Saul Alinsky and "wise as serpents", part 2

Continued from yesterday...

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.

Here we see Alinsky's depravity. Our personal interest as Christians in this issue makes it even more imperative that we behave ethically. The end does not justify the means. Atheist ethics is about ends. Christian ethics is about means.

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

I'm not sure what Alinsky means here, but it's evil.

3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

No. No end justifies evil means, and in (ideological) war one must be especially careful of this temptation. Vital ends require extraordinary scrutiny of means.

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

There are eternal truths that are not altered by chronology. If we find ourselves thinking 'it's only ethical to use this tactic in this situation', we need to rethink the tactic.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

Yes. Ethical reflection frequently suggests means not previously considered, and proliferation of means warrants careful scrutiny of ethics.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

The opposite is true. The more important the end, the more care is needed to police the means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

'Winners write history" is presumably what Alinsky means here. Bastard.

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

Ethics is independent of the order of battle.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.

That is true of atheists and Darwinists.  When we win, they howl.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

What a clear synopsis of Alinsky's ethics. Bastard.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Atheists do this incessantly: "Science", "Reason", "Good Science Education".

We do this too, of course, in our own way, but we are telling the truth.

It's important to note that the tactics I'm referring to here are only appropriate to the blogsphere. This war is fought on many fronts-- in politics, in churches, in schools and universities, in homes, and in each of us, at times. Ridicule and "freeze, personalize, polarize" are extraordinarily effective in the blogsphere. They are likely inappropriate for a discussion at work between friends.

Understanding Alinsky is essential for protagonists in this war. It is not natural to Christians, for whom the Sermon on the Mount is our ethical ground. But Alinsky's tactics are the currency of our current struggle, and we ignore him at our peril. We need to understand Alinsky. Unfortunately, it means a long deep look into a cesspool.

Christians must understand the tactics atheists use against us, and we must use some of those same tactics-- those that can be employed ethically-- in defense of the Truth.

Shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves. Matthew 10:16

Saul Alinsky and "wise as serpents"

The superb Bill Vallicella at Maverick Philosopher on Saul Alinsky:

If you want to understand the Left, their tactics, their ruthlessness, and their imperviousness to ethical considerations, then you need to read Alinksy. Summary here. You will then understand what is behind the outrageous attacks of leftist scum bags, such as this guy, on conservatives. They see politics as warfare, and they believe the end justifies the means.

Alinsky was a genius, on a level with Gramsci, who championed the left's wildly successful "march through the institutions."

Alinisky was a monster, a deeply evil man who has damaged our civilization in profound ways. His influence 30 years after his death is huge: Hillary Clinton did her (laudatory) senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinski, and Barack Obama cut his teeth in the Alinsky organization in Chicago.

Alinski's masterwork is "Rules for Radicals", a short book on revolutionary and political tactics. It is a brilliant work. Alinski dedicated it:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer“

A Christian may ask: is it right to learn from Alinski and emulate Alinski's tactics?

I believe yes and no. Alinski's insights are deep, and his tactics are very effective. The atheist left already understands this stuff, and we hamstring ourselves if we remain ignorant of it. We must not emulate Alinski's immorality, but many of his ideas can be adapted for good. We are asked by our own Community Organizer to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".

We can learn from Alinsky, and ethically apply some of his insights. Here's a nice synopsis of Alinsky's tactics, with my comments:

Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" explained

Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

There is actual formal training in this stuff.

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics...

These tactics work.

This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out "Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left."

Here's a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Much of this war is psychological, and a central tactic is to manipulate atheists' perceptions. Atheism's contact with reality is loose at best, and it is essential that we fight on our terms. It causes them to respond in predictable ways, and the goal of this battle is to keep them reacting the way you want them to react.

It's also essential to understand that they're trying to do the same thing to you.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

Keep the debate on your terms. Debate what you and your allies know. Do not stray into the atheists' expertise unless you know exactly what you are doing. It's like the old trial lawyer adage: never ask a witness a question that you don't already know the answer to.

3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Most atheists are incompetent in broad fields of knowledge-- philosophy, theology, history, even science outside of their narrow expertise. If they knew a lot, they'd be on our side. Stay outside of their narrow competence, and keep them stammering. Limit their replies to profanity and wikipedia quotes.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

'OK atheists, let's talk reason and science. How can you ground science if you assert that nothing ultimately has a reason for its existence...?'

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Alinsky's most important rule. His full comment is:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Ridicule is devastating. We are blessed with enemies who are arrogant rhetorically incompetent prigs who have generally have been insulated from sharp criticism of their ideology throughout their academic careers. They're smug bullies, not savvy street fighters, despite their bluster. They are easy targets for ridicule-- sitting ducks. When ridiculed, they stammer and stumble and spit. Which makes the ridicule even more effective.

Ridicule is entertaining (even Darwinists chuckle at spoofs of Dawkins) and utterly infuriating (our enemies are generally humorless). Critically, as Alinski notes, ridicule is virtually impossible to counterattack. Reciprocal ridicule is often the only option, but atheists are surprisingly poor at effective ridicule, and degenerate to spite and childish taunts that make them look even worse. Atheist ridicule generally comes across as arrogance and sneer, which is what we ridiculed them for in the first place.

Ridicule is a neutron bomb against scientism and atheism. They are utterly defenseless, and their reply is often as effective for us as the original ridicule.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

This is fun, guys. Atheists are like nasty chained dogs. Atheism is the chain that constrains them. If they were really smart, they wouldn't be atheists. Think of Richard Dawkins' face when Stein was calmly flaying him at the end of Expelled. Fun. Enjoy it.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

Keep hitting them from different angles-- their ignorance of philosophy, their ignorance of science outside of their narrow expertise, their arrogance, their ignorance of history, their intolerance, their irrationality, etc. Keep it mixed up. Make them keep googling different stuff trying to figure out how to respond to you. Keep it fresh.

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Relate current events to this debate. Censorship, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, North Korea. Keep it salient.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

They are frightened of us. Otherwise they wouldn't be so angry. They understand the threat we pose to their dark little world. Their fear helps us, because it spurs them to react irrationally.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

No respite. When they advocate atheism/Darwinism/materialism in the public sphere, they must know that there will be immediate and persistent blow-back. We don't let lies build up speed.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

If it becomes crystal clear that atheism is bullshit, theism becomes the common ground for discussion. A major victory.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

This is easy for Christianity; people have been abandoning atheism and coming to Christ for 2000 years. It is not as easy for ID. The integration of explicit design science into biology is a major task against a heavily fortified defense. Gonna be tough.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky's second most important rule, after ridicule. Effective arguments aren't just facts and logic. Effective arguments are coherent credible stories. Debates at this scale are an exchange of stories, and stories are only effective with clear protagonists.  Demolition of atheism needs faces-- political atheism needs Stalin, scientific atheism needs Dawkins or Myers. A thug or a prig or a bully needs to be the face of atheism and Darwinism and scientism. It needs to be frozen-- people need to immediately think of Stalin when they think 'is atheism politically benign?'. They need to think of Dawkins when they think 'is Darwinism open-minded science?'. They need to think of Myers when they think 'is atheist discourse civil?'.

We have a big advantage here. They have tried to smear us as Adam-and-Eve-rode-dinosaurs-fundies, but outside of the atheist-academic-MSM loony bin, that's been a hard sell. Public acceptance of intelligent design and skepticism of Darwinism is way up. It's hard to paint Bill Craig and Stephen Meyer and Alister McGrath as semi-literate snake handlers when on the logic and facts they routinely destroy atheists.  That's why atheists flee debates like they've taken up sprinting.

When Stalin is the face of atheist politics, and Dawkins is the face of atheist humility, and Myers is the face of atheist civility, we win. Frozen, personalized, polarized. A coherent utterly credible story. The true story. Very powerful.


Continued tomorrow...

Perhaps the worst news article I have read. Ever.

This is not a parody. From the Associated Press:

One-child policy a surprising boon for China girls

By ALEXA OLESEN - Associated Press | AP – Wed, Aug 31, 2011BEIJING (AP) — Tsinghua University freshman Mia Wang has confidence to spare.

Asked what her home city of Benxi in China's far northeastern tip is famous for, she flashes a cool smile and says: "Producing excellence. Like me."

A Communist Youth League member at one of China's top science universities, she boasts enviable skills in calligraphy, piano, flute and ping pong.

Such gifted young women are increasingly common in China's cities and make up the most educated generation of women in Chinese history. Never have so many been in college or graduate school, and never has their ratio to male students been more balanced.

To thank for this, experts say, is three decades of steady Chinese economic growth, heavy government spending on education and a third, surprising, factor: the one-child policy...

So killing tens of millions of baby girls has improved the lives of the girls they didn't kill. It's kind of like if a serial killer kills a bunch of kids in your dorm, you get a better choice of rooms! There's a bright side to everything!

In 1978, women made up only 24.2 percent of the student population at Chinese colleges and universities. By 2009, nearly half of China's full-time undergraduates were women and 47 percent of graduate students were female, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

In India, by comparison, women make up 37.6 percent of those enrolled at institutes of higher education, according to government statistics.

If population control officials kill tens of millions of Indian women, the survivors beneficiaries will get better slots in elite colleges. Population control agencies had better get on this quick...

Since 1979, China's family planning rules have barred nearly all urban families from having a second child in a bid to stem population growth. With no male heir competing for resources, parents have spent more on their daughters' education and well-being, a groundbreaking shift after centuries of discrimination.

"They've basically gotten everything that used to only go to the boys," said Vanessa Fong, a Harvard University professor and expert on China's family planning policy.

Supply and demand. Reduce the supply of girls, they can demand more. For example: better seats in college classes, better violin lessons, better dance classes, better jobs in alphabet-soup agencies...

Also, the opportunity to be raped is substantially improved if women travel to heavily men-only areas, if the ladies are into that...

Wang and many of her female classmates grew up with tutors and allowances, after-school classes and laptop computers. Though she is just one generation off the farm, she carries an iPad and a debit card, and shops for the latest fashions online.

Her purchases arrive at Tsinghua, where Wang's all-girls dorm used to be jokingly called a "Panda House," because women were so rarely seen on campus. They now make up a third of the student body, up from one-fifth a decade ago.

'Tens of millions of my sisters were exterminated, and.. I got into college and got an iPad!'

"In the past, girls were raised to be good wives and mothers," Fong said. "They were going to marry out anyway, so it wasn't a big deal if they didn't want to study."

Now actually it's the men who won't be burdened by hopes of marriage. Tens of millions of men will never have wives or children or families. This tends, of course, to make a society more stable and makes the few women left alive climbing the ladder of success so much safer.  Every girl wants to be surrounded by men with no roots and no hope and no women.

Not so anymore. Fong says today's urban Chinese parents "perceive their daughters as the family's sole hope for the future," and try to help them to outperform their classmates, regardless of gender.

When you've only got one kid because they strapped you to a table and killed your second kid and then sterilized you, you tend to view your first kid as your "family's sole hope for the future". You'd be right.

Some demographers argue that China's fertility rate would have fallen sharply even without the one-child policy because economic growth tends to reduce family size. In that scenario, Chinese girls may have gotten more access to education anyway, though the gains may have been more gradual.

Chinese girls would have been less likely to get iPads if there hadn't been so many forced abortions and infanticides.

Crediting the one-child policy with improving the lives of women is jarring,

I'm certainly jarred. I actually feel sick.

...given its history and how it's harmed women in other ways.

'Hold still, honey. Your second daughter will be dead in a moment, as soon as we can get the scissors in. This will help your first daughter get into college. What color iPad will she want?'

Facing pressure to stay under population quotas, overzealous family planning officials have resorted to forced sterilizations and late-term abortions, sometimes within weeks of delivery, although such practices are illegal.

'Overzealous final solution officials have resorted to gassing..." Don't you hate it when officials tasked with such enlightened policies get a bit too eager...

The birth limits are also often criticized for encouraging sex-selective abortions in a son-favoring society...

 'The Final Solution is often criticized for encouraging extermination of Jews in a non-Jew-favoring society...'

Chinese traditionally prefer boys because they carry on the family name and are considered better earners.

 Population officials had no way of knowing this before they instituted the policy...

With the arrival of sonogram technology in the 1980's, some families no longer merely hoped for a boy, they were able to engineer a male heir by terminating pregnancies when the fetus was a girl.

No, the male heir wasn't 'engineered'. He was conceived, born and cherished, unlike his sister. Killing one person isn't 'engineering' the survivor.

And how could the 'terminated fetus' be a "girl"? I thought that fetuses weren't human beings? Are there non-human girls?

"It is gendercide," said Therese Hesketh, a University College London professor who has studied China's skewed sex ratio. "I don't understand why China doesn't just really penalize people who've had sex-selective abortions and the people who do them.

I don't understand why China doesn't put population control officials and advocates on trial for genocide.

"The law exists but nobody enforces it."

Who would have thought that a law preventing the killing of girls in a boy-preferring society limited to one child per family might be ineffective? Population control officials have been such victims of the unexpected...

To combat the problem, China allows families in rural areas, where son preference is strongest, to have a second child if their first is a girl. The government has also launched education campaigns promoting girls and gives cash subsidies to rural families with daughters.

'You've got a daughter? Here's your complementary iPad.'

That'll help.

Still, 43 million girls have "disappeared" in China due to gender-selective abortion as well as neglect and inadequate access to health care and nutrition, the United Nations estimated in a report last year.

They didn't disappear. They were murdered. Every single one.

Yin Yin Nwe, UNICEF's representative to China, puts it bluntly: The one-child policy brings many benefits for girls "but they have to be born first."

"but they have to be born first."

Wang's birth in the spring of 1992 triggered a family rift that persists to this day. She was a disappointment to her father's parents, who already had one granddaughter from their eldest son. They had hoped for a boy.

"Everyone around us had this attitude that boys were valuable, girls were less," Gao Mingxiang, Wang's paternal grandmother, said by way of explanation — but not apology.

The One Child Policy markedly diminished the value of girls. But... I thought it was "a surprising boon for girls"...

Small and stooped, Gao perched on the edge of her farmhouse "kang," a heated brick platform that in northern Chinese homes serves as couch, bed and work area. She wore three sweaters, quilted pants and slippers.

Her granddaughter, tall and graceful and dressed in Ugg boots and a sparkly blue top, sat next to her listening, a sour expression on her face. She wasn't shy about showing her lingering bitterness or her eagerness to leave. She agreed to the visit to please her father but refused to stay overnight — despite a four-hour drive each way.

Fong, the Harvard researcher, says that many Chinese households are like this these days: a microcosm of third world and first world cultures clashing. The gulf between Wang and her grandmother seems particularly vast.

The grandaughter survived the lottery imposed by her grandmother's generation. Maybe she understands.

The 77-year-old Gao grew up in Yixian, a poor corn- and wheat-growing county in southern Liaoning province. At 20, she moved less than a mile (about a kilometer) to her new husband's house. She had three children and never dared to dream what life was like outside the village. She remembers rain fell in the living room and a cherished pig was sold, because there wasn't enough money for repairs or feed.

She relied on her daughter to help around the house so her two sons could study.

If she had killed her daughter, other girls could have gotten iPads. How selfish of her.

"Our kids understood," said Gao, her gray hair pinned back with a bobby pin, her skin chapped by weather, work and age. "All families around here were like that."

"..like that.." With girls and boys.

But Wang's mother, Zheng Hong, did not understand. She grew up 300 kilometers (185 miles) away in the steel-factory town of Benxi with two elder sisters and went to vocational college for manufacturing. She lowers her voice to a whisper as she recalls the sting of her in-law's rejection when her daughter was born.

"I sort of limited my contact with them after that," Zheng said. "I remember feeling very angry and wronged by them. I decided then that I was going to raise my daughter to be even more outstanding than the boys."

This is so inspiring. Maybe the One Child Policy wasn't so bad after all. Survivors Girls were raised to be even more outstanding... . I'm sure Jews after the Holocaust felt the same sense of fresh opportunity.

They named her Qihua, a pairing of the characters for chess and art — a constant reminder of her parents' hope that she be both clever and artistic.From the age of six, Wang was pushed hard, beginning with ping pong lessons. Competitions were coed, and she beat boys and girls alike, she said. She also learned classical piano and Chinese flute, practiced swimming and ice skating and had tutors for Chinese, English and math. During summer vacations, she competed in English speech contests and started using the name Mia.

In high school, Wang had cram sessions for China's college entrance exam that lasted until 10 p.m. Her mother delivered dinners to her at school. She routinely woke up at 6 a.m. to study before class.

I thought excellent scholarship in China was the fruit of culture. Now it seems to be the fruit of genocide. 'Study hard, Ming-Ling, you're a survivor...'

She had status and expectations her mother and grandmother never knew, a double-edged sword of pampering and pressure.

If she'd had a sibling or even the possibility of a sibling one day, the stakes might not have been so high, her studies not so intense.

Dead siblings are less of a distraction.

Beijing-based population expert Yang Juhua has studied enrollment figures and family size and determined that single children in China tend to be the best educated, while those with elder brothers get shortchanged. She was able to make comparisons because China has many loopholes to the one-child rule, including a few cities that have experimented with a two-child policy for decades.

How about a 'keep your totalitarian government out of my family' policy?

"Definitely single children are better off, particularly girls," said Yang,

Better off than dead children, to be sure.

...who works at the Center for Population and Development Studies at Renmin University. "If the girl has a brother then she will be disadvantaged. ... If a family has financial constraints, it's more likely that the educational input will go to the sons."

"Xiu, your dad and I are concerned about your sister's education. Kneel down here, and close your eyes... "

While her research shows clearly that it's better, education-wise, for girls to be single children, she favors allowing everyone two kids.

Isn't she generous. Ms. Himmler favors allowing us two kids.

"I do think the (one-child) policy has improved female well-being to a great extent,

I guess 40 million dead girls don't really have "un-well-being" because they no longer exist, so technically she's right.

...but most people want two children so their children can have somebody to play with while they're growing up," said Yang, who herself has a college-age daughter.

Right. Children are primarily valuable as playmates, as long as they don't interfere with their sister's education.

Ideally, she said, China should relax the policy while also investing more in education so that fewer families will be forced to choose which child to favor when it comes to schooling.

The policy-makers should be on trial in the Hague for genocide. Population control apologists should be shunned from civilized society.

While strides have been made in reaching gender parity in education, other inequalities remain.

So kill more women. It's worked well so far.

Women remain woefully underrepresented in government, have higher suicide rates than males, often face domestic violence and workplace discrimination and by law must retire at a younger age than men.

Women are killing themselves!  Wait!  That's the government's job...

It remains to be seen whether the new generation of degree-wielding women can alter the balance outside the classroom.

If they pile their dead sisters high enough, there's no limit to how high they can climb.

Some, like Wang, are already changing perceptions about what women can achieve.

She's a Chinese woman and is alive, for example.

When she dropped by her grandmother's house this spring, the local village chief came by to see her. She was a local celebrity: the first village descendent in memory to make it into Tsinghua University.

'We just wanted to see what a woman looked like...'

"Women today, they can go out and do anything," her grandmother said. "They can do big things."

Besides die.

Population control is pure evil. The Chinese One Child Policy is the most evil manifestation of this pure evil. This article, which highlights the 'positive' effects of genocide,  is the most disgusting article I have ever read.

A trifecta.

How did New Atheism evolve?

Where did New Atheism come from?

It's remarkable that evolutionary biologists (atheists) obsess about the evolutionary origins of religion, churning out fairy tale after fairy tale, in good evolutionary style.

But they never speculate about the evolutionary origin of atheism.  Curious, huh?

Well, I'm going to speculate. Not about atheism generally, but about New Atheism. And not about the evolutionary origin, which is b.s., but about the cultural origin, which is not b.s.

My observations:

Atheism has always been with us. In the West, there were classical atheists Diagorus, Democritous, Epicurus, Lucretious, etc. In the middle ages, few people openly espoused atheism, although there is no reason to believe that atheism didn't persist among a fringe, unspoken. In the early modern period, atheism became a lot more vocal (de Sade, the Jacobians, Feuerbach, Marx, etc.

Modern polls show that explicit atheist belief constitutes less than 5% of the public (in the US).  There are larger numbers who are practical atheists. They don't have organized beliefs that God does not exist. They merely live their lives without reference to Him.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that atheism as a coherent viewpoint is any more common today than it ever was. It is, and has always been, a fringe belief. Practical atheism may be on the rise, especially in the dying secular cultures of Europe.

Why does atheism, in the form of New Atheism, seem to be on the rise?

I suggest three reasons:

1) Actual coherent explicit atheist belief (ala Dawkins, etc) is not really on the rise. It is a fringe, and has always been. Practical atheism is on the rise. The reason is that modern amenities provide a remarkably effective cushion between us and the shocks our flesh is heir to. C.S. Lewis made this remarkable observation: for most of the history of man, religion was practiced in a world without anesthesia. The reality of life and death were inescapable. Pain and suffering at a level we cannot imagine were a normal part of life. Infected tooth: pull it out with pliers. Injured leg: cut it off with a saw. No novocain, no anesthesia. Get appendicitis? You die, in about a week, in unspeakable agony.

Modern medicine provides us with the opportunity to live our lives without significant pain. We are born, live, and die in an anesthetic cocoon. Why bother thinking about ultimate reality, when we have Vicodin, Prosac and Valium? Practical atheism is now, for the first time, a real option. Aldous Huxley understood.

2) Science has been hijacked by atheists as a new religion. Unreflective people can accept the assertion that 'science explains everything. Why do we need God?' Of course, this viewpoint is stupid. Science is the methodological exploration of nature, whereas religion is the exploration of ultimate reality.  Science is not philosophy; it cannot explain itself. It cannot explain ultimate origins. It cannot explain 'ought'; it can only explain 'is', and even that only in a limited way. Scientism is perhaps the second most idiotic philosophical error of modern times. It is ubiquitous among atheists, who are devotees of the most idiotic philosophical error.

3) New atheists have more outlets for their view than atheists had in the past. Any crank can have a blog (I know.. I know.. I have a blog..), and it's a safe bet that 99% of the New Atheists today would never have had a public forum for their nonsense before the internet and the explosion in information in the public sphere. Crazy stuff sells. P.Z. Myers' bigoted rants attract a massive audience. A fraud like Dawkins who tried to peddle his ignorant elementary-school disproofs of God's existence at Oxford several centuries ago would have been kicked out, not for irreligion, but for incompetence.

Today, incompetence has a market.

That's all for now. Writing too much about atheists at a time gives me a headache. I'll discuss other reasons for the apparent rise of New Atheism if I think of any.

Techne's questions for Coyne and Dawkins about Natural Selection:

Commentor Techne has a superb post on Natural Selection on Telic Thoughts:

An Open Letter to Professors Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins on the Nature of Natural Selection

by Techne

To Professors Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins,

The concept of natural selection on the surface seems to be a rather simple concept to grasp and you both have explained the concept in your respective writings. I have a few question regarding your views about the nature of natural selection, questions that I feel are not explicitly answered or addressed in your various writings. I have four basic questions, each with their own subset of questions:

1) Is natural selection a prescriptive or descriptive term?

2) Is natural selection a mechanism?

3) Is natural selection a cause or a force?

4) Is natural selection a process or an outcome?

Good questions, all. Although Darwinists assert that natural selection is a central mechanism/cause/force in evolution, its surprising how evasive they can be when asked deeper questions about selection.

Question 1: Prescriptive or Descriptive?

Do you view natural selection as prescriptive whereby natural selection is a cause or a force that "guides" the interaction or change of traits of biological entities, it "maintains" the prevalence of beneficial mutations, or "limits" or "favours" some variations over other variations, or "steers" biological change toward the local maxima in the "fitness landscape". On this view natural selection is an agent (albeit impersonal and blind, as in non-directional) that causally influences biological change by “maintaining” or “favouring” or “producing fitter” biological entities etc.

Agency means capacity to act as a cause of change in something else. Agents are things-- people, planets, rocks, animals, etc.  For example, if you are hit by an out-of-control red truck, you are hit by the truck, not by the 'out-of-control' and not by the 'red'.

Change in things is caused by things, not by ideas or by properties.

Natural selection is defined as 'differential reproductive success in a population'. There are variants on this definition, but all variants preserve the implicit assertion that natural selection is an effect of adaptive causes. Change in population is caused by things-- predators, reproductive organs of varying effectiveness, muscles of various strength and speed, etc. Only things can have agency and cause change. An animal attacked by an angry brown bear is attacked by the bear, not by the 'angry' and not by the 'brown'.

But 'differential reproductive success in a population' is an effect of agents, not an agent itself. An idea or an observation is not an agent.

Do you view natural selection as a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits

Techne notes that natural selection is a description-- an observation-- of change, not an agent or cause of change.

So what is natural selection?

More to come.

Blessed Mother Theresa

Marcia Morrissey at Patheos with a lovely tribute to Mother Theresa:

Bl. Teresa: A Light in Darkness, Shining Bright

Decades of spiritual dryness did not stop Mother Teresa from believing and moving forward.

By Marcia Morrissey, September 01, 2011

September 5 will be the anniversary of the 1997 death of Blessed Theresa of Calcutta. I always admired her work with the poorest of the poor. I grew up looking through the missionary magazines my grandparents had on their coffee table. They made an impression on me even as a small girl, and ever since then I have had a heart for missionaries.

When Ed and I began working with Marriage Encounter, we learned that Mother Teresa had met with a group of supporters from around the country in the dormitory buildings we leased for our organization. She had been there twice—in June of 1982, and again in 1984.

I spoke to Jerry, who—with his wife Marilyn—worked with Marriage Encounter from the early days and were privileged to meet Mother Theresa when she visited. His impression of her was that she was tiny, very friendly, and a hugger. She also was firmly in charge of what was happening. She was no pushover for a documentary crew that was following her around on her trip.

I started to think of her as our organization's unofficial "patron saint" and an inspiration for our mission helping marriages. I began to read as much as I could about her life and work. The more I learned about this tiny, tough and courageous nun, the more I appreciated her, and she became a personal model for me, in what God called me to do in my own life. Especially inspiring to me is one of her most famous quotes: "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love."

Born in Albania, she became a citizen of India. A Catholic nun, she felt her calling was to the world: "As to my heart, I belong entirely to the heart of Jesus."

She had a burning love for Christ, and all she wanted was, "To quench His desire for love and for souls." I've heard that in her chapels, next to the cross there is a plaque that says, "I thirst."

At 18, she joined the sisters of Loreto, and—desiring to become a missionary—left for India, to teach at a girl's school. For the first 20 years of her life as a nun, she happily served as a teacher, and later as the school's principal. She was known for her prayer life, love for her fellow Sisters and students, charity, courage, and hard work.

It was during a train ride from Calcutta to Darjeeling, for her annual retreat, that Teresa received her "inspiration," her "call within a call." She felt the Lord directing her, giving her a burning desire to satiate His thirst for love for all humanity, especially for the poor who didn't know of His love for them. It became the force of her life's work.

After almost 2 years of prayer, testing and discernment she was given permission to leave her convent to go out to minister to the poor, the sick, orphans, and the dying in the slums of Calcutta. Wearing her now famous white and blue-boarded sari she went out to find and serve Him in "the unwanted, unloved, uncared-for." After a few months she was joined by some of her former students.

On October 7, 1950 the Congregation of the Missionaries of Charity became officially established. Her work spread and expanded throughout the whole world, and not only to religious congregations, but even a lay apostolate—Co-workers of Mother Theresa—people of many faiths and nationalities, who shared her passion and heart for service to the sick and suffering.

She saw the face of God in every person, and in turn showed His sacrificial love for each soul.

A couple of weeks ago at a pro-life event I attended, a Priest told of working with her sisters and the poor they cared for. He said that he cleaned their toilets, helped care for the sick, and comforted the dying. Some fought and stole from each other because that was how they knew how to survive. The sisters would show them sacrificial love, and through their example over time they would respond to that love they never felt before.

Only after her death was it discovered that she suffered from what she called her "darkness," the "painful night" of her soul. She walked by faith even though she didn't "feel" God. She believed and gave her life over to Him in spite of this inner "darkness" and feeling of separation, which led her to an ever-deeper unity with Him. She experienced His thirst and desire for love so she could identify with the poor who felt unloved and unwanted: "The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread."

She faithfully and tirelessly worked for God, trusting that He was there even though she often didn't feel His presence. She took by faith, not by feelings or emotional experiences, the work she was called by Him to do.

She lived the verse, "We walk by faith not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

I have a special respect and love for Mother Theresa. The story of the "Saint of the Gutters" has always inspired me. She earned the moniker because she would search the gutters of Calcutta for the destitute and the dying, and bring them to her shelter. If she could nurse them to health, she would. If she couldn't save them, she would stay with them, so they wouldn't die alone.  She would care for anyone who was destitute, sick, or abandoned. Her answer to abortion was simple: 'Give the babies to me'.

She had a long and very difficult 'dark night of the soul', as many deeply holy people do. The dark night has been known by Christian mystics for many centuries, and was described most beautifully by St. John of the Cross and by St. Theresa of Avila, his spiritual counselor and friend, in the 16th century. 

Contemplatives understand the dark night as the clearing from the soul of human impressions about God, so God Himself may enter. We ordinary Christians understand God in necessarily superficial ways. When a soul gets near to God, these superficial understandings impede our direct experience of God, and need to be purged, so Reality can enter. It is a painful process, and it feels like abandonment and loss of faith. Yet it culminates in a union with God. 

St John of the Cross-- the greatest Spanish poet-- wrote about the dark night and the union of the soul with God:

Once in a dark of night, 

Inflamed with love and wanting, I arose

(O coming of delight!)

And went, as no one knows, 

When all my house lay long in deep repose

All in the dark went right,

Down secret steps, disguised in other clothes, 

(O coming of delight!)

In dark when no one knows, 

When all my house lay long in deep repose.

And in the luck of night

In secret places where no other spied 

I went without my sight

Without a light to guide

Except the heart that lit me from inside.

It guided me and shone

Surer than noonday sunlight over me,

And lead me to the one

Whom only I could see

Deep in a place where only we could be.

O guiding dark of night!

O dark of night more darling than the dawn!

O night that can unite

A lover and loved one,

A lover and loved one moved in unison.

And on my flowering breast

Which I had kept for him and him alone 

He slept as I caressed

And loved him for my own,

Breathing an air from redolent cedars blown.

And from the castle wall 

The wind came down to winnow through his hair

Bidding his fingers fall,

Searing my throat with air

And all my senses were suspended there. 

I stayed there to forget.

There on my lover, face to face, I lay.

All ended, and I let

My cares all fall away

Forgotten in the lilies on that day.

Blessed Mother Theresa-- hopefully St. Mother Theresa soon!-- is now with God, all her cares fallen away. May we follow her in service and spirit.

Atheism is never having to say you're sorry

Commentor oleg's got his panties in a bunch:

1. You [must] apologize for calling me a thug. Which I am not.

Actually, I didn't single him out as a thug. I called all atheists thugs, at least the ones who censor, intimidate, etc. Seems pretty obvious.

If oleg believes in freedom of speech, and abhors atheists' efforts to censor criticism of their creation myth (Darwin's theory) in public schools, and abhors atheists' censorship of public prayer at high school graduation ceremonies and censorship of any expression of religious belief in a public forum (they only seem to censor expressions of Christianity), I'll be delighted to walk back my assertion that he is a thug. Oddly, I haven't heard oleg express committment to these rudimentary defenses of freedom. If I've missed them, he should let me know.

Amusingly, oleg (inadvertently of course) brings up another matter in which atheists are worthy of ridicule. I've written a recent post on determinism and free will, and it's a chortle to apply atheist arguments to oleg's pout.

Atheism, in modern form, is essentially philosophical naturalism, which is  a viewpoint nearly always accompanied by determinism.

Determinism is the view that we have no libertarian free will. All of our "choices" are illusory. We are material bodies in a material universe. Our acts are all determined by our material history-- laws of nature, chance events, etc. We have no genuine freedom.

Of course, oleg's request for an apology presumes two things:

1) I could have chosen not to call oleg a thug. But atheism/determinism denies that I had a libertarian choice.

2) I could choose to apologize. But I have no choice to do so. I'm determined by material processes. Que sera, sera.

Of course, nobody really believes that crap. Not even atheists. But it's part of the liturgy. Until someone calls you a name.

Atheists have three consistent characteristics:

1)  Philosophical stupidity, to the point of ceaseless self-refutation.

2)  Inveterate propensity to the use of censorship and force.

3)  Oleaginous sense of victimhood. Which is odd for an ideological cult whose only unique contributions to human affairs have been the Reign of Terror, the Gulag, the Killing Fields, and the governing institutions of North Korea.

People have been so mean to atheists!

But heck, oleg, I can't apologize to you. For anything. How can a chemistry set apologize to a meat robot? Can litmus paper apologize for turning blue? Can baking soda apologize to vinegar for making a salt ('I'm sorry.... that was so base of me')?

And atheists assert that there is no objective moral law with a Source independent of man. Morality is merely subjective opinion, you say. To what objective standard of morality would I appeal in my apology?

And how can I apologize if I have no free will? Everything I do is caused by laws of physics. I can't choose to apologize, any more than I chose to call you a thug. Free will is an illusion.

Which all works out well for atheists, in the larger sense. If atheists had to apologize for atheism, they would do nothing but apologize. Merely apologizing for Dawkins' chapter on the cosmological argument in the God Delusion would take centuries. '...forgive me for mangling logic...'. That's why atheists don't have confessionals.

Can you imagine apologizing for Stalin?

But don't trouble yourself, oleg, with apologies for state atheism or apologies for atheism's mangling of philosophy and ethics. Your own ideology insulates you from accountability.

Atheism is never having to say you're sorry.