A Double Blind Faith
There is an interesting paradox with many atheists, particularly the neo-atheists. They frequently see themselves as valiant warriors defending reason against the darkness of faith, which for them is little more than superstition. For them believing in the events of the first Easter is little better than believing in the Easter Bunny.
As I demonstrated with my reviews of the books of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins, nothing is further from the truth. In fact, many of the atheist’s claims have little more than a façade of rationality. They may seem rational at first glance, but any serious examination quickly reveals significant problems. Take for example the common atheist claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of God; a bold claim, particularly given that it is entirely false.
For just one example, the scientific evidence today is clear that the entire universe, the natural world as we know it, had a beginning. Either it came from something, or it came from nothing. But the idea of something coming from nothing is akin to magic, and is not rational. If you say it came from something then this is evidence for the existence of God (i.e., some entity beyond the natural world powerful enough to create all of reality, as we know it.)
In this case the atheist is somewhat like the little boy caught with candy they are not suppose to have in their pockets. Which is the more rational answer: A) the boy took it against his parent wishes, or B) it just appeared out of nothing in their pocket? Likewise, which is the more rational answer: A) the universe was created by something; B) the universe just appeared out of nothing? In this case, the theist only has to argue that they do not believe something came from nothing.
Now the atheist here has several possible counters, but since the claim we are looking at is that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, they have a real problem. They must not only argue that something from nothing is the best answer, this claim depends on it being the only rational answer, something that is clearly absurd.
When confronted with this absurdity, most atheists I have talked to counter with some variation of the argument that since this does not prove God exists, it is not evidence that he exists. This is an extremely anti-intellectual claim, which if the atheist applied universally would mean that we could know very little.
Most of what we know, or think we know is built up on a whole range of pieces of evidence, both pro and con, where we, at least in theory, make the best choice we can based on the evidence we have. Yet the atheist’s claim is that any piece of evidence that does not constitute proof is to be ignored, for only in this way can their claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of God be maintained. Since their approach to the evidence for God would be so devastating to knowledge in other areas it is only applied here, and thus results in special pleading, which is yet another irrationality.
This brings us back to the initial question of why is it that the atheist’s defense of reason is so fundamentally irrational. I believe the core of the problem is that there is an inherent contradiction in atheism and in agnosticism as well. Both are grounded in an attempt to reject all forms of dogmatism, to reject anything that depends on faith, and to rely only on reason and evidence. In many respects, this is a noble goal and when it emerged from the unscientific and superstitious past, it quickly brought great rewards.
Where atheists and agnostics go wrong is that they attempt to apply this universally, and therein lies the contradiction. All worldviews are, by their very nature, and the nature of reality, to some extent based on faith, and thus all have some aspects of dogmatism. In short, what atheists have done is accept a worldview that rejects all worldviews.
They frequently try to dance around this difficulty by claiming that theirs is the starting point, or in some way the default position. This shows up in there constant insistence that they do not have to demonstrate anything. The burden of proof is on everyone else; their views just are.
Atheists cannot just accept the reality that they also have a worldview without a major rethinking of atheism. In addition, as with the example above, once the atheistic worldview is acknowledge and compared alongside with all other worldviews, atheists do not always do so well. They can continue to deny it, but ultimately this becomes little more than a dogmatic insistence that they are not dogmatic.
So the atheist paradox is grounded in the core irrationality that atheism is a worldview that attacks all worldviews. Like everyone else, atheists have faith in the fundamental beliefs that make up their worldview. Not only is it a blind faith, in many respect it is a double blind faith, as they cannot even see, and in fact strongly deny, what they are actually doing.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
The Success of Failure
The controversy about Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail continues to show life. It is a meaningless controversy. In the larger scheme of things, the wants of Rush Limbaugh, however interesting and entertaining, will have little impact on Obama’s success. Likewise public opinion polls on how Obama is doing, are meaningless. Polls are merely a reflection of current public opinion, which given the fawning coverage of the press core says very little about reality.
In the end the success or failure of the Obama Presidency will be determined by whether or not he gets his policies put in place and then if they make things better. Given the Democratic majorities in Congress, getting his policies passed in not an issue. So if his liberal ideology is correct, and the policies produce noticeable improvements in people’s quality of life, then his presidency will be deemed a success and he will go on to win reelection.
Yet for those who look at reality rather than ideology, unfortunately for the country, and for Obama, there is actually very little doubt about what Obama’s policies will do. Whether one is looking at theory or history, the affects of Obama’s policies are really pretty clear, and they are not good.
On the domestic front we are looking at a huge expansion of government, massive increase of government influence in the private economy, a doubling of the national debt, and all funded by a massive increase in the money supply. Obama and the Democrats justify this by pointing to the problems we have, and the good that they are trying to do. Yet, we do not need to question their intentions to be trouble by their policies.
But therein lies the first problem. Obama and the Democrats are so focused on their attempts to do good, that they fail to consider the effects of these policies, and each of these policies will not only have effects, but negative effects. Increasing government by definition limits liberty, and if paid for burdens the economy suppressing economic growth. Obama and the Democrats pretty much ignore the first problem as they are more interested in equality than liberty. As for burdening the economy, in the short term they hope to reduce that by deficit spending and increasing the money supply, and in the long term by taxing the rich.
Their willingness to increase government influence in the private economy comes from a basic distrust of markets and the belief that their planning can do things better than the chaos of the markets driven by profit. Unfortunately Obama and the Democrats only focus on one part of Capitalism.
An effective capitalist system is not driven by profit alone, but must be combined with choice and competition. The choice of consumers and the competition among supplier all driven by the profit motive is what results in the constant push to improve the delivery of goods and services at a lower cost that has so improved the quality of life. In fact in the places today where there are the most problems, such as health care, a large part of the problem is the lack of choice and competition.
Government planning has no such mechanism pushing to reduce costs. In fact over the last century, capitalism’s ability to deliver goods and services at lower costs meant that people’s disposable income grew, though much of this was crowded out by the massive increase in the cost of government. While the amount of time people had to work for essentials dropped, the amount of time they had to work to pay for government increased 459 percent over the last century. This is also demonstrated in the how the more capitalist U.S. economy consistently out performs the more planning and control based European economies. In short bringing the inefficiencies of government to the private sector can hardly be expected to improve things, nor can substituting political decisions for business decisions.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the third policy, the doubling of the national debt. Throughout the last eight year Democrats were highly critical of Bush for increasing the national debt. And yet in his first budget, Obama will not only exceed Bush’s debt, but the debt of all previous presidents combined. Such a massive increase will crowd out other forms of lending and will obligate future generations to paying for these policies.
Finally there is the increase in the money supply. This one is really pretty simple. Flood the economy with money and things will improve in the short term. The long term effect of all this extra money is also clear: Inflation.
All of these policies will have serious and long term problems. Nor should any of this be surprising. All of these policies, with the exception of increasing the money supply, have been tried in the states with predicable results. There is a reason Blue states like California, New York and Michigan are having such problems. There is also a reason people are voting with their feet and moving from Blue States to Red States. Liberals like to try and blame this on the weather, but that does not explain why people are leaving California.
So Obama can safely ignore the wants and wishes of Rush Limbaugh as they will have little lasting effect on his Presidency. What he should be worried about is the effects of his own policies, policies that have a known and proven track record, a record that shows we are headed for some very bad economic time in our future. He can play the “it is all Bush’s fault” card even though he supported the key policies that got us here. But at some point that excuse will wear thin. Particularly if, as can be reasonably expected the inflated money supply bring some uptick in the economy before the real problems begin.
On the other hand, could it just be possible that perhaps Limbaugh’s wish for Obama to fail was grounded, not in partisan politics, but rather in a desire to avoid the major problems that are now looming in the near future?
Memorial Day
Tom’s father had died a couple of years earlier in an accident, leaving a wife and four children. It was the middle of the depression and times were tough. Tom, being the oldest, worked while finishing High School, to help make ends meet. After he graduated, he joined the military, and after training he was sent to Nicholas Army Air Field in the Philippines. There he did what most military people do, perform their normal jobs while periodically being interrupted by various drills.
Tom could see the approaching storm that would become WWII and mentioned this in his letters home. He wrote of how they had received a shipment of fighters, but that they were in crates and needed to be assembled. They were still assembling them when the war started on December 7,1941. The Japanese invaded the Philippines the next day. Tom and the rest of the troops, along with their Filipino allies, fought valiantly. With their base destroyed they, retreated to Bataan.
Though Roosevelt had promised reinforcements, they never came, and in March Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to leave and go to Australia. Tom and the rest of those left behind continued to fight on. But in the end, there was no way to win. The promised reinforcements were never sent; food and ammunition ran out; and the Japanese force was too strong. Yet still they fought. Then their positions were overrun, and on April 10, 1942 they surrendered.
But as horrible as their ordeal had been, the worst was yet to come. The Japanese commander had ordered provisions be set aside for the expected 25,000 prisoners. But he was unaware that the real number of captured Americans and Filipinos was more than 75,000. Nor was he aware of just how bad their condition was. They had held out as long as possible and so when they did surrender, they were starving and many were sick with malaria and dysentery. In short the provisions he ordered to be set aside were nowhere near what was needed, and the Japanese army structure did not allow for questioning orders, even to correct mistakes in information.
To make matters worse the Japanese viewed surrender, whatever the circumstances, as a dishonor. Thus it did not matter how valiantly they fought, how long they had held out, or how low they had been on food and ammunition, they had surrendered and did not deserve to be treated honorably. Nor were there enough trucks to transport all the them. So what came to be called the Bataan Death March began.
Tom was not one of the lucky few whose guards, realizing the situation, just let their captives go. Even though he was sick, he was forced to march the 30 miles in the blazing hot sun to the rail center. Most had no food or water for the march. There was no stopping, and many were beaten. Many just died on the road, others were shot if they did not keep up. If Tom was fortunate, he would have still have had shoes. Many didn’t and had their feet burned as they walked on the hot asphalt as it baked under the sun. At San Fernando Tom was pushed into a rail car with other prisoners.
Because of the large numbers of prisoners, they were packed in as tightly as possible and in the hot sun, the metal walls of the cars burned unprotected skin. Many lost consciousness from the sweltering heat of the boxcars. Others suffocated in the cramped space. Yet they were packed in so tightly the unconscious and the dead remained standing until the cars were unloaded at Capas.
Tom survived the trip to Capas. From there Tom was once again forced to marched the last eight miles to Camp O’Donnell. Suffering from sickness, starvation, and exhaustion, Tom only lasted five days in Camp O’Donnell, dying on May 18th, 1942. He was 22 years old. Later Private Thomas A. Hushbeck would be posthumously awarded a the Purple Heart.
When people ask me what Memorial Day means to me, I think of my Uncle Tom, even though he died thirteen years before I was born. For me it is his holiday, but not his alone. There were the eight who died on Lexington Green in that first engagement of the Revolutionary war, and all the others who came after them to secure our independence, along with those who gave their lives in the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, The Vietnam War, Gulf War I and now the war on Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, just to name the major conflicts.
Whenever there was a need, Americans like my uncle Tom have step forward, knowing what may happen. Like my Uncle Tom, many have paid the ultimate price, so that we can live in freedom. Many may consider “Freedom is not Free” a cliché, just another slogan for a bumper sticker, but the cost of our freedom was paid by my Uncle Tom, and all the others who have in the past, or will in the future give their lives in defense of this country. It is for them that we fly the flag on this day. It is because of them we can enjoy the time off and relax on this day. They have given all that they had, and suffered in ways we can never imagine so that we might live in freedom. So while I enjoy the day, I will remember them. For they deserved to be honored and remembered.
Omerica
One of the biggest differences I have with President Obama is that I love my country, He does not. Now I am quite sure that he and many of his supporters would take great offense to that statement, but then they take offense to most everything they disagree with. It is one of the ways they attempt to suppress differing points of view. But their offense, does not change the truth of the statement, and it remains true and clear to any who care to see.
His campaign was all about change, and in his inaugural address he said “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.” A dominant theme of his trips abroad has been to apologize for the country.
The simple fact is that you do not apologize for and promise to remake, something you love. When you remake something you change it into something different. Obama claiming to love America, is somewhat akin to a husband claiming to love his wife, but just wanting her to be someone else. So it is clear that Obama does not love the country I grew up in and wants to change it into something else. But it goes much deeper than just his words. It goes to the core values that define the country.
What is unique about America, and I would argue made us the greatest country the world has known, were the core values that have defined the nation since its founding. These values are called the American Trinity by Dennis Prager, and can be found on any dollar bill: In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum, and Liberty.
When I was a kid, these values were celebrated. Today they are attacked, and at the core of Obama’s attempts to remake the country is the attempt to change these values. Rather than ‘In God We Trust’ which values the importance of religious faith without sectarianism, something that most impressed de Tocqueville, when he visited the young country, we have the attempt to impose a radical secularism which seeks to drive religious views out of the public square.
That E Pluribus Unum is under attack is clear from the fact that rather than being a core value of the country, to most it is just some strange words. It means, ‘Out of Many, One,’ and initially represented the 13 colonies becoming one nation but quickly became much more, the coming together of many people into one nation. It is being replaced by multiculturalism, where the many remain the many.
The final value, Liberty, would receive some lip service from Obama, but it is hardly a driving force for the change he seeks. Obama’s policies are driven by equality, not liberty, and the two are mutually exclusive. The more government seeks one, the less there will be of the other.
The country I love, the country that emerged from the revolution to become the greatest country the world has seen was defined by Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, and In God We Trust. The country Obama seeks to remake us into is defined by Equality, Multiculturalism, and Secularism. If he succeeds the only thing that would remain to make the transformation complete would be to change the name to Omerica.
Fairness vs Reality
In a post on the day of his Inauguration I said, “As for my expectation, what will the Obama presidency bring? The best I can say at the moment is: uncertain. I, like many others, am not at all sure what President Obama will actually do.” In a post a few days later, I said “So the sun is rising on the Obama presidency. As the literary detective Hercule Poirot often said ‘all will be made clear’ and clarity is a good thing.”
Clarity is a good thing, and 100 days into his presidency, things are now a lot clearer. But clarity is not always pleasant. Obama has filled in the details of “Hope and Change” with massive increases in government, massive increases in debt, increased government control over industry, in many areas bordering on nationalization, apologies to those abroad, offending some of our allies, reductions in our abilities to detect and defend against threats, and the use of government to attack political opponents, including the criminalization of policy differences, and most recently witch hunts. This is certainly change, but I don’t see a lot of hope here.
Now supporters of the President will undoubtedly take offense at this description (and that they take offense, as opposed to simply disagreeing, says a lot about them). Concerning spending and the deficit, during the Bush administration, the Democrats vociferously complained about Bush’s spending and his deficits. I agreed with a lot of their criticism, even if I did doubt their sincerity.
Though it is not a surprise, it is now at least clear that I was correct to doubt their sincerity. According to both CBO and White House data Obama will not only increase the budget deficit compared to Bush, he will increase it several times over the deficits the Democrats complained so strongly about . Problem: Bush increased the deficit; Obama’s Solution: vastly increase it even more. And he does this while claiming he will cut the deficit in half.
Obama’s claimed cuts are like a man with a $100 deficit promising that if he increases it an additional $200, in the future he will cut his deficit in half, leaving him only $150 in debt. Most would see this as increasing the problem. Yet Obama claims this as progress. Either he does not understand what he is actually doing, or he is being dishonest about it.
Now Obama and his supporters are quick to claim that this, like everything else, is Bush’s fault. It is true that Bush does share some responsibility, particularly for TARP in the closing days of his administration. Obama, like Bush before him, inherited a recession. Bush cut taxes, which got us out of the recession, and most of the years of the Bush administration were a period of economic growth, declining unemployment, with the stock market topping out at over 14,000.
Then in 2006 the Democrats won back the Congress, promising to fix things. While Bush was still president, he was also a lame duck with very little actual impact on the domestic front particularly with the Democrats in control of Congress.
What really caused the current problems was that the housing bubble burst. While the details are complex, the roots go back to housing policies enacted under Carter and Clinton and pushed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While you would never know it from the media, it is just a fact that Bush and the Republicans repeatedly tried to fix these growing problems, but they were blocked by Democrats, who instead attacked those trying to point out the problems. The last major effort to avoid this crisis was in 2005. Once the Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, any hope of averting it was gone. So while the claims that this was all Bush’s fault may play well to Obama’s media supporters, they don’t quite line up with the facts of what actually happened.
Now somewhat in their defense, most of the policies put forward by Obama and the Democrats have not had enough time to kick in yet. The Democrats must be included here as Obama’s management style is now also much clearer as well. He wants to make all the big decisions, and leave it to others to work out the details. This allows him to take credit for solving problems, without having to be responsible for any problem of implementation.
As for their policies, it takes time for the effect to show up in the economy. In fact it can take 12 to 18 month. So the fact that we do not yet see any effects of their changes in the economic data is to be expected, though the reactions of the market, which is always looking to the future, is not encouraging.
The disturbing thing is that, at least in an economic sense, there really is no mystery about what their policies will do. Massive increases in government spending will have some positive effect, but the net effect will be negative. In addition, when money is pushed into the economy in this fashion inflation follows, and the negative effects of inflation will far outstrip any positive effects of increased government spending. There is nothing magical about this. It is basic economics 101. Increase the money supply faster than the supply of goods, and you get inflation. Suppress the economy at the same time and you get Stagflation. In the last few months we have nearly tripled the money supply, and the economy is still struggling.
But this is one of the problems with Liberals. They seem to think their notions of fairness and equality trump economic reality. They are sort of like a person who believes that it is unfair that only birds can fly. For a short time such a person can ignore reality and indulge their notions of fairness, but before long the reality of the ground approaches. Obama and the Democrats are now indulging their notions of equality and fairness. Economic reality is not here yet, but it is rapidly approaching.
