drifted away from them partly through pure bone idleness during my post-graduate years I was particularly peeved with their opportunistic split with the short lived Socialist Alliance platform (incorporating a significant proportion of the socialist left) to form the Respect party with Galloway and various Muslim groups.

I still remember selling the paper in town one day when a family of American tourists walked by, one of them noticed the title of the paper ('Socialist Worker') and said to the others "that says 'Socialist', is that legal? Shouldn't we report them to someone?".

The SWP, as with many of the other, even smaller, far-left groups (such as, say, the AWL) operates very much like a cult. It demands huge amounts of your time (and a goodly proportion of your salary) which inevitably leads to burnout or complete submersion into the group. When you encounter your average SWPer 'selling the paper' (aah, the memories) they may seem to be almost zombie-like in their slavish parrotting of the party line, but this is only partly right. Thanks to that wonderful Leninist principle of democratic centralism members are essentially required to repeat the line handed down from on high in public whilst being allowed to challenge it (to a limited extent) within the party's own structures. There was actually something of a groundswell in favour of greater democracy within the party a few years ago, but I think most of that movement was suppressed and/or purged. (The Communist Party of Great Britain paper the Weekly Worker is a great way to keep tabs on the infighting in the far left.)

You really have to get inside one of these organisations to understand the mindset of its members. Most of the people I encountered were good people, and I still see a few of them bellowing down megaphones at rallies on TV (or, on the odd occasion, in person). They essentially divided into three types, the soon to leave fellow travellers (like me), who didn't buy into enough of the party line to suppress their dissent, the cult-members, who would think whatever the party told them to (and would have probably been just as happy in a fundamentalist Christian sect had things turned out differently), and the bulk of the rank and file members, passionate socialists with independent ideas who nevertheless adhered to a common party line for the sake of a united front and disciplined party.

For the majority of people the incessant pressure to organise and campaign, combined with the rather odd double think that democratic centralism requires, means that they drift (or run) away from the party. The rank opportunism of the party doesn't help with members forced to abandon the latest front organisation and new comrades to jump onto the bandwagon of the new flavour of the month (currently still Respect and the Stop the War movement - hey, anyone remember Globalise Resistance?). I was still getting phone calls for years after I left, and I recall members saying how they would ring up ex-members on old contact lists to discover that quite a few were now in the army, or the police (and surprisingly still keen on progressive politics - see, they aren't all bad).

State Funding in Art and Science

In this Sunday's Observer John Tusa writes that:
New Labour has never signed up, even theoretically, to the idea that 'art for art's sake' (to use a shorthand phrase) might be a - even if not necessarily the - justification for the arts.

What they have insisted is that the arts must fulfil a social, political, environmental, educational or economic purpose - in other words they must be an 'instrument' for 'delivering' other government policies. The impact on some museums and galleries, according to one observer, is that 'scholarship, collection and curating are out of the window - the new breed of manager/directors is interested only in cramming into their building as many schoolchildren as possible'.
This strikes me as the plaintive cry of a vested interest. While art for art's sake may be a perfectly worthy attitude for the artist you can hardly expect a government to continue to dole out funding for art without any regard as to where it goes and what that funding achieves. The final line about cramming in schoolchildren is appalling - it is certainly not the role of the state to fund the production and curation of art for a tiny minority of artists, critics, collectors and aficionados. What is wrong with wanting kids to experience art, to widen exposure to art? What does Tusa want, for schoolchildren to be discouraged from museums and galleries so that he and his mates can carry on their highminded activities in peace? Certainly scholarship and collecting should continue to funded but these museums and galleries were not founded to be ends in themselves, they were founded to share art with the people.

This kind of vested interest talk reminded me of another debate, that of state funding in science. It is something of a truism in scientific circles that the funding for scientific research should be ring fenced but not targeted. That is there should be X amount of money for, say, medical research, but that scientists should then compete with one another for funding of their projects based on the merits of their proposal - and these merits are not to be considered in terms of public benefit necessarily, but rather the likely scientific knowledge as decided by a panel of their peers.

And it concerns more than just money, in terms of animal research there is a balance to be struck (at least as far as I'm concerned) between the potential good of the research (largely for humankind) and the harm of the research (largely for the animals involved). The argument is usually made that pure scientific research can bring currently unforseen benefits (and, in grant proposals who hasn't talked about all the revolutionary future applications their research will bring?) and there is certainly an argument to be made against the trend towards University research being used as cheap labour for industry (which in the UK manages to avoid investing in R&D rather happily), but there is plenty of blue-skies research that is frankly utterly unconnected with any potential future benefit, interesting perhaps, but some dull and routine science on something important (say mental health, or infectious diseases) goes unfunded. Now this is fine if you think that research should just be an interesting academic exercise, but science isn't funded like the arts and humanities precisely because it makes claims for additional benefits and relevance from the fruits of its study.

Friday, 9 March 2007

Alister McGrath

I've been umming and ahhing about reading a book by Alister McGrath (Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University no less). He's something of a poster boy for theists having a PhD in some science or other and has published quite a few books about the perils of atheism, at least two focusing on attacking Richard Dawkins directly. I've always hesitated because anything I've heard from him has always sounded so trite and unimpressive, and I'm therefore loath to give him any of my money (normally I'm fairly happy to read books that challenge my beliefs, I find it gets the blood going). Although he doesn't seem to do so well on the national and international stage McGrath gets a lot of coverage on his home ground of Oxford (bigged up with various book signings and talks) and I feel I really should engage with the man just to prove to myself that he is indeed talking crap, particularly as his current argument seems to be that Dawkins is attacking something of a strawman.

To try and avoid having to wade through (and pay for) a whole book (incidentally, his latest, "The Dawkins Delusion" is some 8 quid yet barely more than a pamphlet) I tried to have a look at an article he'd written “Has Science Eliminated God? – Richard Dawkins and the Meaning of Life.” Couldn't access the journal (Science and Christian Belief) but found this presentation on the topic by McGrath.

So, what's he say, well quite a few things, including criticising memes, but let's look at some things he says:
  1. At the most general level, the scientific method is incapable of adjudicating the God-hypothesis, either positively or negatively.
  2. Dawkins’ arguments lead to the conclusion that God need not be invoked directly as an explanatory agent within the evolutionary process. This is consistent with atheist, agnostic, and Christian understandings of the world, but necessitates none of them.
  3. The concept of God as “watchmaker”, which Dawkins spends so much time demolishing, emerged as significant in the eighteenth century, and is not typical of the Christian tradition.
Unfortunately the talk doesn't back up any of these claims or examine them in any depth other than giving a list of quotes from people saying things like "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism." (SJ Gould). He does go into more detail on memes and the "religion does bad things" argument but they aren't really what I wanted to focus on (the talk is called "Has Science Eliminated God?" after all). I suppose I shall have to dig a little deeper to find the substance of an argument.

Rather worryingly, an article by McGrath in the Daily Mail says this:
For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.
Now I may not be a Professor of Theology, but I'm not sure the best argument in favour of God over the Tooth Fairy is that adults believe in it therefore it is true, his only other argument ("Dawkins can no more prove...") applies equally well to the Tooth Fairy of course.

And here we are again with another article:
They know that they can’t prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God. The simple fact is that all of us, whether Christians or atheists, base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant. We all need to examine our beliefs — especially if we are naive enough to think that we don’t have any in the first place. It’s one of the best antidotes against the ideological fanaticism that The God Delusion manages to deride and represent at one and the same time.
You'd almost think his only argument in favour of God was that you can't disprove it, yah boo sucks. And even that seems arguable if his god is the Christian god.

Some further digging brings up this pamphlet from his "Has Science eliminated God? Richard Dawkins and the Meaning of Life" lecture. It is a good deal more explicit as to McGrath's thesis, which seems to be, at base, fairly trivial. As I surmised above McGrath's main argument against Dawkins is that evolution by natural selection may adequately explain the complexity of life, but that it doesn't disprove the existence of God. He then goes on to argue that Dawkins mischaracterises 'faith' by claiming that the faith of Christianity “commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence.”

Curiously McGrath does not elaborate on this position, moving on to a digression about God as meme (which won't concern me here, particularly as McGrath makes the extraordinary concession that "Ideas may seem to “behave” in certain respects as if they are viruses" which is presumably all Dawkins's argument requires), about the aesthetics of atheism vs. theism, and a discussion of the evils of religion including the obligatory 'what about Communism?' response (again, I won't deal with it here as it is not germane to the question of the truth or falsity of theism).

Now this all seems a bit thin for someone to have made such a name for himself, and for someone holding a Professorship in Theology. Perhaps his books contain something a bit more meaty, but I really need at least a hint of a substantive argument before I go and give this man my money. But is this argument as thin as I make out? Well let's consider the first article I accessed by Dawkins after skimming the World of Dawkins biography (I started with the oldest, this is from '94):
Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"...The "no-contests" are rightly reconciled to the fact that religion cannot compete with science on its own ground. They think there is no contest between science and religion, because they are simply about different things. the biblical account of the origin of the universe (the origin of life, the diversity of species, the origin of man) -- all those things are now known to be untrue.

The "no-contests" have no trouble with this: they regard it as naive in the extreme, almost bad taste to ask of a biblical story, is it true? True, they say, true? Of course it isn't true in any crude literal sense. Science and religion are not competing for the same territory. They are about different things. They are equally true, but in their different ways.
I think McGrath is probably coming from the "no-contest" perspective if he regards evolution by natural selection (and other scientific knowledge) as compatible with both atheism and theism. He clearly can't be a young Earth creationist for instance.

I shall now return to the "no-contests". The argument they mount is certainly worth serious examination, but I think that we shall find it has little more merit than those of the other groups.

God is not an old man with a white beard in the sky. Right then, what is God? And now come the weasel words. these are very variable. "God is not out there, he is in all of us." God is the ground of all being." "God is the essence of life." "God is the universe." "Don't you believe in the universe?" "Of course I believe in the universe." "Then you believe in God." "God is love, don't you believe in love?" "Right, then you believe in God?"


It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born.

The Fabulous Bible

The same is true of attempts to identify the big bang of modern cosmology with the myth of Genesis. There is only an utterly trivial resemblance between the sophisticated conceptions of modern physics, and the creation myths of the Babylonians and the Jews that we have inherited.

What do the "no-contests" say about those parts of scripture and religious teaching that once-upon-a-time would have been unquestioned religious and scientific truths; the creation of the world the creation of life, the various miracles of the Old and New Testaments,, survival after death, the Virgin Birth? These stories have become, in the hands of the "no-contests", little more than moral fables, the equivalent of Aesop of Hans Anderson. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is irritating that they almost never admit this is what they are doing.


I have the impression that clergymen are so used to treating the biblical stories as fables that they have forgotten the difference between fact and fiction. It's like the people who, when somebody dies on The Archers, write letters of condolence to the others.
I'm afraid I'm with Dawkins on this one. Being a Christian carries with it some rather weighty doctrinal baggage, just as belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy involves commitments to some fundamental truth claims, you can't hide these things away when anyone comes along to point out their falsity. It may well be that atheists can't really disprove some minimally specified deism or non-interventionist first cause god - but this is certainly not the God of McGrath or any other mainstream religious believer - and the truth or falsity of this minimally specified god would not have the implications for our everyday conduct that religious believers want it to have, why worship something that has never asked for it, nor shown any interest in you? How can you derive your moral code from a being that is little more than a brute fact, it's like trying to get stock tips from the Big Bang. By paring down their god until it has no causal ramifications in the world the theists have indeed decreased the implausibility of it, but at the cost of being able to claim any further knowledge of it - in effect they have argued away all the remaining content of their religion. They are no more theists than people who claim to be 'a bit spiritual' or who simply believe that there is 'something out there'.

Migration Watch

My eye was recently caught by an article in the times about Migration Watch and David Coleman (not this, but similar, can't actually find the actual one). So what about these impartial statistics? Well one that was widely covered at the time was the claim that "the benefit to each member of the native population of the UK from immigration is worth about 4p a week - or less than the equivalent of a small Mars bar a month.".

So let's unpack that claim. Forget any sophisticated analysis the 4p figure is based purely on dividing the government's estimated additional GDP due to immigrants divided by the population + net immigration. According to Coleman it is GDP per head that counts, but is it? I think not for some pretty obvious reasons, reasons you'd think would be very obvious to a Professor of Demography. For a start many of these migrants are young and single (often Eastern Europeans) looking to make money to send home or to take home where the cost of living is lower - and thus with the implication that they will not remain in the UK long-term (remember the horror stories about how we don't have enough young working people to ay for healthcare and pensions for the old codgers - well here they are!).

Even if this were not the case these working young adults (unable to claim benefits) take up a disproportionately lower fraction of public spending than does your average Briton (who is quite likely to be old, sick or unemployed). So it seems like GDP per head is precisely the wrong measure of immigrant contributions to GDP, and you have to wonder in that case quite why those chose to focus on that figure rather than a different and more meaningful one.