Sunday, May 31, 2015

A rebuttal to "Dawkins Debunked" by Dr. Norman J Lund PhD.

Below is an article by Dr. Norman J Lund of Oxford.  Lund purports to "debunk" Dawkins' God Delusion by exposing certain logical fallacies contained within the God Delusion.  I will dissect Lund's complaints as not all of them fit.  The original text is in italics, and my responses will be in normal text.

                                                    Dawkins Debunked:                                     

           NOTE: Richard Dawkins is a famous scientist from Oxford U. and a leading atheist.  He argues that there no more evidence for belief in God than for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  He says that “faith-heads” who believe in God are “ignorant, stupid, or insane.”  In this book, The God Delusion (Mariner ed., 2008), he claims to prove that religion is a “vice” based upon “indoctrination.”  Belief in God, according to Dawkins, is a “delusion”: “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong, contradictory evidence” (Preface, p. 28).  However, when his arguments are examined objectively, they prove to be riddled with fallacies.  A fallacy is an argument which appears plausible on the surface, but which is found to rest upon false or invalid assumptions.  As a single illness may involve many overlapping symptoms, the logical weaknesses in this book also involve many overlapping fallacies.  Rather than prove his point Mr. Dawkins instead provides an excellent teaching tool to demonstrate logical fallacies.

A. Fallacies of Irrelevance (Distraction)
    1. Ad baculum (veiled threat):  Mr. Dawkins threatens his opponents.  He implies that scientists who disagree with him can expect to pay a penalty from other atheists like him (e.g. to be scorned and shunned).  For example, he argues that no one who agrees with Mother Teresa about the sanctity of life should “be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize” (p. 330).  This passage was taken out of context. Dawkin's remark on Mother Teresa was after explaining how she used the suffering of others to enrich her own spirituality and did little to actually ease the suffering of the sick in her hospitals.  Granted, Dawkin's remark walks a rhetorical line and if taken out of context it could be seen as a threat, but what he was getting at is that if someone was so blind to the suffering Teresea CAUSED, then one may not have the moral fortitude to earn a Nobel Prize.  The Prize in this case is the Peace PrizeThis implied threat has been exposed as a real threat by Ben Stein in the documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (  Stein interviews numerous scientists who have lost funding and even their jobs just for questioning Darwinism. Such threats and intimidation have no place in logical argument or legitimate science.  The scientists interviewed in Ben Stein's movie make a small minority of scientists who do not share the parsimonious view of their peers.  At first this may seem like an ideal under dog story, but science is not a democracy.  Facts are facts, it is not up for interpretation based on personal bias. E=MC2  no matter what any one person thinks. It is that data that is important, and if an educator wants to teach something that has no scientific consensus, then they are not teaching science.  To better illustrate the point, there are scientists that hold that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Why not teach that in schools? Because it does not fit the facts. Evolution and Global Climate Chance are just the latest iterations of the God of the Gaps. Just as geocentrists are scientific kooks, so are IDers and climate change deniers.

   2. Ad hominem (personal attack):  Personal ridicule is also out of order.  Nevertheless Dawkins shamelessly stigmatizes both individuals and organizations for their personal and religious convictions. Improper application of Ad Hominem.  Lund nearly defines an Ad Hominem in the first sentence, but immediately misapplies it. The definition of an Ad Hominem is not name calling, but attacking the arguer and not their argument.  Arguing against "convictions" (their conclusions) is what you are supposed to do in a philosophical debate. The point of someone's argument is what the debate is about!  Several eminent scientists who have been open about their traditional Christian beliefs are ridiculed as “a subject of amused bafflement to their peers in the academic community” (p. 125).Now this is a case of an Ad Hominem, for those who ridicule the PERSON in order to attack their views. But we must ask if the reason Dawkins put that in his book is to poke fun of the Christians, or to illustrate how their peers view them? In the name of fair sport, I'll let Lund keep this Ad Hominem, but please read up on it for yourself.  In the same vein, Moody Bible Institute is mocked as the “rock bottom” in the “hierarchy of American universities;” Wheaton College is “a little bit higher on the scale, but still the Alma Mater of Billy Graham” (p. 121). The fallacy is Ad Hominem, not Ad Organization.  It is a personal attack.  What Dawkins offered was a critique of the universities themselves, not an argument. Was he calling them names? Yes, he was, but calling someone a name is not the same as an Ad Hominem.  The person you're making fun of has to put forth an argument. What Dawkins is offering is his value judgement of the universities, not a counter to their point of view (which they do not offer). James Dobson is accused of “indoctrination” as the “founder of today’s infamous ‘Focus on the Family’ movement” (p. 206).  From a logical perspective, the expression of such personal biases is completely inappropriate.  Bigotry does not constitute logical argument or scientific evidence.  Behind these personal attacks and bigotry lies Dawkins’ repeated accusation that Christianity is a malignant and “corrosive force” which is fatal to the scientific enterprise (Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference: Feb., 2002; Posted: TED Archive: April, 2007).

In an essay entitled “Viruses of the Mind” (Free Inquiry, 1993), Dawkins argued that religion is an “accident of birth” and a mental “virus.”  Religious beliefs are “mind-parasites” which breed upon “mystery.”  According to Dawkins, the religious virus is adverse to reason and evidence.  In the God Delusion Dawkins applies this theme to children.  Dawkins declares that religion is the greatest danger facing children.  “Christianity,” he asserts, “just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioning faith is a virtue.  “You don’t have to make the case for what you believe,” he says (p. 346; cf. pp. 323, 347, 379).  Apart from isolated personal attacks like those mentioned above, Dawkins presents no serious evidence or justification for that accusation. This is not a personal attack at all.  This is actually the very heart of the matter in the argument between reason (be it philosophical or scientific) and religion.  Religion requires faith.  And what is faith?  it is belief without evidence.  This is not a virtue, but a catastrophe. To save space, I won't rehash what I've already written on the subject of faith.  You can read about it, or watch it HERE.  What  Lund ignored is an accusation made by Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens as well: the idea of original sin is child abuse.  Imagine this: If you overheard a parent tell their child that if the child doesn't do as the parent says, then the parent will throw the child into a pit of fire. Would you think them abusive?  Of course you would!  You're a moral person.  But Christian parents tell this to their kids every time they bring up getting saved: You have an evil that only Jesus can get rid of, and if you don't follow certain rules (they vary by denomination) then you will go to hell.  How is the threat of fire different when the doer is shifted to a godhead?  It is not.  It is abuse.   His accusation is categorically false.  His own university was established as a Christian institution for the sake of pursuing the truth.  The motto of Oxford is Dominus illuminatio mea: “The Lord is my light.”  The Natural History Museum, where Dawkins has debated, and most of the oldest colleges and universities in the world were established by Christians.  Harvard, the oldest and most revered of American schools, bears the motto: “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” (“Truth for Christ and the Church”) on the official seal.  Students today may be surprised to learn that Harvard was originally established to train Christian ministers and that one of the founding “precepts” in 1646 was the belief that Jesus Christ is “the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.”  Typical of other American universities is Duke in Durham, North Carolina.  Founded in 1924, there is a plaque in the center of the campus which states: “The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the son of God.”  It’s not surprising.  Scripture exhorts Christians: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).  Dawkins’ ad hominems even extend to an astonishing assault upon the character of God as (among other things): “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak” (p. 51).  From a logical perspective, even if Dawkins’ outrageous comments were somehow true, it still wouldn’t address the issue of God’s existence. The above is basically one large red herring.  That universities founded in the 1600s or even the 1920s were founded by Christians is not relevant.  It would be like asserting that algebra was inspired by and proves the validity of Allah because it was invented by Muslims.  But perhaps Lund is getting paid by the word.

    3. Ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance): This fallacy assumes that because something is unknown or seems unlikely, that fact can be used as evidence against its existence.  One form of this fallacy is called the argument from personal incredulity.  It looks like this: “If I can’t (or refuse) to believe this, then it can’t be true.”  Dawkins commits this fallacy throughout the book.  In the opening chapter he asserts his “commitment to naturalism.”  This means that he “believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe” (p. 35).  In other words, he announces an unwillingness to believe evidence which might not support his view.  This is not logical argument or scientific evidence.  It’s a philosophical presupposition and statement of personal bias.  No.  Lund is wrapping the problem of burden of proof within a misapplication of a fallacy.  In a court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  In science and philosophy the same principle is applied.  A proposition (the defendant) is considered false (innocent) until it is proven (given strong evidence for) true (guilty).  We can observe the material universe. The supernatural cannot be observed.  Thus it is a no-brainer to recognize the existence of what can be sensed, but not recognize what cannot must be demonstrated.

    4. Ad populum (popularity appeal):  The popularity of a belief isn’t relevant in science or logic.  Truth isn’t democratic.  It doesn’t depend on a majority vote.  Nevertheless, Dawkins implies that atheistic evolution Ugh!  I am so sick of seeing the term "atheistic evolution". Evolution is evolution, atheism is Atheism. the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other. must be true because of what he calls “the overwhelming preponderance of atheists” among Nobel Prize winners, and in the membership of prestigious groups like the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and Mensa (a group of people with high IQs) (p.126-130).  Even if Dawkins was right about intellectuals favoring atheism, it wouldn’t prove its truth.  One of Dawkins’ heroes, Bertrand Russell, confessed his own disillusionment with intellectuals: “I had supposed that intellectuals loved truth, but I found here again that not 10 per cent of them prefer truth to popularity” (Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: London, 1962; vol. 2, p.17; cited in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: Harper, 1988, p. 202).  However, Dawkins’ statistics are questionable.  In 2003 the Pulitzer-prize winning sociologist, Rodney Stark, presented evidence that “levels of religiousness [among science professors] are relatively high” (p. 194).  After reviewing the current survey data, Stark concluded: ”But perhaps the most striking finding is that… faculty in the ‘hard’ sciences turn out to be far more likely to be religious than are their counterparts in the ‘softer’ social sciences: they attend church more regularly, are more likely to describe themselves as ‘deeply’ or ‘moderately’ religious [55-60 %] and to say they are ‘religiously conservative’” [34-40%], and are far more likely to claim religious affiliation” (For the Glory of God, Princeton U. Press: 2003, p. 195).  Dawkins doesn’t seem to have looked very far.  He omits many obvious names of eminent scientists who have been open about their religious convictions, including Henry Schaeffer III.  Dr. Schaeffer (Ph.D. Stanford) is one of the most distinguished chemists in the world (U.C. Berkeley, 1969-1987), a Fellow of the Royal Society (London, 2005), a five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize, and an out-spoken Christian (Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence, The Apollos Trust, 2003).  He is one of over five hundred doctoral-level scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” (

Lund appropriately named this category.  The ad populum here, is Lund's though. He is appealing to the number of scientists who identify as theist as to imply that there is something to it.  But, truth is not democratic. How many people believe in it is irrelevant.
But the study Lund mentions above is suspect.  Another study by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster covered 137 countries and found that 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God, and only 3.3% of the fellows at the Royal Society believed in God (source).  But did you notice that the 7% figure is for those who believe in God, while Lund's figures give a claim of religious affiliation. Cannot one identify with a religion and not believe in God?  Many in the clergy are atheists, but that is neither here nor there.  How many people believe in something has nothing to do with the reality of it.

    5. Ad annis (chronological snobbery):  This fallacy assumes that the age of a belief determines its truth or falsity.  It can be argued in one of two ways: either that the antiquity of a belief (Appeal to Tradition) verifies its truth (since people have believed it for such a long time); or that the modernity of a belief (Appeal to Novelty) verifies its truth (since people today are so much more enlightened).  Dawkins employs the second version, the “appeal to novelty,” repeatedly.  For example, he dismisses the fact that Newton and most of the founders of science were “religious” as irrelevant because of the age in which they lived. Which is correct.  Theists can do science.  Doing science by itself does not necessarily clash with religion. At the time of Newton, evolution was not a theory. Germ theory did not exist, Plate Tectonics was unknown. There was no scientific alternative to a creator of the universe.  To a creator of humans.  “There was,” he implies, “[more] social and judicial pressure … to profess religion” back then (p. 124).  Similarly, Dawkins asserts: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century… they [now] stand out for their rarity” (p. 125).   In a more shameful example, Dawkins dismisses the religious conversion of Anthony Flew (a renowned  philosopher and famous atheist until 2004) as something which happened “in his old age” (Footnote, p. 106).  See: Anthony Flew’sThere is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007). 

   6. Ipse dixit (false authority):  This fallacy consists in claiming authority without justification or evidence.  For example, Dawkins consistently presents the views of like-minded atheists as serious, credible authorities, and belittles those of Christians as trivial, with no other reason than their religious affiliation (or lack of it).  For example, he subtly disparages Francis Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute simply because he is a Christian.  He understates his role and accomplishment in leading the successful multidisciplinary effort to map and sequence all human DNA and contrasts him with the “brilliant (and non-religious) ‘buccaneer’ of science, Craig Venter” (p. 125). In all fairness, Venter was the first to sequence the Human Genome through his shotgun method, and he insisted that the sequence be released as public domain.  That is why he's widely admired.   In the same fashion Dawkins routinely hurls assertions of momentous import, without serious evidence or argument, as when he asserts that: “blasphemy, as the witty bumper sticker puts it, is a victimless crime” (p. 16; Preface to the Paperback Ed., 2008).  “Witty bumper stickers” do not constitute a serious argument.
This passage is more evidence that Lund is getting paid by the word.  What do bumper stickers and blasphemy have to do with anything?    

  7. Straw man (misrepresentation):  This fallacy misrepresents an opponent’s actual position through exaggeration or distortion.  A good precaution is to ask an opponent whether or not you have stated his viewpoint clearly and accurately.  Very few if any Christians will recognize themselves in Dawkins’ caricatures.   He repeatedly accuses religion of demanding credulity (mindless belief) and of discouraging science (rational inquiry).  For example, according to Dawkins, the great majority of Christians teach their children that: “unquestioning faith is a virtue” This again. (p. 323) and that “truth comes from scripture rather than from evidence” (p. 379).  Thus, he concludes: “Religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational calculation… because it discourages questioning, by its very nature” (p. 346).   Thus, he concludes: “Religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational calculation… because it discourages questioning, by its very nature” (p. 346).  Dawkins blandly assumes that all religions are basically the same in this regard.  While his characterization may apply to some cults and false religions, What is a "false religion"?  One that Lund doesn't believe in? it is categorically false when applied to historic Christianity.   (For a more complete discussion see: False Dilemma) Oh I can't wait.  I'll hold off until then.  Though the bit I said above about faith still holds.

B.  Fallacies of Ambiguity (Confusion)

     1. Composition (misapplication):  This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole.  Dawkins commits this fallacy by treating evolution as a monolithic process, and refusing to distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution. The micro/macro thing is a creationist distinction.  All evolution is micro (excepting mutation) meaning that all changes are minute. But after millions if not billions of minute changes that often build on each other, the end result is drastically different than the beginning.  The idea of micro/macro evolution is a case of creationists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  What they call micro evolution happens in a lab.  Viruses and bacteria change rapidly leading to multiple strains of the flu, and drug resistant bacteria. The micro/macro distinction allows creationists to be able to accept germ theory but allow humans to still be God's unique little pet.  No one denies micro-evolution.  The evidence for adaptation and change within species is overwhelming.  However, there is no such evidence for change between species (transmutation), nor for the appearance of life from non-life by natural processes (abiogenesis).  

     2. Equivocation (obscurantism):  To equivocate is to mislead someone by confusing them.  When a debater equivocates the proper response is to call out: “Distinguo!” (“I distinguish!”).  Dawkins is guilty of equivocation on a grand scale.  He refuses to distinguish between religions as radically different as Christianity and Islam.  He insists on treating all religions as equally irrational, superstitious and unscientific.
Right.  Because there are some religions that are fare more sane than Christianity and Islam.  Baha'i is one, Buddhism is another.  They are still built upon somewhat irrational grounds, but those two religions, and there's others too, do not practice ritual cannibalism, or believe that their prophet rode a flying horse.  This broad generalization is grossly unfair and misleading.  An equally unjustified tactic would be to treat alchemy and astrology as the equivalents of chemistry and astronomy.  The motivation and freedom for scientific inquiry did not happen by accident.  It came from a Biblical worldview towards which the Koran is suspicious and unfavorable.  As Islamic scholar Salman Rushdie has pointed out: “Islam has failed to create a free society anywhere on earth” (Columbia U.; Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981-1991).  Freedom and encouragement for scientific study is unique to a Biblical worldview  (See: Straw Man). This is addressed below. But no, Christianity and Islam both claim to be "truth" and is why at times both religions have suppressed science, but European and Arabic cultures, at different times, promoted science when the culture was more secular than sectarian.

C. Fallacies of Presumption (Faulty Form)

    1. False Dilemma (Either/Or):  Dawkins presents a false option between two extremes.  On the one hand he portrays science as the heroic, rational pursuit of facts.  On the other hand he portrays religion as the hypocritical, irrational pursuit of faith. Where is the dilemma?  Not all either/or choices are a dilemma.  And the middle ground is not always the best option.  Here, Lund assumes that is the case, otherwise there would be no dilemma.  This is the fallacy of the Appeal to Moderation. Some of his criticisms may apply to certain cults and false religions, but not to historic Christianity.  Faith and facts are not opposites. Neither are deer and Gorillas. But then again, maybe they are.  Faith: Belief without evidence.  Fact: The record of an observed and measured event. No, they are not opposites, but Faith is to believe something to be true with out any facts to back it up. Delusion is to believe something is true when the known facts are counter to that belief. This is the delusion, Dawkins was talking about in the God Delusion. There’s no necessary contradiction between the two.  In fact, the Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Rodney Stark, has argued: ”not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science" (For the Glory of God, Princeton & Oxford, 2003: p. 123). If this is true, then why was it the Muslims who were the Wests leaders in Science during the Dark Ages? Why were the Chinese more advanced than the West until the Renaissance?  In both cases it was when secular ideals of skepticism and curiosity were in favor, and pious obedience to ideas was waning. Dawkins argument is clearly distorted and false.  For almost a millennium fides quaerens intellectum (“faith in search of understanding”) has been a Christian motto expressing the Christian motivation to seek the truth.  It was Anselm’s dictum, echoing Augustine, about the positive relationship between faith and reason.  All Biblically literate Christians know that they have been exhorted to use their minds to the best of their ability (Phil. 4:8); to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16); and to “always be prepared to make a defense to any one calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).  The oldest universities in the world, including Oxford, were founded by Christians who shared that conviction.   Granted that Dawkins’ criticism may apply to some individuals or groups in the history of Christianity, but they have been the exception, not the rule. The above is a common thread in Abrahamic apologetics.  Faith is belief without evidence.  At least, that is how Dawkins uses the word.  If there is evidence for something, then it is a fact.  The real argument here goes back to Descartes and his theory of doubt: begin with a null hypothesis.  In other words, do not believe until it is proven.  Religion requires a certain amount of faith (believing first) to exist.  Never have there been evidence of miracles, supernatural phenomenon, or deities.  Yes people believe in them, claim to "feel" them, but these are not evidence. They are not verifiable. If you have evidence for something, you have a reason to believe in it, and it your belief stops being based in faith.

Eminent historians and philosophers of science have acknowledged the unique formative role of Christianity in the origin of modern science.  French-born American historian, teacher and cultural critic (Columbia U.: 1927-67) Jacques Barzun wrote that the ‘so-called warfare between science and religion [could] be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths, [a] dispute between the believers in consciousness and the believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance’” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage; U. Chicago Press, 1941).  Dinesh D’Souza points out in his recent study, What’s So Great About Christianity, modern science relies upon an “unsupported belief” both in the rationality of the universe and of our own minds.  In a lecture at Harvard University in 1925 the eminent British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, asserted that “faith in the possibility of science… is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology” (Science and the Modern World: Free Press, p. 53). No. Science requires no faith.  Why?  It works! Observe nature. Question what you see. Guess at the answer (hypothesis) [NOTE: this is where the faithful stop]. Experiment to eliminate your hypotheses. Observe and record results. Submit the whole shebang to other experts to see if they can duplicate your findings. This is science, this and nothing more. It is this process that took us to the moon, eradicated small pox, and tamed the electron. 

Herbert Schneidau, in his widely acclaimed study of mythical cultures, Sacred Discontent: The Bible and Western Tradition (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1977), concluded that the Biblical worldview led to the rise of science and technology.  By “desacralizing” nature, the Bible sanctioned critical, objective investigation of the world and a linear concept of time. Um, no.  The middle ages are proof that science was not born from Christian ideas.  Science often ran counter to Christian doctrine to the misfortune of the scientists, like Copernicus and Galileo.  Science did not blossom in Europe until the Muslims reintroduced science to Europe, as they had no problem with science at that time.  Also, ancient Greek and Roman writings, knowledge lost in Europe for nearly 1,000 years were reintroduced thanks to the preservation efforts of the Muslims.  Loren Eiseley, the late distinguished professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania went so far as to suggest that science was an “invention” of Christianity: “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself” (Darwin’s Century: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961; cited in Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 1994; pp. 17-18).  John Lennox, a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford, has pointed out to Dawkins (in formal debates) that the Natural History Museum (where they have debated) was originally “dedicated to God and the investigation of divine design”  This is an irrelevant point.

    2. Begging the Question (circular reasoning):  Dawkins constantly assumes that which he purports to prove, namely, that a godless process of evolution is the cause of everything, including “apparent design.”   No.  For example, he asserts that: “Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it” (p. 52). This is why scientists are a little behind when it comes to purely logical arguments.  Dawkins is trying to apply evolution to the creation of life. See my next comment. Although Dawkins claims that he will “show” the reader evidence for this belief, he fails to deliver. He does, actually.  It's called the whole book.  Sometimes, and we all do it, we are so in dissecting the organelle, we become oblivious to the organism.   When the issue comes up again later, he simply repeats the assertion: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process” (p. 98).  Dawkins announces his “commitment to naturalism” in Chapter 1.  He explains that: “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe” (p. 35; italics added).  He seems unaware that he is making the same kind of unsupported faith commitment which he otherwise finds so inimical.  In other words, Dawkins’ foundation is not facts or evidence, but a reductionistic faith in materialism. And we are back to pious belief, and not supported evidence. Naturalism, the way Lund uses it, assumes nothing; only when facts are present then do they come to be regarded as truth.   Naturalism assumes that nothing exists besides matter and energy. That is not an assumption, that is an observation. There is even a foundation to discover supernatural phenomenon, complete with a one million dollar reward!  But so far, no supernatural phenomenon has ever been demonstrated. The end result of naturalism is self-contradiction.  If our thoughts are nothing more than a random, bio-chemical process (p. 34), then we have no basis to believe that our thoughts are true. That is because they are not random. A die is random. The lottery is random. What impulses and cranial regions that elicit thought and emotion are not random.  Here, Lund is trying to build up a straw man fallacy. They are equivalent to the secretions of our kidneys and other physical organs.  In Darwin’s (and Dawkins’) world, our thoughts need not be “true,” only “useful” (p. 413). This is oddly true. For instance, think of Newton's laws of Gravitation.  It describes a universe where objects are mutually attracted (in love?) with a force equal to the sum of their mass divided by the square of the distance between them.  This is a simple formula that reliably describes the motion of the planets, the trajectory of a bullet, and why a five pound bowling ball and a 20 pound bowling ball hit the ground at the same time. However, this is an inaccurate description of the universe.  Gravity isn't a force, like magnetism, but rather a curvature in the space/time continuum (think of a bowling ball on a mattress; the curvature of the mattress is the "gravity" made by the bowling ball). The math behind it is highly complex as well.  Yet, Newton's laws and formulas make an adequate rule of thumb for all but the most exotic of uses. Think of it this way: The number Pi is a wholly irrational number without end -- it goes on forever.  Yet skyscrapers and moon rockets get built by only going to the third or fourth decimal place of Pi.  3.1415 is good enough.   But there’s no way to know which ideas are most useful at any given time. There is: Critical thinking!  That is what critical thinking is all about: Finding what idea is most useful at that time, in that situation. Only later will it be revealed which ideas “survive.”   People are reduced to random metabolic units which receive and emit random sensory input.  Although others might find this view dismal and dehumanizing, Dawkins claims to find it “liberating” and “emancipating” (p. 419-420). And there's the fruition of Lund's Straw man.  By saying that evolution reduces people to "random metabolic units" and "random sensory input" (Lund keeps using the word random, but I don't think he knows what it means) he implies that only religion can make "metabolic units" into people -- a moral agent, if you will. Naturally, it would highly weaken Lund's position to admit that one can be good without god, or have dignity without faith in religion.

When Dawkins is so transparent about his dislike for God, he opens himself to the charge of ‘theophobia,’ that is, a fear of (or revulsion against) God.  C. S. Lewis identified this phenomenon and applied it to Sigmund Freud.  As a result, Dr. Armand Nicholi, a professor at Harvard University has taught a course comparing the ideas of Freud and Lewis.  In 2002 he published his findings in a book entitled: The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life (New York: The Free Press).  Lewis agreed with Freud on one basic thing, that human beings have a tendency to "suppress" unpleasant truths."  However, Lewis disagreed with Freud regarding which truths we find most unpleasant, and which truths we try hardest to suppress.  Like Dawkins, Freud asserted that we are most afraid of "being alone" (i.e. without God) and of "being unloved" (i.e. without God's love).  Lewis disagreed.  Lewis said that when he became a Christian he reaIized that for many years his greatest fear had been "not being alone" (i.e. not being free to do whatever he wanted) and afraid of "being judged" (i.e. accountable to God).  Similarly, whereas Freud argued that we "project" our "wishes" for moral order and life after death by "creating" (an imaginary) heaven, Lewis argued that we "project" our "wishes" for personal freedom and supremacy by "creating" (an imaginary) kingdom of our own.  (See Armand M. Nicholi, Jr.: The Question of God: The Free Press, 2002).  I admit to not having anything clever to say here.  Partly because I am not that familiar with Lewis' work, nor am I familiar with the work of Nicholi. Perhaps a helpful reader will contribute to this little passage. However, from what is presented here is only partial philosophies.  Just enough for Lund to cherry pick to make his, albeit weak, point. That point being that Dawkins hates god.  Absurd.  What dawkins hates is abusive religions that tell people they are inherently evil (original sin) or insist on accepting ideas that have no bearing in reality (creationism).

    3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause):  This fallacy makes the unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second.  Dawkins adds a peculiar twist to this fallacy by arguing that the ‘simple’ must always precede the ‘complex.’ This is quite true.  Complexity is a melding of multiple simplicities. Thus there must be at least two simple things added together before there can be a complex thing. This isn't a "chicken and the egg" problem, but rather, which came first: the egg, the peppers, and the cheese, or the omelette? He insists that in the history of the universe simple processes must always have preceded (and produced) more complex systems. This is coherent with observation. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, Dawkins asserts the creative power of (simple) naturalistic evolution: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process“ (p. 98).  On the other hand, Dawkins denies the admissibility of (complex) divine creative agency: “Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a … universe would have to be even more improbable than [a universe]” (p. 146). Lund seems to start making sense here.  On the surface it sounds good.  After all what is the improbability of a universe, and are the improbability of the creator and the created linked? No. Improbable does not mean impossible.  We are the proof that we are here.  Yet there is still no proof of a creator.

The renowned philosopher, Anthony Flew, has called Dawkins’ argument “bizarre.”  Dawkins offers no evidence in support of these assertions other than his admitted preference for any viewpoint which precludes divine activity.  The logic of Dawkins’ argument (‘simple-always-precedes-complex’) is disproved by all human artistry and engineering as well as all forms of biological reproduction. Not at all.  The argument is that the complex is always preceded by the simple.  What Lund is trying to argue against is that the complex can never produce the simple, which is not Dawkin's argument. Lund has tried to pull a logical bait and switch; or create a straw man fallacy. The artist always precedes the work of art; the chicken always comes before the egg. And that art is a simple part of a complex myriad of art that motivates culture, and inspires other artists.  The simple egg matures into a chicken as equally complex as its parents.  If Dawkins’ logic was valid, then any human agency capable of designing something as improbable as a watch, a cathedral, or a spaceship would have to be considered “improbable.” It is improbable!  Out of all of the species on Earth that have ever lived, only humans have evolved the mental capacity to leave Earth.  That's a strong argument for the impossibility of higher intelligence, but it is possible.  After all, it did happen. There’s obviously something wrong with that.  It is an accepted practice in logic to “infer to the most sufficient explanation.”  In the debate about human origins, a strong argument can be made that only divine agency can account for human life and reason. And this argument is?  Evolution provides a sufficient explanation for complex life on Earth adding a creator, be it Yahweh, Brahma, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster add another layer of complexity that must be justified in itself. By refusing to consider the possibility of divine creativity and causation, Dawkins ends up by threatening human creativity and causation as well.  These two sentences do not link.  By adding the divine to human creativity, an additional layer of complexity is added that must be justified.  Lund fails to provide this.  

I am sad to see such an educated mind fall prey to such bad arguments.  I can understand the personal need to believe that it doesn't all end six feet under.  The need to believe that we will see our loved ones again in a world without pain and suffering.  If a person were to believe just that, then only the biggest of asses would argue.  But it is all of the other stuff that comes with religion.  The hell concept, the sin concept, the misogyny, the cognitive dissonance religion requires is the source of conflict between religion and the secular world.  

Lund may never see this, and for that I am sad.  But for those who do, the world is a beautiful place and will only be more so.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

School Sued Over Religious Field Trip.

The American Humanist Association has filed suit against the Joplin, Missouri R-8 School district over a church/school violation.  C.J. Huff, the District Superintendent, as well as Brandon Eggelston, Principal of North Middle School are both listed as defendants in the AHA suit.

The Controversy arose when North Middle School sent permission slips home for a post-MAP test reprieve at Victory Ministries and Sports Complex (a mega-church in Joplin, MO). The story was originally covered by Hemant Mehta, at the Friendly Atheist.  Here is a photo of the permission slip:

If you notice, the word "Ministry" has been left out of the name of the Church. Also note the date: May 7th is the National Day of Prayer, a Thursday.  Typically field trips like this are scheduled for a Friday because it is the least pedagogically productive day.

The plaintiffs in the case are anonymous because two of them are current R-8 students and fear retribution (it's the Bible belt after all). 

the religiosity of Victory is quite blatant.  The AHA's Exhibit A is a screenshot of the Victory Ministry's stated goals:

The second exhibit is a blatantly proselytizing billboard sized graphic:

These signs are in the play area and are a little hard to miss.

Aside from the permission slip above, a waiver was issued to the parents to sign that on "paragraph number 6, required parents to allow their child to participate in “worship services, Bible studies or any other activities that may pertain to the Christian faith,” according to the AHA Suit.

This does not bode well for the Joplin School system as there is already a budget shortfall over the fiscal waste of the Superintendent and the past school board.

Yet, the violation cannot go unpunished.  Joplin North Middle School has committed a clear cut violation of the separation of Church and State.  The Principal knew this, and he has now cost the school district thousands of dollars.  I guess Joplin will be looking for a new Middle School Principal for next year.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Josh Duggar has Arkansas Cops in His Pocket.

Michelle, it's not gays molesting children, it's your son.
*** UPDATED (5/23/15)***
You may have heard about the scandal with the Duggars.  No, not the anti-gay bigotry, or their cult, Quiverfull, but Josh Duggar's molestation of his sisters among other minors.  I won't go into the fact that their little slice of Christendom told the Duggars that it is their daughters to blame for being molested, that has already been covered.

What you may not know, is that the Springdale police knew about the molestation since 2002, but an official accusation in 2006 resulted in a police investigation. Then the records were destroyed after Josh was given a "stern talking to". The records of the 2006 accusation was destroyed to protect the victim (this is somewhat backed up by TMZ).  But that is just one official report.

But is that the real reason: to protect the victim? The Duggars are heavy into Arkansas politics, and even Mike Huckabee has come to the defense of little Joshy-poo, with a Facebook post this past Friday:

Janet and I want to affirm our support for the Duggar family. Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, 'inexcusable,' but that doesn’t mean 'unforgivable.' He and his family dealt with it and were honest and open about it with the victims and the authorities. No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story. Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things. The reason that the law protects disclosure of many actions on the part of a minor is that the society has traditionally understood something that today’s blood-thirsty media does not understand—that being a minor means that one's judgement is not mature. No one needs to defend Josh’s actions as a teenager, but the fact that he confessed his sins to those he harmed, sought help, and has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult is testament to his family’s authenticity and humility. Those who have enjoyed revealing this long ago sins in order to discredit the Duggar family have actually revealed their own insensitive bloodthirst, for there was no consideration of the fact that the victims wanted this to be left in the past and ultimately a judge had the information on file destroyed—not to protect Josh, but the innocent victims. Janet and I love Jim Bob and Michelle and their entire family. They are no more perfect a family than any family, but their Christian witness is not marred in our eyes because following Christ is not a declaration of our perfection, but of HIS perfection. It is precisely because we are all sinners that we need His grace and His forgiveness. We have been blessed to receive God’s love and we would do no less than to extend our love and support for our friends. In fact, it is such times as this, when real friends show up and stand up. Today, Janet and I want to show up and stand up for our friends. Let others run from them. We will run to them with our support.
- Mike Huckabee. Facebook. 22 May 2015

Mike and Josh: Bosom Buddies
 I emphasized that segment for a reason.  Huckabee is talking about Josh, not the victims.  Here is a GOP Presidential candidate that is defending a pedophile!  But the Duggars have been in Arkansan politics for some time. Jim Bob Duggar (never a more Arkansan name has been given) has even ran for office.

Being a leader in a the Christian cult, Quiverfull, Jim Bob has friends in high places including Ted Cruse (who I've already pegged as a GOP throw-away candidate).
The tragedy here is that Arkansas politics are ran not by the righteous, but the self-righteous GOP. And one thing that can always be said about the GOP is that it is the ultimate good-ol'-boys club. Unfortunately, that is to the detriment of Josh's victims. If the rapist was anyone else but a Duggar, they would already be in prison.  But not in Springdale (which is just an hour and a half from my front door).

But not only are two Presidential hopefuls busy kissing up to Josh Duggar, but blogger Matt Walsh is passing off the backlash of Josh-the-Rapist by saying that he doesn't "believe they are upset about it, or that it offends them, or that they are morally troubled by it," Walsh wrote. He continues,"I don’t believe them. I just don’t."  The basis for this is that One person, he calls a "liberal hero" who  admitted to taking a peek at her sister when she was 14, and of course, Walsh brings up Clinton. But since Duggar is a Christian, he is persecuted by the hypocritical left.  This is more of the "persecuted Christian" crap that only Christians buy into.  Everyone else just laughs.  It is like the Koch brothers crying business persecution because they ave to pay their employees.  It just sickens everyone outside their little circle. But, Walsh gets paid cor how much readership he brings.  Fine, I don't believe he's really upset that everyone's upset that Josh Duggar is a rapist. But that is just raging at the sky and misses the real point.  And that point is that because of scum like Duggar, the cult he is in, and his apologists, he was able to get away with rape for a decade.

For a decade, Josh's parents have failed to protect their daughters, and the police have failed them too. One has to wonder if Josh's wife knew of his crimes, if so, she's an accomplice. The judge who ordered the records destroyed did nothing to "protect" the victim, it was assuredly a measure to protect Arkansas' favorite family.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Islam and Racebaiting

That Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and Sam Harris are vilified by theists is nothing new.  All three are Atheist activists bent on spreading critical thinking and unmasking God.  When they ply their views to Christianity, they get death threats from the pulpit.  When they ply their views to Islam, they get not only death threats, but even their liberal minded supporters turn against them.  Why?  In a word: Islamophobia.

The latest publication to decry the New Atheist movement is the Middle East Eye.  In CJ Werleman's article "Is New Atheism an anti-Muslim, white supremacy movement?" the tag line of the article is a perfect summary of Werleman's thesis:

"The New Atheist movement has become a pro-white supremacy movement that is anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry dressed up with a thin veneer of fancy sounding words."

The article begins with Werleman's admiration (I'm a fan too!) for Cynk Ugyaran an Atheist from the Young Turks, who claims to defend "Muslim-Americans" from the likes of Maher, Harris and other New Atheists.  Then the article goes into left field trying to link Islamophobia with McCarthyism.  If you remember history class, McCarthyism was a witch hunt for communist in the US during the 1950s and 60s headed by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  The article then degenerates into claiming that when New Atheists describe the attrocities of Islamic terrorists (note: that is Islamic terrorists, not all Muslims) they are using the same language as the KKK.  Then Werleman gets surreal when he asserts that criticisms of Islam is the West trying to dictate the culture of the Middle East and thus is white supremacy.  At last, Werleman finishes his brain draining rant by calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a shill for the "empire" of the west, due to her outspokenness against Islamic extremism.

There are numerous problems with Islamophobia as a concept. Islamophobia is a marriage of race with an idea. This is a form of race-baiting. the race involved are the Arabs, which is funny because most Muslims are not Arabic! According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of Muslims in the world are Asian-Pacific, and less that 20% are Arabic. The ones who say those who question Islam as a "religion of peace" are racist are committing a grievous error. But the problem is not a few Muslims trying to race-bait, the trouble is that the media, and the political left is falling for it!

Racism is a problem in the US, and Muslims are cashing in on it. This is not just in the US, either. In Europe, attacks like the one on Theo van Gogh, and Charlie Hebdo are becoming more frequent as the population of Muslims rise. However, these attacks had nothing to do with Race, but ideology. Islam forbids images of Mohammed and extremists are willing to kill over that little bylaw. This is incompatible with a free society where freedom of speech is more sacred than an individual's supernatural notions. Werleman' accusation of New Atheists speaking out against such acts of Islamic terrorism as ethnocentric (his "empire" rant) disregard the desires of Arabs in the Middle East who are not Muslim or Muslim in name only.  What about the women who want to attend University and become doctors? What about Atheist Arabs who do not want to be beaten if not beheaded?  To claim that criticizing such things is ethnocentric is morally dubious at best, and criminal at worst.

Logically, Islamophobia doesn't work. To claim that speaking out against Islam is racist, but not speaking out against Christianity, Buddhism, or Sikhism, is a case of special pleading.  Special pleading is when one tries to claim that a certain thing does not have to adhere to criteria that other, similar things have to.  For instance it is special pleading when a Christian says that a piece of burnt toast that looks like Elvis is a neat coincidence, but another piece of burnt toast that looks like Jesus is a miracle.  Islam as a credo must be held to the same scrutiny as Christianity, Humanism, Buddhism and any other -ism one can concoct. To not scrutinize Islam is a crime against future generations because to not do so leaves the problem of extremism to future generations; it is a moral passing of the buck.

Shouting "racism" every time someone criticizes Islam shuts down any conversations about Islam. That is exactly what they want.  In debate once someone claims the other side is being racist, that shuts down the conversation.  After that point, anything the opposition says is just bigot apologetics.  Then the accuser "wins".  

 Putting criticism  of Islam in a racist light is in itself racist.  Remember that only 20% of Muslims are Arabic?  Yet, calling someone an Islamophobe is always in the context of "Arab", never "Indonesian".  This is what the Islamic apologeticists want: to stop anyone from criticizing Islam in any meaningful way.  Do not fall into that trap.  If someone brings up the specter of Islamophobia, call them on it.  You are criticizing an idea, the fact that they call it racist means that they are the ones trying to infuse extreme religiosity with ethnicity; they are the racist.

There is a problem with people attacking Arabs (and Persians too, but mosts bigots cannot tell the difference) on a race basis (racism) through their culture.  But that is no different than any other form of racism.  However, Islam is not "Middle Eastern" culture, it is a religion, an idea from when the human species thought the sun actually "went down" at night.  If you hear someone shouting hate at a Middle Easterner because they are from the Middle East, call them on it.  It's Anti-Arab Racism, NOT Islamophobia.  Shutting down the conversation on Islam is detrimental to not only infidels, but to Muslims as well. We can look to history and find a prime example with how criticism of Christianity was forbidden during the 1,000 years of the dark ages.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

A Mother's and Son's Battle Over Circumcision.

According to ABC news, a Florida woman,Heather Hironimus, is in legal trouble for protecting her son (now age 4) from male genital mutilation (MGM) aka circumcision.  The full story can be read on the ABC News site (click me).  

Circumcision was rare in the United States until the 1920s.  During WWI the military encouraged enlistees to be circumcised because it was believed (falsely) that circumcision protected against venereal disease.  Anyone following the infant herpes outbreak in New York, know this is not true. These cases are caused by metzizah b'peh an Orthadox Jewish practice where the rabbi puts his mouth over the freshly mutilated baby's genitals.

After WWI, people in the US started moralizing everything; a return to our puritan roots, if you will. Along with alcohol comsumption, masturbation was seen as the devil's work (hence the expression 'idle hands are the devil's playthings'). Circumcision makes sex less pleasurable and it was thought that it would curb masturbation. This was not just advocated by the clergy, but by doctors as well.

Also at this time child birth was becoming medicalized.  Couple this with doctors that buy into the immorality of religious doctrines and male genital mutilation becomes the norm after a couple of generations. Even in the 90s medical opinion was that MGM was healthier.  In the 90s it was noticed that circumcision helped keep HIV infections down among the circumcised, but subsequent data shows that those in Africa (where the studies were done) who are circumcised were the least sexually promiscuous do to their brand of religion (typically Islam).  Not only that but circumcising men to control AIDS may have backfired.  It can create a false sense of security that would cause men to forgo condoms which are known to protect against HIV and other STDs.

But back to Mrs. Hironimus. This past March a judge ordered her to bring her son in for his mutilation. She refused and is currently under arrest. She has filed a federal suit though. The question I asked is why would a judge mandate MGM without taking in consideration of the child?  Part of it, I think, is that many older people still believe that circumcision is healthy.  But it isn't.  Why is it so hard to change the minds of the believers in male genital mutilation?  Because many who are for it are circumcised themselves or have a brother or father who is.  To admit that it is wrong is to admit that their mutilation is wrong.  If the judge in Mrs. Hironimus' case is a male, he is probably circumcised.  To say that the child will have to make the decision for body modification when he comes of age, and not the parents, is for the judge to admit that his own mother and father mutilated him.
When I bought into the fairy tales of the Bible, I was responsible for the mutilation of two of my children.  Once I learned that it poses no health benefit and is cosmetic only, and thus child abuse, I saved my last child from mutilation. But that is the difference between a skeptic and a non-skeptic. The skeptic has no qualms about admitting wrong beliefs and changing them in accordance with better information.  Note:I say 'I', but I have to give props to my beautiful bride, their mother, who showed patience with my flip-flop over the matter.

Male genital mutilation serves no discernible purpose and the only reason it became popular in the US was to keep boys from exploring themselves.  I think every parent must ask themselves if their traditions are more important than the sanctity and dignity of their child.  The mutilation is done without the child's consent which violated the child's basic human rights.  It is child abuse, plain and simple.  Thus, no humanist can condone male genital mutilation.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Conservatives: A "Behavior" is NOT a Civil Right.

This billboard, paid for by, a radical right wing, anti-Constitution group, was placed at a mall in Dearborn Michigan.  More are planned for other cities in Michigan as well.  The reasoning used in the billboard is that if something is a behavior than it is not a civil right.

Where are they wrong?  Well, first, not all behavior is equal.  Yes, homosexual acts are a behavior in the strictest sense, but not homosexuality itself.  One's sexual orientation is not a binary thing.  In other words you are not strictly straight or gay. It is a continuum (Kinsey), with most people falling in the middle and only a few that are strictly gay or straight.  Since we live in a society that frowns upon homosexuality most people choose straight with out realizing they are making a choice.  It is like choosing a hamburger over fried crickets.  Crickets are more abundant than hamburgers, but in our society it is gross to eat them.  Never mind that they are better for you.

This means that the few gays we have in the US.  According to the CDC (study link), of the adult population, "1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer."  This is what you would expect in a continuum.  That means that for those who identify as gay, they are completely gay with no real ambiguity.  This is their sexuality, it is a part of who they are.  Thus their sexual orientation is not mere behavior, but who they are and who they have been since birth.

Note:  If you think about it for a minute, one can assume that a similar number are completely strait. That means the majority of "strait" people are so by choice.  In societies where homosexual behavior is not frowned upon, people tend to explore same sex relationships.  This was the case in Ancient Greece and Rome; and to a lesser, and more complex  extent the case holds for women in American culture. While it is true that few in these cultures would identify as gay, they still were able, if not were encouraged to, express the full range of their sexuality.

But if it is a behavior then it is not a Civil Right?  Speech is a behavior.  So is religion.  And that's the thing, no person is born with a particular religion, or point of view.  They are ideas that lead to learned behavior.  So, according to, religion should not be considered Civil Rights either.  They should not be protected.  That means we will have to strip "In God We Trust" and "Under God" from all buildings, currency and the Pledge!  

No matter how you slice it, anti-gay bigotry only makes sense if you follow the random writings of anonymous, bigoted, goat herders from the bronze age.  This is a throw back to pre-civilized society. It is the type of thinking that impedes human progress and understanding.

So let me fix that sign for ya!

Monday, May 4, 2015

Ted Cruz: A look at Republican Tactics for the 2016 Election

Ted Cruz will not be President.  Let that sink in for a second. Are you breathing easier now?  I did when I came to that realization. Then once the reality of that hit me, I went into full on panic mode. Why?  Cruz is still getting press.  He is still in the running.  He is still getting backers.

The GOP is the largest political machine in the country with three main divisions within the party. The Tea Party, the Libertarians, and the Evangelicals.  Yes, there are the few "moderate" Republicans that do not fit into either of those groups, but they are a vast minority and are ignored by everyone except the Democrats.

The Tea Partiers are the politically illiterate, extreme conservatives in the GOP.  These are the people who do not get why everyone else laughs at them when they yell "Keep the Government out of my Medicare".  They are often poor people who want tax breaks for the rich.  The Libertarians aren't officially GOPers, but vote along Republican lines most of the time. These are the people who worship Ayn Rand and her adolescent-minded "mine-mine-mine" economic philosophy.  Their unofficial motto is "F*¢k you, I got mine!"  Next are the Evangelicals, who are the descendants of the Moral Majority. They use the Bible and their version of Christianity to rob the poor, discriminate against gays, insert their deity into everyone else's life, usually through schools, and to get rich.

So why the anti-GOP rant?  Remember Ted Cruz?  He is the epitome of the polarized right. And he still has backing.  He still has donors, and the GOP has not taken him aside and said, OK, enough, you're making us look bad.

And what is so bad about Ted Cruz?  For one, he is the epitome of the dishonest politician. rated 87 of his statements and only one was "true" and very few others "mostly true."  In other words, he lies constantly.

Imagine if you will what the liberal version of Cruz would look like.  She would be a Wiccan, anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO, Maoist, and a radical feminist (the man hating kind, not the equal .rights kind). They're out there, but they're not running.  Why? The Left wouldn't back such an extremist.  So why is the Right backing someone like Cruz?

The initial response is that the GOP is made up of idiots.  This is not the case.  Out of all of the parties, the GOP is the most politically shrewd.  They know how to play politics to get what they want.  As a minority, they almost defeated the Affordable Care Act. in 2009.  While they were not able to defeat it, they were able to gut it, making the AFA a shell of what it could be.  This has made their campaign contributors quite happy.

But in the past four years, four states have legalized marijuana, and several others have decriminalized it in moderate amounts.  The country is more secular with the number of religious "nones" at just under 20%. The gap between the highly rich and the highly poor is not only widening but the number of poor is growing.  Yet we are a wired nation.  We KNOW about these things, and we are tired of the inequality.  Just a few years ago, it was unthinkable to give gays the right to marry, but now, most people support it.  This is proof that the GOP is losing touch with the heartbeat of America.

Then why the hell are they supporting Cruz?  One of the chief tactics the Republicans have used successfully is to argue the extreme right of a position and demand to be "met in the middle".  But by then, the middle is no longer a moderate position, but a solid conservative position.  Ted Cruz is the GOP pawn to be sacrificed in 2016, when the primaries conclude, and the GOP can say, "Hey at least our guy isn't a whack job like Cruz!"  This is because whoever wins the GOP ticket will seem moderate compared to Cruz; like he is not such a bad pick.

And who could such a candidate be?  He would have to be a moderate conservative, a relic from the '90s and early 00s. He would have to have some minor support for things like immigration reform, recognizes gay marriage, is all for Common Core, and is somewhat environmentally friendly. A spouse who's a minority would get some swing votes, and so would if his own party lambasts him as being a Republican In Name Only. But which candidate could that be?  One who would be un-electable because his father and brother were President.