Hugh's Views

This is a purely self-indulgent blog in which I can, if I feel like so doing, comment on matters of public and private import.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom

Director of a publishing company. Two children, one stepchild. Happily married. I certainly don't believe in the star sign/year of the dragon nonesense that Blogger has attributed to me.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Why should Charles apologise?

So the Bishop of Salisbury thinks that Prince Charles should apologise to Andrew Parker-Bowles for committing adultery with his wife (Parker-Bowles' wife, not the Bishop's). What absolute bunkum! If anyone should apologise, it should be the Church for marrying Charles to a woman he did not love.

I am all for loving, long-term relationships but the reality is that a great many people who get married in good faith subsequently discover that they have made a mistake. When that happens, they need all the support and help they can get - not sniping from the Church.

Faith and Patriotism – an Easter reflection

Bryan Appleyard has once again stimulated my thoughts – this time with his article Beyond Belief? in today’s Sunday Times.

His article was triggered by Michael Howard’s move to make abortion an election issue and the resulting eruption of advice and instruction from the heads of the various religions in the country. He explored the differences between the way this issue plays here and in America and traces some of the differences to the different ways in which the two countries view religion.

The headline figures on the difference are startling. Here, fewer than 8% go to Church. In America, about half of the population go to Church every week. The US Dollar states, “in God we Trust”. We have the portrait of Darwin on our £10 notes. 78% of Americans believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Here, only 48% could tell you what Easter is supposed to commemorate. And here, 44% of people are quite certain that God does not exist. In America, almost everyone believes in some version of God.

The trends are significant, too. In 1968, 77% of Britons were certain that God existed. Now, a majority are either certain that He does not exist, or are uncertain about whether He does or does not.

Appleyard’s conclusion is interesting. He reasons that, since every civilisation in history has had a religion, the current lack of religion in Britain must be an aberration. He argues that religion must be a human need. Look how it has re-emerged in the communist countries, despite years of suppression, for example. His view is that religion will always come back and that the current secular phase in Britain is not a pointer to a world free of religion in future.

He may be right. But there is one aspect of the subject that he did not consider in his article and that is the relationship between religion and patriotism. As a general rule, the most religious countries are the most primitive ones. As you go up the international food chain, you tend to find religion playing less and less of a part. By the time you get to France, Germany and Great Britain, you find religion playing a very minor role in national life. But then you get the gigantic exception. America which should, following the trend, be totally atheistic is overwhelmingly religious. Even those at the forefront of technology - the astronauts – seem to put their trust in God ahead of science.

It is quite easy to see why a primitive people should be religious. It is not so easy to explain why an advanced people should turn to religion on such a scale. It is true that the early British settlers in New England were motivated by religious ideals, but this was certainly not true of the settlements in Virginia and further south, and England itself was extremely religious in the 17th Century, so the Pilgrims were not particularly out of line with the mainstream. Yet America has remained very religious and England has not.

The clue might lie in national success. England at the height of her power in the 1880’s was a very religious country. At the very point when her industry and science were changing the world, the British people peaked in terms of their religious observance. In Victorian England, every community had several churches of different denominations and we sent missionaries to the four corners of the Earth. Great religious movements such as Methodism and Calvinism took hold and made ripples we still feel today.

At the same time, a strong link between patriotism and religion appeared. Movements like the Boy Scouts arose with a strong blend of patriotism and religion. National songs blended God and Country. “Wider still, and wider, shall thy bounds be set/ God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet” thundered the words of Elgar’s Land of Hope and Glory. It seemed obvious to everyone that God must be an Englishman, or at least have chosen England as His special tool to spread civilisation and His word.

All the time England was the most successful country on Earth it seemed natural to suppose that God was on our side and it made sense to thank Him for all the good things he seemed to be doing for us. But some time in the 1930’s he seemed to abandon us in favour of his new favourite, America. And then he began to show signs of preferring Japan, Germany and even France to us. And this, despite all we had done for Him in terms of spreading his word and sorting out the mess in the world!

It is undoubtedly more difficult to believe in a God who seems to be more interested in other countries than he is in your own. I suspect that His decision to drop his support for England has a lot to do with England’s decision to drop its support for Him. If this view is correct, then we can expect to see America become considerably less religious in future if, as widely predicted, first China and then India overtake it during the next one hundred years.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

The first immortal human?

There is a fascinating article by Bryan Appleyard in this week's Sunday Times. In it, he postulates that the first immortal human being may already have been born. He bases this thought on the premise that, at present rates of progress, we should be able to produce the first immortal mouse by about 2020 and that we should have extended that to humans about twenty years later. So, a child living now may have the option by about the age of 40 to arrest the ageing process and live forever. "Forever", he argues, averages out at about 1400 years as this is the average time statisticians have computed before a fatal accident would occur. Some people would go on for thousands of years while some would be killed in their early 100's or even in their teens.

He addresses some of the implications of this development. For example, he argues that human memory is ineffective over such long time scales and so we would continuously change, forgetting the person we were and becoming someone different. We would have to choose between having children and living forever, as the population could not accommodate both. Overall, however, he seems to assume that this development is a good thing.

I think it is a bad thing and we should ask ourselves how we are going to handle the possibility of immortality when it arrives. Here are some of my concerns:

Entrepreneurial drive would decline. Shortage of time is a key driver of entrepreneurial activity. In my case, I reached a point at which I realised that I either started my own business now or not at all. The realisation that I had all the time in the world would have caused me to put it off forever.

New ideas would dry up. New ideas come from new people. Old people can improve things, but they do not have the radical eye of youth, untainted by experience. Only young people can fully fail to appreciate that something cannot be done.

Relationships would eventually fail. Nobody could stay married for 1000 years to a constantly evolving person.

Life would become so dull. We would soon find that we had done everything new that we could think of and then we would get so bored.

We would become over-cautious. The thought that a risk like climbing a mountain might cost you eternity is a much greater deterrent than the thought that we might knock a few decades off our lives.

Immortality? I'm against it.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Civil liberties and Parliament

I profoundly disagree with the tabloid view that the current spat is simply politicians playing politics with the nation's security.

The proposed terrorism laws seem to me to undermine the principles of liberty that have stood us in such good stead since Magna Carta.

I am delighted that Parliament is giving the government such a hard time over this. Long may it continue.