Follow the Money

Despite his expressed desire to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" it's not likely that President Obama is as concerned about taxing the rich as he is about taxing the middle class. He won't say this, of course, because he promised during his campaign never to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, but taxing the middle class is the necessary consequence of his refusal to cut spending. If we're going to pay our bills we have to get the money from the people who have it, and that's the middle class, as this graph from an article at the Wall Street Journal shows.

The Journal editorial explains why taxing the rich will not produce the revenue needed to close the deficit. Here's the core of their argument:

A dominant theme of President Obama's budget speech last Wednesday was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest Americans were asked "to pay a little more." Since he's asking, imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%.

Let's stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don't need any more ideas. But it's still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that's where the big money is.

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners. The above chart shows the distribution, and the big hump in the center is where Democrats are inevitably headed for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.

Mr. Obama is turning as he did last week to limiting tax deductions and other "loopholes," such as for mortgage interest payments. We support doing away with these distortions too, and so does Mr. Ryan, but in return for lower tax rates. Mr. Obama just wants the extra money, which he says will reduce the deficit but in practice will merely enable more spending.

Mr. Ryan isn't proposing controversial entitlement reforms because he likes pointless political risk, or because he likes being berated to his face from a front row seat, as he was on Wednesday. Medicare and Medicaid spending are consistently growing two to three times faster than the rest of the economy, while Medicare's cash-in-cash-out financing model means that seniors collect far more in benefits than they paid in taxes over their working lifetime. The entitlement state was designed for another era.

Mr. Obama's speech was disgraceful for its demagoguery but also because it contained nothing remotely commensurate to the scale of the problem. If the President had come out for a large tax on the middle class, like a VAT, then at least the country could have debated the choice of paying for the government we have or modernizing it a la Mr. Ryan so it is affordable.

Instead the President will continue targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state on autopilot, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.

And another campaign promise will be flushed down the memory hole.

Waiting for Superman

Last month when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was being raked over the coals because his budget reform plan would weaken public employees unions, including teachers' unions, Democrats in the state legislature and in the media were firmly on the side of the unions. They couldn't say enough good things about the job that teachers' unions were doing for the children of Wisconsin and how reprehensible Walker was for wanting to limit their ability to extort the Wisconsin taxpayers.

It was jarring, then, to say the least, when over the weekend I watched Waiting for Superman, a documentary on how awful our public schools are, particularly our urban schools. As I recall, WFS was highly acclaimed on all sides when it was released last year, but everything that the film showed to be wrong with our schools and everything that it recommended as a means to fix them is opposed tooth and nail by liberals in Congress and the media.

According to WFS, a film which every prospective teacher and parent really should watch, our schools went from the best in the world fifty or sixty years ago to among the worst in the developed world today. Why?

There are a number of reasons, of course, more, in fact, than what WFS talked about, but the chief reasons the film brought out are certainly at the top of the list. Schools today are failing our kids not because we're not spending enough money on them but primarily because teachers' unions, and the Democrat politicians they have bought and paid for, have made reform almost impossible.

They've made it incredibly difficult, for example, to remove an underperforming teacher from the classroom, and they oppose the one hope that many poor kids have of escaping the abysmal schools they're forced to attend - school choice. Private and charter schools are succeeding, according to the film, because they can fire poor teachers, extend the length of both the school day and the school year, and demand more from their students in terms of discipline and study. None of this is ever likely to happen in the regular public school. The film didn't mention it, but another thing private schools can do is remove discipline problems from the school environment, a measure which is necessary to creating a positive learning environment, but one which regular public schools either can't take or won't take.

A remarkable irony of the film is that some of the people arguing for reform, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and Bill Gates of Microsoft, support a party and a president adamantly opposed to any meaningful reform. Together they refuse to provide these kids with the means to escape bad schools, refuse to act to allow districts to get rid of poor teachers, and who believe the solution to failing schools is to simply throw yet more money and more bureaucrats at the problems.

At the end of the film we get to sit in on several lotteries taking place around the country in which children are selected to attend charter and private schools. Often there are hundreds of applicants for just a few dozen openings. The looks of desperation on the faces of both the kids and their parents is heart-breaking. Watching them get passed over is like watching them being given a death sentence, which, in a sense, it is.

President Obama, however, is unmoved by their plight, captive as he is to the teachers' unions. Early in his administration he canceled a scholarship program which gave District of Columbia kids the wherewithal to attend private schools like the one to which the Obamas send their own daughters (the Republicans are going to try to restore this program now that they're in the majority in the House), and later his Elementary and Secondary Education Act eliminated school choice options that were in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.

It became very clear, as I watched Waiting For Superman, that the biggest impediment to meaningful school reform, the biggest obstacle to giving these poor kids a chance at a decent life, is the alliance between the President, congressional Democrats, and the leadership of the teachers' unions.

In fact, if the film weren't an hour and forty minutes long it'd be a great campaign commercial for the Republicans in 2012. Watch it and ask yourself whether you think the people who make it so hard for these children to get a decent education really are the champions of the poor or whether they're just the champions of the status quo.

Budget Battle Irony

There are a number of ironies attending to the budget debates that are swirling around Washington these days. One that I find particularly piquant is that many of the people who are most vociferous in condemning Congressional Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's 2012 proposal as being insufficiently compassionate toward the poor and the elderly are themselves Darwinian materialists.

Now they may not think of themselves in those terms, but that's essentially what they are, at least some of them, particularly those who write for the lefty journals and blogs.

So what's the irony, you ask? Well, on what grounds does a Darwinian materialist criticize anyone for being uncaring toward the poor and the elderly? What reason would a Darwinian give for caring about how these folks get by? Why would a Darwinian think we should not see the poor and the elderly as mere extraneous biological burdens who should be left to fend for themselves in the universal struggle for survival?

Indeed, good liberal progressives of a century ago thought exactly this, which is why they were so fond of eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia. Abortion was seen by the progressives who founded Planned Parenthood as a way to cull out the feeble and inferior, particularly among the minority races. Eugenics was popular among progressives until Hitler gave it a bad name in the forties and forced its votaries to mute their enthusiasm for it.

The next time those who wish to change the way we help the less fortunate are criticized for their "lack of compassion toward the poor" perhaps we might ask the critic to explain the reasons why he/she thinks we should be helping the "unfit" survive in the first place. Unless the person is a theist, their awkwardness in honestly answering the question should be amusing.

Who Pays Taxes

Economist Stephen Moore edifies those of us interested in the raging budget debate by offering some facts about taxes:

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent — those below the median income level — now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

This is interesting because we're constantly told that we need to tax the rich as if the wealthy aren't paying any taxes.

What income demarcates the top 1%, 5%, etc.? It turns out that to be in the top 1% you needed to make $380,000 in 2008. The top 5% earned $160,000 or more and $114,000 put you in the top 10%.

If you made less than $33,000 you were in the bottom 50% and paid almost no income taxes. In other words, only half the wage earners in this country are paying taxes.

The President wants the top 2% to pay their "fair share", but what is their fair share? They already provide over 40% of the income tax revenue to the treasury. How much more should they have to pay? Here's another question Mr. Obama should answer: How much could taxes go up before no more revenue would flow into the treasury? Raising the top rates does not increase revenue and often depresses it, so what's the point?

The problem, as the Republicans repeat like a mantra, is not that we need more taxation. Raising taxes stifles job creation and generates very little revenue. What we need is less government spending, but cutting spending will hurt social programs, we're told.

So what's the implicit assumption in this claim? Is it not that 5% of the people in this country should have to carry the other 95%? Is that just? And what's going to happen to those social programs anyway when the wagon gets so heavy that the top 5% can no longer pull it? The attempt to sustain these programs at current levels while taxing the top earners even more will guarantee that the programs will collapse under their own weight.

Raising taxes is a myopic pseudo-solution that should disqualify anyone who proposes it from being taken seriously.

Craig vs. Harris

Last weekend William Lane Craig debated Sam Harris, one of the leading lights of the New Atheist movement, on the question whether there can be ethics without God. Harris' position is interesting in that, though he's an atheist, he's not a relativist or subjectivist. In fact, he spends much of his first address in the debate pressing his considerable rhetorical skills into the service of criticizing relativism. Nevertheless, Harris' reluctance to embrace subjectivism comes under Craig's scrutiny and during the course of the nine-part video of the debate Harris' position just unravels.

In fact, by his second address Harris was left with no response to Craig's challenge to explain the ground upon which he based his ethical views so he retreated to more familiar terrain, launching a philippic against religion in general and Christianity in particular. He spent much time on the ethical shortcomings of the Bible and expatiated on the problem of evil, all of which were, unfortunately for him, irrelevant to the debate. Harris, in effect, switched the topic from whether God is necessary for moral good and evil to the question whether the Biblical concept of God is morally tenable - an interesting question, to be sure, but not germane to the topic of the evening.

Even so, Craig did a good job of holding Harris' feet to the fire. It's an enlightening debate and one from which much can be learned about the problem that moral obligation poses for the thoughtful atheist who wishes to avoid nihilism.

Gay History

Their state teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, many of their most productive citizens and businesses are fleeing in search of economically friendlier climes, and the California state senate is darn serious about the crisis they find themselves in. To show just how serious they are and how well-ordered are their priorities they've just passed a measure requiring public schools to teach gay history:

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies lessons under a landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate.

If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history.

Supporters say the move is needed to counter anti-gay stereotypes and beliefs that make children in those groups vulnerable to bullying and suicide.

Opponents counter that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote. It also would add disabled people to the curriculum.

California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor.

In California one must always offer proper obeisance to the gods of political correctness, I suppose. It's an interesting exercise, though, to wonder what would happen if a lawmaker proposed teaching, say, Christian history and/or Christian contributions to Western civilization. Surely such a bill is needed to counter anti-Christian stereotypes and beliefs that make children in those groups "vulnerable to bullying and ridicule".

I doubt that argument would have much purchase in that context, though. Perhaps if it was a course on Gay Christianity it'd have a chance.

Classless Act

Victor Davis Hanson marvels at how anyone, let alone a president, can say one thing one day and the opposite thing the next with as much ease as does Mr. Obama. Speaking of yesterday's dressing down Mr. Obama gave to his political opposition in the GOP Hanson notes that:

The president gave the sort of scare speech he not long ago warned against, and blasted the income-tax rates he not long ago agreed were necessary — in a context in which he has just presented a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit of the sort he now says is unsustainable, and has warned about recklessly voting against raising the debt ceiling in a fashion that he himself had once done, in a larger landscape in which he had once damned attacking Middle East countries in optional wars, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, intercepts, wiretaps, Predators, and leaving troops in Iraq, and then embraced or expanded all that and more (this list is infinite and includes everything from drilling to campaign financing to earmarks).

Hanson offers five alternative explanations for Mr. Obama's detachment from his previous firmly-held positions and declarations. Any or all of the five may be true, but there are other possibilities as well, none of them pleasant to consider, implying as they do that the president has a tenuous acquaintance with the importance of truth, and a moral character sufficiently protean that it can adapt itself to every exigency.

Anyway, check it out at the link.

Meanwhile, the esteemed Charles Krauthammer declares that the President's speech was "a disgrace".

Krauthammer has a point in more ways than he articulates in the brief segment at the link. The President invited Paul Ryan, the architect of the GOP budget proposal, to attend the speech and sit in the front row. Then Mr. Obama pretty much imputed the basest of motives to Mr. Ryan in front of a national audience, accusing him (though not by name - at least he observed that decency) of, among other things, wanting to throw grandparents into the street and abandoning autistic children. This ugly display, as short on honesty as it was on class, besmirched both himself and the office Mr. Obama occupies.

Mika Brzezinski liked it, though, which is not surprising, even if her rationale is:

There's much more commentary on Mr. Obama's speech and the disconcerting direction in which he seems to be determined to take this country at National Review Online.

Morally Stunted

Dennis Prager over at National Review Online shares some thoughts on the media silence about the Muslim murders of United Nations workers in Afghanistan ostensibly motivated by the burning of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones. Prager goes on to point out the absurdity of some of the liberal-left reaction to this crime, taking Time magazine's Joe Klein as a typical example:

Joe Klein, political commentator for Time magazine, morally equated Terry Jones and the Afghan murderers: “There should be no confusion about this: Jones’s act was as murderous as any suicide bomber’s.”

Anyone with common sense knows that there is no moral equivalence between destroying a book, no matter how holy, and destroying a human life. So how does one explain Joe Klein’s statement?

Klein is a leftist, and his comment embodies two aspects of the contemporary Left.

One is the Left’s hard time identifying and confronting real evil.

Instead of focusing on Islamism, the Left focuses on small evils like alleged pay gaps between men and women working at the same job, or on non-evils such as carbon-dioxide emissions. Or they engage in moral equivalence: The Muslim murderers are no worse than Terry Jones.

The other characteristic of the Left embodied in Klein’s statement is what George W. Bush called the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” It is clear that Klein has contempt for Muslims. If Christians had slaughtered innocents because of Piss Christ, it would never have occurred to Klein to write “There should be no confusion about this: Serrano’s act was as murderous as any slaughtering Christian’s.”

With Islamism dominating major parts of the Muslim world, and leftism dominating much of the non-Muslim world, these are not the best of times.

The inability or unwillingness to hold everyone to the same moral standard is a trait of those who don't think seriously about moral justice. They use moral judgments as an ideological club with which to beat their opponents over the head but are not really interested in an equitable distribution of those judgments.

Anyone who draws an equivalence between what Terry Jones did and what those Afghan Muslims did is morally stunted. The same might be said of anyone who condemns Jones but is silent about "art" that desecrates that which Christians hold sacred.

Both of these kinds of people suffer, perhaps, from what might be called moral Stockholm syndrome. Fearful of their intimidators they supinely seek to ingratiate themselves into their good graces by rationalizing their behavior and despising that which their intimidators despise. It's as ugly as it is cowardly.

Atheism and Nihilism

Ethan links us to this video in which the narrator makes the case that an intellectually honest atheist should be a nihilist. He is, of course, correct:

Here's the problem for the atheist:

If there is no God then there are no moral duties. Most atheists, however, believe there are moral duties and objective moral values. But they can't have it both ways. Either they should give up their belief in moral duties and objective moral values (and with it any grounds for making moral judgments of any behavior other than their own) or they should give up their atheism and acknowledge that there must be a personal, transcendent moral authority which grounds all moral duties and values.

To continue in their atheism while making moral judgments - such as oppression is evil, capitalism is bad, war is immoral, or child abuse is morally abhorrent - is to abandon their commitment to the life of reason. It's surely an odd choice for people who pride themselves on being more rational than those gullible, superstitious theists.

An Atheist Defends Himself, Sort Of (Pt. II)

Yesterday I reviewed a post by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss in which he sought to bolster the case he had made against William Lane Craig in a debate last week on the topic Is There Evidence for the Existence of God? I'd like to finish this critique today.

The fourth argument Craig offered as evidence that God exists was based on the fine-tuning of the universe. The fact that many of the constants, forces, and parameters of the universe are set with a precision so exact that they point to a purposeful architecture woven into the structure of the world. Had any of these values deviated by the most unimaginably tiny amount a universe capable of sustaining life would never have existed.

Krauss' response is to point out that not everything is fine-tuned and that even if it were maybe the universe evolved by a kind of natural selection (how such an extraordinary process could have applied to the universe he leaves for us to figure out) or maybe there's an infinite number of worlds (a multiverse) in which at least one world would have to have the properties ours does no matter how improbable that may seem. He offers lots of mights and maybes, but none of this is a rebuttal of Craig's claim that cosmic fine-tuning counts as evidence for the existence of God. The fact that there are other possible explanations for cosmic fine-tuning does not nullify the claim that such mathematical exactitude is an indicator, though not a proof, of intelligent agency.

Moreover, what we know of the universe suggests that it's the only one around, there's no significant empirical evidence that there are other universes, and our universe certainly seems to be engineered to harbor intelligent beings such as ourselves. Thus, Krauss's response is irrelevant. What he must show is that either there is no fine-tuning or that, if there is, it does not constitute evidence of intelligence. He does neither.

Craig's final argument was based on miracles, specifically the miracle of Jesus' resurrection. Krauss calls this argument "so sloppy and fatuous that in an effort to demonstrate some margin of respect for Craig I tried to avoid it for as long as I could." Perhaps, but when he does finally address it he never explains to us exactly why it's "sloppy and fatuous".

All he does is observe that lots of people don't believe it happened, and that it's more probable that it didn't happen than that it did. How he knows this is beyond me, but evidently he does. Craig, on the other hand, argued that one of the reasons accounts of the Resurrection are credible is that people who were in a position to know the facts were willing to die rather than recant their claim that it happened. Krauss scoffs at this argument:

[T]he remarkable, and completely trite claim that the fact the Christians were willing to die for their beliefs demonstrates the validity of these beliefs would be laughable, if it weren't so pitiful. Especially, as I indicated during the event, in light of the fact that people were recently willing to fly planes into skyscrapers because of their beliefs in a religious framework that I know Craig has openly disavowed.

Throughout history people have been willing to die for their beliefs, and it is often the beliefs one is willing to die for that are most suspect. Did Roman soldiers believe in Romulus and Remus. Did Viking warriers [sic] believe in Thor. Did Nazi soldiers believe in the superiority of the Aryan race. I found and still find Craig's statement not only facile, and not even worthy of a high school debater, but I find the claim offensive.

The awkward syntax aside, I think what Krauss writes is kind of embarrassing, actually. Craig's point is not that the early believers were prepared to die for a conviction that they believed to be true, but rather that if the Resurrection didn't happen they would have known that it didn't happen and yet they were prepared to die for a belief they would have known to be false. Many people will die for what they falsely believe to be true, but who would die for what one truly knows to be false? The examples Krauss adduces don't address this question at all.

Finally, a word about Krauss' tone. His post at Pharyngula was laced with potshots at Craig's integrity, ability, and sincerity. Here's a montage of his insults and condescensions:

Craig is aware, from his superficial reading of cosmology, of fine tuning problems in Cosmology.... All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects. I found Craig to be lacking in both of the qualities during his discussion of this issue....Once again this is simple minded....As I tried to explain to Craig....Craig doesn't understand the physics.... including a typically disingenuous email from Wiliam Lane Craig to his followers regarding a debate I had with him in North Carolina last week....I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect....I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be....Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig's continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God....Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted....What I hoped I could convey to the truly open minded intellects in the audience, of which of course Craig was not one....Craig's rather monotonous repetition of his syllogisms, is indeed intellectually lazy.

Why do people choose to insult, patronize and demean those with whom they disagree? Perhaps it's a compensatory mechanism, employed particularly by those who realize that their arguments are not very persuasive and that the other fellow's are. They realize that they're looking bad to the audience, and their wounded ego causes them to lash out at the person responsible. If one's opponent can't be beaten intellectually then perhaps tearing him down personally with innuendo, scorn, and aspersions will diminish him in the eyes of those within earshot. Maybe that's what motivated Krauss but I hope not. It's a pretty sophomoric motivation.

If ad hominem is what wins arguments then Krauss certainly won. If it's organization, articulate presentation, preparation, strength of argument, and logic which prevails in a debate then he lost big. And I think he knows it.

Atlas Shrugged

Coming April 15th.

I don't know what it's rated, or if it's well-made, or whether the producers will seek to glamorize Ayn Rand's insufferable egoism, militant anti-Christian atheism, or sexual libertinism, but if they stick to the political message of the novel it could be a blockbuster.

Thanks to Jason for the link.

An Atheist Defends Himself, Sort Of (Pt. I)

Sensing, perhaps, that his performance in his debate against William Lane Craig last week left his fans and other atheists a bit dispirited Lawrence Krauss has posted a retrospective piece on the atheist/evolution blog Pharyngula in which he spends a lot of time insulting his opponent and some time saying what he wishes he had said during the debate. Having read his further ruminations I have to say I don't think they would have helped him against Craig. For all his accomplishments as a cosmologist Krauss just seems unable to understand the arguments Craig proffered in defense of the debate topic Is There Evidence for the Existence of God?

I'll consider a few examples today and tomorrow of how his clarification falls as flat as his original presentation. Craig presented five propositions which, he argued, constituted evidence (not proof) that God existed. Given the debate topic, Craig technically didn't even have to offer good evidence, although his five examples were, I thought, pretty good.

Craig's first argument was that the universe had a beginning and that whatever comes into being has a cause. Krauss' rejoinder is that, well, there are lots of mights and maybes that the universe didn't actually have a beginning. It could be eternal. That's possible, of course, though there's a lot of evidence that it did come into being in a primal explosion called the Big Bang in which case there's a lot of evidence that the universe has a cause of its existence, and evidence for a cause of the universe, it's reasonable to think, is evidence for the claim that God exists.

The second argument is that contingent entities like the universe require a necessary entity for their existence. Contingent entities are those, like you and me and your computer and your car, whose existence depends in some way upon something else. Ultimately, whatever is responsible for the existence of the entire series of contingent things must itself depend upon nothing else for its existence. Thus ultimately the universe, which it is reasonable to believe is contingent, must depend upon something which itself depends upon nothing else for its existence, i.e. something very like God.

Krauss' response is to aver that earthquakes and snowflakes can be explained without introducing God, so perhaps the same applies to the universe. This completely misses the point. The fact that some contingent things are the cause of other contingent things doesn't mean that an ultimate explanation of the totality of contingent things need not be a necessary being. The existence of contingent things is evidence for the existence of a necessary thing or being, which is how God is, in part, defined.

Craig's third argument is that the existence of objective moral duties requires a transcendent moral authority. Krauss replies by iterating a version of the Euthyphro dilemma (ED) as a rebuttal. However, the ED, despite its long pedigree, fails as an argument against the point Craig is making. It would take up too much space to go into here, but the interested reader can check here for more on the dilemma.

Krauss then adds this:

Lastly, if there is evidence that God provides absolute morality, it is missing from the world of our experience, where different religious groups, all of whom claim divine inspiration, have incompatible moral views, often leading to horrendous and violent acts against women and children, for example. Indeed, the Old Testament is full of such acts.

None of this is relevant. The point is not that if God exists everyone who believes in Him will know and do what's right. Rather the point is that unless there's a God there's simply nothing that is moral or immoral. There are just things that people do. As Craig would say, Krauss is confusing moral epistemology (i.e. knowledge of what's right) with moral ontology (the existence of moral right). Craig's argument is that since atheists do believe there are some things, like child abuse, that are absolutely and objectively wrong, they're either being irrational in denying God or tacitly conceding that there is a God.

More tomorrow.

Evolving Doubts about Evolution

The number of biologists who are beginning to think that Darwin got it at least partly wrong continues to swell. Lyn Margulis is a prominent scientist who has had doubts for some time and expresses them in a recent piece in Discover Magazine which Jonathan M. discusses at Uncommon Descent.

In the interview Margulis says the following:

All scientists agree that evolution has occurred...The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution?...This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection....Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create....I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence....There is no gradualism in the fossil record....‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity....The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific....The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web....

Prof. Margulis is correct that ID advocates can't explain how an intelligent agent might have engineered life, but I don't see why that should be an impediment to believing that one did. There are lots of things, after all, that scientists believe even if they can't explain how those phenomena came to be. For example, no one can explain how an electron can be in two places at the same time when it's not being observed, or how the universe came into being out of nothing, or how the material brain produces the sensations of color and flavor, etc., or how matter generates gravity, or how magnets repel, or how radioactive decay occurs, and on and on. Nevertheless, despite our inability to explain how these phenomena happen, scientists all believe they do.

The same is true with the origin and diversity of life. It may be that we'll never know exactly how life was originally created, but that's no reason to doubt that it somehow required intelligent input.

Put another way, if the first astronauts to land on the moon had found an American flag already there, they may have had no idea how it could have happened, but that doesn't mean they would doubt that it was placed there by an intelligent agent. They wouldn't think that it was the product of a chance accident of some sort.

It'd be foolish to resist believing that an intelligent agent was responsible for the flag being there just because we cannot explain how the agent did it. Likewise, so much of life points beyond chance to intelligent agency that it's foolish to rule this possibility out simply because no one knows how the agent would, or could, have acted.

I'm reminded of the wise words of William James who wrote that "a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth, if these kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule."

So it would.

Buy a Hybrid

Mark Steyn has a funny column over at National Review Online on the Democrats' apparent indifference to the economic peril our country faces. In the course of his column he tosses in some biting criticism of Mr. Obama's response to a man who asked him at a recent Town Hall if gas prices would ever go back down:

For a sense of Democrat insouciance to American decline, let us turn to the president himself. The other day, Barack Obama was in the oddly apt town of Fairless Hills, Pa., at what the White House billed as one of those ersatz “town hall” discussions into which republican government has degenerated. He was asked a question by a citizen of the United States.

The cost of a gallon of gas has doubled on Obama’s watch, and this gentleman asked, “Is there a chance of the price being lowered again?” As the Associated Press reported it, the president responded “laughingly”: “I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. . . . If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — (laughter) . . .

That’s how the official White House transcript reported it: Laughter. Big yuks. “So, like I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal.”

Hey, thanks! You’ve been a great audience. I’ll be here all year. Don’t forget to tip your Democrat hat-check girl on the way out: At four bucks a gallon, it’s getting harder for volunteers to drive elderly voters from the cemetery to the polling station. Relax, I’m just jerking your crank, buddy! And it’s not four bucks per, it’s only three-ninety-eight. That’s change you can believe in!...

America, 2011: A man gets driven in a motorcade to sneer at a man who has to drive himself to work. A guy who has never generated a dime of wealth, never had to make payroll, never worked at any job other than his own tireless self-promotion literally cannot comprehend that out there beyond the far fringes of the motorcade outriders are people who drive a long distance to jobs whose economic viability is greatly diminished when getting there costs twice as much as the buck-eighty-per-gallon it cost back at the dawn of the Hopeychangey Era.

So what? Your fault. Should have gone to Columbia and Harvard and become a community organizer.

The fact is President Obama doesn't want lower gas prices. He said during the campaign that $4.00 a gallon gas is just fine with him, presumably because it will force us away from fossil energy sources toward windmills and such. Windmills aren't going to help the folks who have a thirty mile commute to work every day. Nor is paying $30,000 to $40,000 for a hybrid much of an answer for workers barely able to meet their bills each month. And what does he suggest to those who heat their homes with fuel oil? Switch to electricity or solar panels?

Of course, maybe a man who has never had a real job in his life, who has always been provided for by political cronies and taxpayers, can not be expected to understand the circumstances in which most people live.

Might As Well Just Shut Up

In a recent post on the murders of U.N. workers in Afghanistan by a mob of Muslims outraged that a Florida pastor had burned a Koran, I argued that we cannot follow those like Senator Lindsey Graham who wish to conform our freedom of speech to Muslim standards of blasphemy and to whatever violent, crazed mobs will tolerate.

Paul Marshall and Nina Shea have a related piece at National Review Online that shows the folly of suggestions such as Graham's by enumerating the sorts of things that have been deemed blasphemous in the Islamic world:

Muslim blasphemy has recently been defined to include: denouncing stoning as a human-rights violation (Sudan), opening girls’ schools (Bangladesh), criticizing the Guardianship of the Jurists (Iran), petitioning for a constitution (Saudi Arabia), use of the word “Allah” by Christians (Malaysia), rejecting an order for violent jihad (Sudan), praying at the graves of relatives (Saudi Arabia), translating the Koran into Dari (Afghanistan), accidentally tearing a calendar page containing a Koranic verse (Pakistan), naming a teddy bear after a boy named Mohamed (Sudan), urging that the Koran be understood in its historical and cultural context (Indonesia), teaching Shiism (Egypt), and calling for a ban on child brides (Yemen). Mob violence, intimidation, court trials, and penalties accompany these cases.

It appears there's little one can say or do with respect to Islam that some Muslim somewhere wouldn't take as an intolerable insult. If we're to refrain from saying anything that might give offense, as Graham and even General Petraeus have suggested, then we might as well take a vow of silence, which, I suppose, is precisely what a lot of Muslims, not to mention Senator Graham, would like us to do.

Thanks to Byron for the tip on the Marshall/Shea article.

Re: End of the World

I just today discovered that the video showing the results of an asteroid impact on earth which was posted on Friday actually stopped at about the 6:50 mark and whoever had posted the video to YouTube added a narration that was not particularly relevant to the previous 7 minutes or so. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted.

I saw the video on a different site and went to YouTube to get a downloadable version. I made the mistake of not watching the whole video that I found on YouTube.

The Long War

War is once again brewing between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians have launched a massive rocket strike against Israeli towns and farms and targeted a school bus, severely injuring a 16 year old student.

Debkafile has a summary of recent events, including a recap of Israel's thus far futile attempts to intimidate and deter the Palestinian attacks.

The people of Israel are beseiged by enemies on every side except their western edge where they're bounded by the sea. These enemies, especially Hizbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, will settle for nothing less than either the complete annihilation of Israel or, failing that, permanent war. They know they can't lose because the world community will not allow Israel to decisively defeat them and will not seriously intervene to prevent them from wearing down the Israeli will to survive.

Thus, the constant rocket and mortar barrages and, when they can, suicide bombings, and murders of families in their beds. These are augmented by the knowledge that the world holds Israel to a much higher standard of behavior than it does the Palestinians and that it will condemn Israel whenever it takes steps to prevent arms from getting into Gaza, or otherwise protect itself. People cannot live in constant fear and cobnstant censure when they try to alleviate their fear. The Palestinians know this and thus believe that time is on their side.

Meanwhile, the war against the Jews is also being waged on American campuses where the Muslim Student Association has found willing allies among liberals and progressives in student bodies in many major American universities.

David Horowitz has put together a short film to show, in part, the state of Islamic/Jewish relations on American campuses. It's pretty chilling, especially the opening scene, but it's important that we know what's happening:

The only thing that has heretofore prevented another Jewish holocaust is the weakness of Israel's enemies and the strength of American support. But now Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, the Muslim Brotherhood is consolidating power throughout the region, the U.S. under Barack Obama is diminishing its relationship with Israel, and every time Israel acts to protect itself the Western world considers them guilty until proven innocent.

How long can the sort of murderous haters we see in this video have at their disposal not only nuclear weapons but millions of foot soldiers and a timorous Western public opinion before the region explodes in a cataclysmic war of extermination against Israel?

Presidential Timber

Anna Shukas of the Express.co.uk wonders if Barack Obama may not be the weakest president in United States history. She makes a good case which she opens with this line:

Ineffectual, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t'...

After laying out a litany of presidential fecklessness and detachment she summarizes with this observation:

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all.

And closes with this:

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those that can, do. It is time he started doing.

Mr. Obama certainly does have a very diffident leadership style. He seems to want to stay out of every battle while encouraging his troops in Congress and the media to slug it out with the Republican opposition. It's a case of "Let's you and him fight". The strategy appears to be to stay out of the visible fray so that nothing bad that comes of it will cling to him, but I don't think it's working.

Even the AP, one of his biggest supporters in the media, is beginning to lob darts at the President for his failure to exert leadership.

Perhaps the strategy is not deliberate but rather a consequence of Mr. Obama's temperament. Perhaps he just doesn't like to get drawn into political street fights when he has others who'll do the fighting for him.

Or perhaps Shukas is right and the community organizer is just not cut out to do the job he sought in 2008.

Thoughts on a Government Shutdown

Random thoughts on the impending government shutdown:

• Some 800,000 "non-essential" workers will be furloughed. If they're non-essential why are the taxpayers paying for them in the first place?
• The GOP has passed a rider that would ensure that in the event of a shutdown military families would be paid. The President has promised to veto it. Why? He calls compensating the families of those who are facing mortal peril every day to keep us safe from Islamic extremists a "distraction". A distraction?
• Democrats have been all over the media declaring that Republicans are going to shut down the government over funding to Planned Parenthood, the Environmental Protection Agency, and National Public Radio. I don't understand this. Republicans are trying to find money to cut from our budget anywhere it is currently being spent on "non-essential" items. Neither PP, the EPA, nor NPR is essential, but the Democrats refuse to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the government functioning if it contains cuts to these programs. So, my question is why isn't it the Democrats who are going to shut down the government over funding to PP, EPA, and NPR?
• Isn't Planned Parenthood a private corporation? Why are taxpayers subsidizing them in the first place?
• For the last two years Democrats have tried to portray Republicans as the "party of 'No' ". Who is it that's saying "No" to passing the continuing resolution?
• Of fifteen departments in the government  the Departments of Health and Human Services, Energy, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Education could cease to exist altogether at a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars and no one would miss them except the employees of those departments.

The End of the World

With footage of the horrific tsunami that devastated Japan fresh in our minds and the dire predictions of Al Gore about global warming still buzzing about, I thought I'd share this video animation of what would happen on earth if an asteroid the size of Japan hit the planet. According to scientists it'd make Mr. Gore's global warming scenarios seem like a cruise to Antarctica in winter.

Note: The relevant part of the video stops at about 6:50. The narration that follows was somehow tacked on by whoever posted the video to YouTube and has nothing to do with the first 7 minutes:

I was piqued by a couple of things mentioned toward the end of the video. The narrator claimed that scientists believe there've been a half dozen such strikes in the history of the earth and that they caused the earth's temperature to rise so high that the planet is completely sterilized. If so, how did living things repopulate the earth's surface? What was left to re-establish life? Or did these collisions occur before the first life is believed to have evolved?

It was also claimed that in such a catastrophe the oceans vaporize and situate themselves as a canopy of vapor high in the atmosphere for thousands of years before precipitating back to earth in torrents of rain water, refilling the ocean basins. Does that sound like anything one might find in, say, the first few chapters of Genesis? Just asking.

One last thought. Might the asteroid and its effects on the planet be an apt metaphor for our national budget deficit?