Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Can Figure

My dad likes to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” His point is that you can spin statistics a lot of different ways to support the story you want to tell. If you assume that statistics are neutral truth and can always be taken at face value, you are making a big mistake. If you want to be a savvy media consumer, when you’re faced with a bunch of numbers, take a minute to stop and think about what you’re hearing.

The Two-Income Trap

Here’s one recent example: Two economists, Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi wrote a book called The Two Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke, which basically argues that the need to purchase more expensive houses in better school districts has forced both parents to work in middle-class families. The fairly liberal authors suggest that the government needs to help out these middle-class families with better schools, government-provided health care, money for child care, etc., etc. However, as Todd Zywicki points out, they are playing fast and loose with some of their data:

Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi compare two middle-class families: an average family in the 1970s versus the 2000s (all dollar values are inflation-adjusted). The typical 1970s family is headed by a working father and a stay-at-home mother with two children. The father's income is $38,700, out of which came $5,310 in mortgage payments, $5,140 a year on car expenses, $1,030 on health insurance, and income taxes "which claim 24% of [the father's] income," leaving $17,834, or about $1,500 per month in "discretionary income" for all other expenses, such as food, clothing, utilities and savings.

The typical 2000s family has two working parents and a higher income of $67,800, an increase of 75% over the 1970s family. But their expenses have also risen: The mortgage payment increases to $9,000, the additional car raises the family obligation to $8,000, and more expensive health insurance premiums cost $1,650. A new expense of full-time daycare so the mother can work is estimated at $9,670. Mother's income bumps the family into a higher tax bracket, so that "the government takes 33% of the family's money." In the end, despite the dramatic increase in family income, the family is left with $17,045 in "discretionary income," less than the earlier generation.

The authors present no explanation for why they present only the tax data in their two examples as percentages instead of dollars. Nor do they ever present the actual dollar value for taxes anywhere in the book. So to conduct an "apples to apples" comparison of all expenses, I converted the tax obligations in the example from percentages to actual dollars.

In fact, for the typical 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income is $22,374.

Although income only rose 75%, and expenditures for the mortgage, car and health insurance rose by even less than that, the tax bill increased by $13,086--a whopping 140% increase.

Basically, Warren and Tyagi hide the most substantial increase in the family budget--taxes. Because admitting that the tax burden on the middle class is significant and increasing doesn’t fit with their agenda of bigger government social programs fueled by tax dollars. When you see sets of numbers presented in non-comparable ways, you ought to wonder why.

Economic Reporting

Democrats and the media are broadcasting never-ending bad news about the economy. But you need to know that there is often more than one way to interpret these statistics. Here’s one example: We’ve heard that “real wages are stagnant” or “real median household income is down.” Jon Henke takes a look at this common refrain. First, some definitions. Median household income is the wage and salary income received by a household in the middle of the US income distribution. “Real” income means that the numbers are adjusted for inflation. So, if your “real” income is the same as last year, that means that you should be able to buy about the same amount of stuff this year as you could last year. Now, according to Jon Henke, some things you need to know about the assertion that real median income has dropped:

• The decline in median income is statistically insignificant. The Census Bureau calculates the median income using the Current Population Survey, and like all surveys this provides a good estimate of the real data, not an exact true figure.
• 32.2% of employee compensation is from benefits, not wages. Real total compensation is up.
• Median household income is, obviously, reported by the household, not the individual. The Census Bureau also reports that average US household size is dropping. So, if household income is roughly constant, this means that individual income must be increasing.
• People don’t only get income from wages. If you include capital gains, employer-provided benefits, and other non-cash transfers (welfare payments), household income is up.
  All this complicated economic lingo means that our economic situation isn’t quite as bleak as some people would like you to think. Of course, individuals will still face hard times, the economy is slower than it was a couple of years ago, and rising oil and food prices aren’t helping, but continued GDP growth and an unemployment rate around 5% indicate an economy that is not in recession.

Just two examples that show why you need to stop and think about statistics. Don’t assume they present the truth. Always remember, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

The Cost of Delaying Marriage

By Rich Bordner

I’ve been thinking a lot lately. Sometimes that gets me in trouble. But every once and a while, I think I have a point.

Marriage is a good thing. 1 Corinthians 7 notwithstanding (Many people take the "it’s good for a man not to marry" verse out of context. Plus, many miss that Paul was addressing a "present crisis," and he had celibacy--a lifelong state--in mind, not temporary singleness.), God calls the overwhelming majority of people to marriage and family. Only a select few people are called to celibacy, and like I just said, this is a permanent gift, not a temporary state.

Marriage is a challenge, so I’ve heard. I don’t doubt it. I’ve heard and seen enough to know that. But this is exactly what makes it good! It matures you and your spouse in a unique way that singleness cannot. That’s not to say that singles aren’t mature or that you should blatantly rush into things, but don’t put it off out of fear because it’s hard; that’s the thing you want to embrace the most.

Therefore, those who are called to marriage should prepare for it and pursue it. Be active! Don’t just wait for it to happen. Yes, God is sovereign and all things work out in His timing, but this doesn’t mean we just wait for it to happen. We believe God is sovereign over our jobs and careers, but hardly any of us just sit at home waiting for a job to fall in our laps. We get going! God’s sovereignty and His plan has never meant that we don’t have an active part to play. Marriage and relationships are no different.

Young adults today, in general, tend to delay marriage much more than young adults in ages past. The median age of first marriages has risen a little more than 5 years in the last 30 years.

For some of us, marrying later is not a choice. We try to pursue marriage, but it takes two to tango, as the saying goes. A guy asks a girl out, but gets turned down, because the girl either has astronomically high expectations that not even Jesus would satisfy or she’s waiting until her 30s to get married, wanting to "have fun" first. A girl earnestly desires to be a wife and raise a family, and she prays earnestly to that effect. If a guys asks, she’ll accept his invitation (as long as he doesn’t smell like fish, drive a windowless black van, live with his mom, and have that creepy cross-eyed look). But the guys--who want a girlfriend with the spirituality of Beth Moore, the voice of Rebecca St. James, and the looks of J.Lo--aren’t paying attention.

Can I get an amen!?

But, for countless twenty-somethings, marrying later is a conscious choice. More than any other generation, for various reasons, we delay marriage until our late twenties or thirties.

At first glance, those who adopt this lifestyle seem to get the best of both worlds. Build career now, travel, live in the city, go to Vegas every now and then, see the world, maybe serve the Lord in unique ways, get some extra education, then settle down, marry, and have kids. You can have it all!

But I gotta ask: is this wise? Is there a hidden cost to needlessly delaying marriage that we are blind to?

Well...yes.

The first one is perhaps the most obvious, and it is geared mostly towards women: ye olde ’biological clock.’ Sociologist Jean Twenge jokes about what she calls "women math:" "If we get married next year, I’ll be 32; we’ll want a year or two to be married without kids and it might take a year to get pregnant, so I’ll be 34 or 35 before I’m pregnant and probably 36 when the child is born. Then if we wait until the first kid is two years old before we try for another one, I’ll be trying to get pregnant at 38. Crap."

The other reasons are not so obvious, and they pertain to both genders.

You’d think that the longer you delay marriage, the happier you’ll be once you are married. We think this because we assume we mature as we get older in singleness. We think that singleness is a sort of "marriage incubator." But really, it’s not. Extended singleness can give wisdom to a select few, but research shows that as far as marriage happiness is concerned, the sweet spot for getting married is between 24 and 27. After that, happiness declines steadily with each year. Of course you can beat the odds...I’m just giving you the trend.

Mainly, we pretend that years of single living where we call the shots ultimately won’t have an effect on us. When we want, we’ll be able to settle down and love sacrificially just fine. When you are single, even if you have roommates, and even if you serve the Lord in many ministries, its nothing compared to marriage (so I’ve heard). When a friendship gets uncomfortable or inconvenient, or you just don’t like the person anymore, you can avoid them or stop hanging out with them. You can leave your roommates behind. You can change ministries. But you can’t run from your spouse! You simply cannot live as an "independent, free" individual in a marriage.

Lemme put it straight: The longer you live "independent and free," the harder it will be for you to adjust to a marriage. I’m finding this true even in dating. It’s a HUGE adjustment to me to think about another person to the degree I need to in this relationship. This will exponentially increase when I’m married. The thought patterns and life habits I’m struggling with are just the ones that I’ve ingrained in myself as a single man.

Ladies: age doesn’t necessarily guarantee maturity in a man. Yes, sometimes it does, but if you needlessly delay marriage, you might turn 30 or 35 only to find out many men your age have been hugely affected by their years of playing the field, going dirt biking with the bros on the weekends, and playing video games. That’s not a good formula for a husband. The ones who are good husbands now took that vocation seriously in their early 20s and got down to business. Sometimes, the guys who are still single are passive when it comes to marriage and they have been allowed to be that way.

Don’t misread me: I’m not saying that if you are single in your late 20s or 30s that it’s your fault or that you are immature (see the paragraph about marrying later not being a choice for some for evidence of this!)....someone is bound to twist my words--always happens--but, hey, I’m almost 30, and I’m single, so be realistic in interpreting my words. All I’m suggesting is that you can’t just turn off the independent living switch when you get married. It takes work, and turning off the switch is much, much harder when it’s all you’ve known for an extended period of time.

Bottom line: We are moldable when young, but as we age, we become "set in our ways." Many of these ways are antithetical to a happy marriage, and they become harder to shake off the longer we live in them.

So save yourself the grief...get going!

P.S--so, how do you "get going" without overdoing it? This is a great question that’s, unfortunately, mostly outside the scope of this blog. But, I can venture a few words: First, hang out in social circles where you will rub shoulders with co-eds who are serious about marriage. This species is shrinking in abundance in the church these days, but they are still around, so finding folks like this won’t be too hard. Second, get an older couple that can help mentor you in your maturity as a whole, including preparing for marriage. Third, guys, take chances. You don’t have to chase down every girl you see (such a habit will earn you a bad rep.), but really, put down the game console and grow up. Girls, keep high standards on the things that matter (i.e., do not entertain advances from men who aren’t dedicated followers of Christ), but be willing to give guys a chance who perhaps doesn’t fit your every whim. If it’s not "love at first sight" and you don’t get butterflies in your stomach, so what? Even though he’s not your typical height and even though he doesn’t have the voice of Josh Groban doesn’t mean he’s not your "soul mate" (a "soul mate" is a dubious concept anyway). Be open to God working in unexpected , non-Hollywood-movie ways. And, perhaps most importantly, put away the "Jesus is the only man I need/I’m just fine being single" talk. Guys will hear this and take you seriously. Meaning: you will continue to endlessly complain that guys don’t ask you out.

This should be enough to get you going.

You’d be surprised with what you can get away with

By Rich Bordner

Recently, I had a religious discussion in my classroom for some colleagues of mine. I put fliers in all staff mailboxes, bought food, etc. During lunch for four weeks, I played snippets of debates on topics like "Do all religions lead to God?" and then I discussed the topic with those in attendance. The discussions have led to a few more in depth conversations outside of lunch at school.

The whole experience was very enlightening for me, but not in the way you'd think.

When I tell my friends, colleagues, and students I teach about the religious lunch discussion in my room, the almost unanimous reaction has been one of surprise: "Can you do that? I mean, is it legal? Are you going to get in trouble?" I can only chuckle a bit inside. When I first told Dr. Geivett, one of my Talbot professors, of my project idea, he had a quite different reaction:

"You'd be surprised by what you can get away with."

I have taken that comment to heart. In fact, it has become a bit of a rallying cry for me. "The separation of church and state" legend has become such a pillar for American secularism that it has almost risen to "metanarrative" status. To ask "what, exactly, is that supposed to mean, and where did it come from?" is for us the same as the proverbial fish questioning what wet feels like. Even very devout Christians toe this line!

In fact, the most surprised responses came from Christians. They were just stunned I could do and DID DO something like that.

Very few pause long enough to figure out that this one's nothing but a paper tiger. Many of us are intimidated and so fearful of faux repercussions that rather than testing the waters, we opt instead to not challenge the status quo. To paraphrase the sarcastic journalist's jibe, "When the legend overtakes the facts, believe the legend."

All this reminds me of a modern-day, Dr. Phil-type parable:

A group of marine scientists once conducted a series of experiments with a tank full of barracuda. At first, they fed these fish their favorite food, live mackerel, every day for a month. Of course, the aggressive fish would devour the mackerel in an instant. Then the scientists placed a clear glass panel between the barracuda and the bait fish. As soon as the mackerel were lowered into the tank, the barracuda immediately moved toward them, smashing their noses on the clear glass.

The predators continued to attempt to get past the glass until, finally, they realized their efforts were futile. Then the scientists removed the glass and allowed the mackerel to freely swim. The mackerel, of course, stayed behind the perceived wall. And the barracuda, with nothing standing between them and their prey, contentedly stayed on their side of the tank.

The wall was gone. The barrier had been removed, but the fish still stayed in their newly created "cage". All the food the barracuda could stomach was just waiting to be eaten, but was never touched. The false barrier of past hurt kept the fish from making any move at all.

While we Christians ought not think of ourselves as "barracudas" on the lookout for "prey," the more I pay attention to the zeitgeist of the public square and Christians' moods towards it, the more I realize we are like the barracudas in a key respect; we have allowed ourselves to be put inside a "worldview ghetto."

To insist on even discussing issues of faith, morality, and religion in public will often get you weird looks. Or at least many of us think we'll get weird looks. To insist that faith, morality and religion are areas of knowledge that deserve a place in the public sphere will get you even stranger looks. But really, what's the worst that could happen? Will we bump into a glass barrier? The barrier isn't there!

Granted, a few will not like those ideas. Many will be stunned at your chutzpah. A few might even oppose you. So?

To adopt a post-modern attitude of "tolerance" would be, to paraphrase Dr. J.P. Moreland, the cure that kills the patient. Such a response is not worthy of the movement that was born of the martyr's blood (another Moreland-ism).

The phrase "You'd be surprised by what you can get away with" has become a reminder for me that in today's increasingly secular world, Christians must, in an attitude and stance of ambassadorship, boldly thrust the worldview of Jesus into the marketplace of ideas, where it belongs.

Even if such a stance ends up costing me a job, so be it; the furniture in heaven will not be suddenly thrown topsy-turvy. I'll go do something else and cause trouble in some other place.

I am not advocating foolishness. There is a difference between boldness and stupidity (just call me "Captain Obvious"). My points are simply A) that life will go on, and B) On the "You did what?" list of reasons for being fired, spitting in the face of secularism is not on that list. My attitude probably won't even come to that; after all, you'd be surprised by what you can get away with.

The "Doctrine of Multiculturalism"

A British clergyman has issued a scathing critique of the “newfangled and insecurely-founded doctrine of multiculturalism.” This speaks to the emptiness of tolerance as a bedrock value of society.

The collapse of Christianity has wrecked British society, a leading Church of England bishop declared yesterday.

It has destroyed family life and left the country defenceless against the rise of radical Islam in a moral and spiritual vacuum.

In a lacerating attack on liberal values, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said the country was mired in a doctrine of 'endless self-indulgence' that had brought an explosion in public violence and binge-drinking.

If you aren’t aware of the significant social problems facing “post-Christian” Europe, you really need to do some research. Just a couple of examples from the United Kingdom:

• Britain's Mean Streets—about the significant rise in youth crime
• Rowan Williams says Sharia law unavoidable—the Archbishop of Canterbury believes the British legal system should accommodate Sharia law
• Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits—although polygamy is illegal, the British welfare system will pay Muslim husbands welfare benefits for all their wives

These problems arise from the belief that all cultures and ideas are equally valid and must be tolerated and accepted. We should of course love individuals because they are created in God’s image, but it is vital that Christians refuse to accept this moral relativism. We know there is absolute Truth and some ideas and beliefs are absolutely wrong.

God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

By Rich Bordner

Another "New Atheist" book I've read (see The God Delusion for another review) is God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens.

Folks say Hitchens is a great writer. Even those who adamantly disagree with him praise his use of rhetoric. In fact, I haven't read one reviewer, Christian and non, who doesn't mention his talent for writing.

However, I have to disagree with them. This book is not written well. It is incredibly difficult to figure out exactly what Hitchens is arguing most of the time. When I knew his thesis, it was extremely hard to ferret out his exact argument. Kinda like pinning jello to a wall. He routinely made so many leaps in logic that by the time I figured out I'd been had, he was already six points down the road. He regularly employed loaded language without a rational back-up; that is, its one thing when you use strong words and show how they apply. It’s quite another when you use strong words and just leave them hanging out there, as if self-justified.

This is houdinery, not good writing.

Here's one example. On page 5, he says,

"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

He wants us to apply different standards to his...whatevers...--they aren't "beliefs," excuse me--than we apply to religious belief and faith. Sounds sweet. Nice try, but I don't buy it. Douglas Wilson puts it nicely (actually, sarcastically...you get my point):

"In this notable expression of high sentiment, Hitchens declares that he distrusts anything that outrages reason. And just before this, he delivered himself of the zen-mystery that "our belief is not a belief." Okay, so he has faith in certain of his principles, but this faith of his is not like our faith in our principles because ours are ... wrong. His faith in his principles is not faith at all. It is something else. It is confidence, yeah, that's it, confidence. Con fides. With faith. And his beliefs are not like our beliefs, not at all. No, his beliefs, which are not beliefs, are based on certain beliefs about science and reason."

Hitchens uses big boasts, only to not come through on them. After trotting out an objection to religion via an assertion he many times says something like "this, is absolutely irrefutable." Then he just moves on.

He often used the word "proof" to describe mere assertions and claims. A philosophy class or two would help him a lot in his sloppy use of jargon.

I guess I'm just supposed to accept his word. After all, as with Dawkins, he speaks with a British accent, and that makes him authoritative. Right?

Here's an example. While talking about the objections he had to religion as a child, he said:

"If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness? What was so wonderful about his casting out devils, so that the devils would enter a herd of pigs instead? That seemed sinister... With all this continual prayer, why no result? Why did I have to keep saying, in public, that I was a miserable sinner? Why was the subject of sex considered so toxic? These faltering and childish objections are, I have since discovered, extremely commonplace, partly because no religion can meet them with any satisfactory answer. But another, larger one also presented itself. (I say 'presented itself' rather than 'occurred to me' because these objections are, as well as insuperable, inescapable)…" p3

In what follows, there's no attempt to actually show that the objections actually were insuperable… whatever that means. I had to look it up (it means, "incapable of being overcome."). He does that (use big words needlessly) all the time. While reading the book, I had the inclination that he was trying to intimidate me in his use of big words like this...anyway...I kept waiting for the hammer to come down...and waiting, and waiting, and waiting. Until I finished the last page.

Similarly, straw men are his favorite target. Like Dawkins, he's fond of attacking caricatures.

Blurring key distinctions is his favorite tactic. He lumps all religions into one category, "religion," and he ignores important differences. He uses the bad example of particular religious people (I admit, there are many quality examples of evil amongst religious people. The Christian church is not immune to this critique. Also, some religions are false and evil) and paints all religion with that brush. Because a Muslim blew himself up in a suicide bombing, I have blown myself up too.

He quotes verses in the Bible that he says show God to be morally reprehensible, but he gives little effort at exegeting fairly. Sometimes merely quoting the verse and a few comments diced with loaded words are enough for him to show how evil God is (for better treatments of such verses, go to www.christian-thinktank.com).

Speaking of evil, yet another glaring weakness: he claims that the evil acts of religious people are evil, and that we have a moral obligation to fight such totalitarianism. But, as an atheist, how does he ground such an obligation? Where does this obligation come from in a world of physical atoms governed by physical laws?

This is much different than saying "all atheists are immoral" or "atheists don't believe in morality." I admit that atheists can be moral (sometimes they are more moral than Christians!), and they can know what is right and wrong (kinda... another blog for another day). No doubt there. What I doubt is that, if God really doesn't exist, *is* anything moral? What does "good" mean? It has no meaning! He works on borrowed capital.

Melinda at str.org puts her finger on this when she says,

"Hitchens says religion is evil, and he does mean evil and sin. He freely uses moral language to pin the blame right where he believes it belongs, but he never explained how he, as a materialist, can use moral language and mean them as moral terms that all mankind are beholden to. Hitchens also identifies himself as a humanist. He expresses great faith in the natural abilities of man unhindered by the manipulation and superstition of religion to progress to a fully rational, scientific existence. He says at one point, apparently justifying his use of morality, 'Ethical imperative is derived from innate human solidarity.' I take from this that he believes morality is the store of human experience. It's an interesting story, but he gives no actual argument for any of his claims."

Doug Wilson comments,

"David Hume had a mighty hard time figuring out how to get across the chasm from is to ought. Mr. Hitchens must have figured out how to do this, because he has gotten from the is of repeatable experiments, and the is of the law of identity, to the ought of "Thou shalt not poison everything." This is a stupendous breakthrough. And Mr. Hitchens needs to do this whole math problem on the board, in front of the class, and Mr. Hitchens needs to show his work."

"Hitchens points out that some believers respond badly to his kind of bad boy atheism, and this is something I grant. In fact, I am perfectly willing to loan him a fixed scriptural standard so that he might enjoy the pleasure of disapproving of hysterical believers who go off like a bottle rocket whenever an atheist is naughty in public. But that is the only way he is able to enjoy such spectacles -- with borrowed standards. When believers panic or hyperventilate over the monkeyshines of men like Hitchens, they are displeasing Jesus. But are they displeasing the mindless process of time and chance acting on matter, which is all that anything or anyone actually is? Well, it turns out, no. In Hitchens' view, according to his premises, Christian hypocrisies (a source of amusement to many for millennia) turn out to be just another big dud in a universe of big duds. The infinite concourse of atoms supplies us with nothing more than an endless supply of dropped punch lines."

That is, he calls things with irreducible moral terms, like "evil," but he never explains how his atheism can ground such a use of language.

Finally, religion is even to blame for the crimes of atheists, for their regimes functioned in a religious way: nice trick. Religious people can't even point to the good examples of other religious people in defense of their case; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, for example, acted contrary to Christianity's doctrines and therefore Christians can't look to him for help. Melinda Penner writes,

"The beautiful thing about Hitchens' case, such that it is, is that he can't lose. 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.' Any and all counter-examples are snatched away as anomalies from the religious system and practices, forced confessions of faith, or professed Christians acting against their religion (as he defines it). In Hitchens' accounting even Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn't motivated by his Christianity because what made him great was actually in contradiction to what the New Testament teaches. According to Hitchens, the New Testament teaches that forgiveness is withheld until a price is exacted, but King forgave completely and in advance of the actual sins. So he wasn't a real Christian, or at least his virtuous actions were not examples we can cite. The most collosal example of this convenient arrangement is that even the evils of atheism can be laid at religion's feet. After all, he claims, religion is the original totalitarian system. Atheist totalitarian regimes are a cheap knock-offs fostered by the negligence and sins of religion."

Note the convenient strawman: The NT holds that forgiveness is withheld until a price is exacted. There is no attempt to prove this is so; Hitchens just helps himself to this assertion, and then moves on.

In conclusion, I can see how this book would perhaps bamboozle some Christians and give confidence to some atheists. He starts out fast and hard, and never lets up. His style can leave you a bit befuddled and intimidated, wondering what happened. But a careful, slow, thoughtful reading should have the opposite effect.

The Sanctity of Life

By Amanda McClain
I recently read a moving and persuasive defense of the sanctity of life and the evil of euthanasia. Here's just a small bit of this very personal reflection:

Through four months of shared caring, first at home and then in an excellent hospice, our family has been saying a long good-bye to a middle brother who is now lingering somewhere between heaven and earth…

Life is so very sad and so very beautiful. Some will scoff: "Beauty? What beauty? What kind of sick mind can find beauty in this pietà? It would be more beautiful to help your brother to end his suffering. Real love has nothing in common with pain. What is to be gained from all of this beside some medieval Catholic satisfaction in suffering?"

I can only answer that question with a question: Do you think that giving my lionhearted brother a "compassionate" needle would truly lessen our suffering, or his? By cutting short the process, do we step off the Via Dolorosa and avoid it all, or do we merely thwart a plan for our own lives? Should we steal from our brother the opportunity for him to reach out a hand and have it immediately grasped, to have everything about his existence affirmed, over and over?

Should we steal from ourselves the opportunity to love?

Read the whole piece and learn "that life brings love, and love is God; that life interrupted is love interrupted, and love interrupted is God interrupted."

Review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

By Rich Bordner

To be an atheist is all the rage these days. Or at least that's what you'd gather by a selective viewing of media shows. Since September 11, 2001, a new batch of particularly aggressive and media-savvy atheists have cropped up in popular culture. Their books are selling well. In fact, some of them have stayed pretty long on the NYT best-seller list.

So recently I decided to read three of those books.

The first one I read was The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a very well known biologist and advocate of naturalistic science (the idea that science must be wedded to a worldview that holds that the physical world is all that exists.). He's an Oxford fellow, and we all know that those who speak with a British accent and hail from Oxford are darn smart and therefore should be listened to, so I was anxious to see what all the hubbub was all about.

Dawkins' project in the book is to convince us that religion is not only irrational, but immoral and bad for society.

The first two chapters of his book deal with some preliminary considerations (Did Einstein believe in God? No, when he said we would "know the mind of God" in the future, or "God does not play dice" he was using the word "God" in a very poetic, metaphorical sense.) and terminology. The main parts of his book, though, are chapters 3 and 4. In chapter 3 he engages in "deck clearing." He takes a look at the arguments traditionally raised for God's existence and finds them seriously wanting. Chapter 4 is the lynchpin of his book. In that chapter, he advances a positive intellectual case for atheism; that is, he advances an argument *for* atheism. After all, the title of that chapter is "Why there almost certainly is no god." Bold title.

After that, he has to do damage control. Religion has traditionally served as the root of many important things (like morality, wonder, happiness, etc), and Dawkins now has to explain how those things can exist in the absence of religion. In Chapter 5 he tackles the widespread existence of religion itself: if it’s all just a sham, then why is religion so prevalent all over the world? Chapters 6 and 7 deal with morality; he advances an evolutionary explanation of morality and explains how we do not get our morality from the Bible. Chapter 8 details the damage religion has done to society, while he takes on the subject of a religious upbringing in chapter 9. He ends up saying that a religious education is "child abuse." I am not exaggerating.

He ends the book in chapter 10 by claiming that a proper wonder of the physical world can fill the inspiration gap left by religion.

So that's his project. What do I think?

I was very disappointed. After reading his book, I find Dawkins is hard to take seriously.

There are many things I could focus on. For example, I could focus on how his evolutionary account of morality is no "account" at all. The "morality" he ends up with is not morality but something completely different: a by-product of our evolutionary past. He only explains how we "behave" in a way that we call "moral." This is a far cry from real morality. Morality is a deeply true feature of reality that we must submit to in our behavior. It prescribes our actions and attitudes. Reducing it to behavior that our genes have programmed into us is not morality, for it guts morality of things like obligation. Anyway...

Since chapters 3 and 4 are the main parts of his book, I'm going to focus my comments on those places. If he fails in those chapters, the rest of his book is a bust. That is, if he doesn't dispatch with the arguments for theism and if he doesn't succeed in convincing us that atheism is a rational position to hold, then he hasn't "cleared the deck" for an atheistic understanding of reality in all the other key places. Religion is still the king of the hill.

As I mentioned earlier, in chapter 3 he takes on what he says are the main arguments for the existence of God. However, he ends up attacking several conveniently erected straw men instead. I'm a philosophy student. I've trafficked in that area for 10 years now. I deal with these things, and I didn't recognize many of the arguments he addressed. He didn't even acknowledge the best arguments; he acted like they didn't exist. Where was the Kalam Cosmological argument? Where was the Moral argument? Where was the Argument from Consciousness?

Nowhere to be found.

He only interacted with one major Christian philosopher (Richard Swinburne), and he only interacted with him limitedly. He quoted him out of context and therefore set up yet another caricature. He pretended all the others (William Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Albert Mohler, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Paul Moser, etc, etc, etc) simply do not exist. When he did quote a Christian, most often it was either from one of his angry detractors (who send him letters), the "men on the street" who call him when he's on the radio, or unsophisticated preachers and priests.

The arguments he did address were weak. He made them even weaker by making them into straw men. These are arguments that very learned men spent their lives expounding, defending, attacking, and thinking over. Mostly, Dawkins merely summarized them in a few lines, no more than a paragraph, then dispatched them in a few lines.

Let me give two examples. One "argument" he dispatches with is the "argument from beauty." He summarizes it like this: "I have given up counting the number of times I receive the more or less truculent challenge: 'How do you account for Shakespeare, then?' The argument will be so familiar, I needn't document it further. But the logic behind it is never spelled out... Obviously... Shakespeare's sonnets (are sublime). They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn't. They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Shakespeare. (p. 86)"

That's it. No premised-out argument, no attempt at charitability. This might do for a small blog; but a popular-level book that is purporting to come from a sharp, keen mind? He must be more responsible.

There actually have been attempts to spell it out. Even if there weren't, it wouldn't be difficult for Dawkins to think it through. The argument, in its bare form, goes like this:

1. There are autonomously aesthetic objects (Shakespeare, for instance, or Beethoven's music, or the smell of a rose, etc). Defining "autonomous": There are objects with aesthetic properties that do not depend upon subjective experiences... they are real objective aesthetic properties. These objects have aesthetic properties no matter how people respond/whether or not people recognize these properties... NOT: beauty is in the eye of the beholder... BUT: the object ITSELF IS beautiful, no matter who views/sees it.
2. There must be some explanation for these aao's.
3. The explanation for the existence of aao's is either natural or non-natural.
4. If the explanation for the existence of aao's is natural, it can be given in terms of the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, psychology...laws of nature)
5. The existence of aao's cannot be given in terms of the natural sciences.
6. The explanation for the existence of aao's must be non-natural

You can continue to carry the argument out in a way that leads to a supernatural/God explanation being the best explanation.

Now, that's a world of difference from Dawkins' caricature. For starters, the thrust of this argument is that beauty is an objective property (like morality, consciousness, etc) that calls for an explanation. Some explanations are better than others. The explanation theism gives is much better than the one naturalism (atheism) gives. That's much different from asking "what accounts for Shakespeare" and it’s much different from snarking that "Shakespeare is sublime if God exists and sublime if he isn't." Yes, but there still needs to be an explanation...Dawkins is changing the subject.

Even if you don't think the argument is successful ultimately, the point is that it’s much better than what Dawkins gave.

Secondly, he gives what he calls the "argument from Scripture." The title he gives the argument is bad, for starters: it leads the reader to believe that the argument's thrust is derived merely from something being written in the Bible (like those who say, "It’s in the Bible, God said it, and that's that.")...which is a straw man...but anyway.

First, he only gives five pages to a subject that people have written VOLUMES on...and most of Dawkins' treatment is ridicule and fluff, not actually a précis.

Secondly, in this section, he deals with two purported "contradictions" in the Bible, and there is no attempt to even mention some of those who have answered those challenges. People have written answers to these "contradictions" for centuries, and for Dawkins to pretend they don't exist is irresponsible at best, dishonest at worst.

Third, he says, "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life. All were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations' (see Chapter 5) by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas. (p. 93)"

That's it. No attempt to let SCHOLARS who have thought otherwise have a say. In fact, he gives the impression that all "scholars" agree with his assessment.

This is just bad.

Anytime someone does this with the arguments against his case and won't address the most powerful arguments against him, its a major red flag. I had trouble trusting Dawkins on anything after reading this sham.

On to chapter four. In this chapter, he gives a positive argument for the NON-existence of God. One big problem with this chapter is that he only gives ONE argument, and he pretends like it’s a "silver bullet." He pretends that it’s a knock-down argument against theism that can't be defeated. That should tip you off: anytime someone only has ONE argument for his case, he's hurtin'. If you do that, it had better be a pretttttttty doggone good argument.

Another thing about chapter four: He derides those who make metaphysical (as opposed to scientific) claims and speculations, but he makes metaphysical claims and speculations of his own... see, for example, his talk of the "multiverse" on page 145, which has absolutely zero empirical evidence confirming it.

All this should tell you that the rest of his book is highly suspect.

In conclusion, he promises big things, but never comes through. He relies heavily on caricature, ridicule, name calling, and loaded language, but has little substance. There are better defenses of atheism out there.

Gallup's annual "Cultural Tolerance" survey

Frc.org reports:

"More Americans consider divorce acceptable (70 percent) than ever before, say researchers, who asked 1,000 people to rank 16 social taboos. The percentage of respondents who have no ethical qualms about ending their vows has jumped 11 percent in the last seven years. To give an indication of how inured society is to family breakdown, more people would condemn buying or wearing fur (39 percent) than filing for divorce (22 percent)."

California Court overstepped boundaries with redefinition of marriage

The decision by the California Supreme Court last Thursday was another example of judicial tyranny. As the Dissenting Opinion states, the question of whether marriage should be redefined should not be within the bounds of the court’s jurisdiction. This matter was already decided by the citizens of California back in 2000 when they passed Proposition 22 which codified into law that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The will of the people was therefore usurped by judicial fiat.

Most likely, the decision will be stayed pending the ballot initiative this November, which aims to amend the State Constitution by explicitly stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. If passed, this amendment will protect the will of the people regarding the definition of marriage from further attacks from the state's judicial branch.

Sensible Environmental Protection

Here’s a link to a grassroots movement that is advancing a biblical agenda for caring for the environment and the poor, based on solid facts, without all the hysteria.

We-get-it.org is sponsored by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

BBC caves to threats

Here’s an expose about how the BBC completely changed a story after “feeling the heat” from a global warming activist.

Weather Channel Founder Doesn’t Buy the Hype

A Video Portrait Of Barack Hussein Obama

Birds of a feather: Bill Ayers

As first reported in marathonpundit, domestic terrorist and close friend and supporter of Barrack Obama, Bill Ayers, is pictured above stomping on the American flag in 2001.

- chicagomag.com

Ayers was founder of one of the most radical political organizations in U.S. history – the Weatherman. Between 1970 and 1974, the Weatherman took credit for 12 bombings, including one of the United States Capitol and another involving several police cars. …Ayers summed up the Weatherman philosophy as "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents—that's where it's really at."

Birds of a feather? (extended audio of Jeremiah Wright)

FACT:

Obama has been a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years.

QUOTE:

“So many people said to me when they saw that video of Rev. Wright at that chaotic news conference at the National Press Club carried live on CNN. They said, ‘I would not have sat there for TWENTY MINUTES for that, let alone twenty years.’”

– Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico.com

Wright complained that his comments were taken out of context. To prove that they were not taken out of context, here is a compilation of extended portions from two sermons given by Jeremiah Wright, one from 9/16/01, the other from 4/13/03. (NOTE: several seconds of silence separate each excerpt.)

In addition, here is Jeremiah Wright’s entire speech he gave to the National Press Club last week (4/28/08), which was aired in its entirety on a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio show.