Atheism / Agnosticism – Logical?[1]

My main thesis is to judge the statements made by these two belief systems by the same logical rules that apply to all statements made about reality. When a statement is made (i.e., “God does not exist”) about the nature of reality it is in effect stating itself to be true over other definitions about reality (i.e., “God exists”). Obviously both cannot be true at the same time, and both must stand under its own weight. What I mean to say is that when making a statement, that statement cannot self-refute itself; otherwise it would logically be incoherent. The law of non-contradiction is simply this: “‘A’ cannot be both ‘non-A’ and ‘A’ at the same time.” In the words of professor J. P. Moreland (Ph.D., Univ. of Southern California):

• “When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting…. Consider some examples. ‘I cannot say a word in English’ is self-refuting when uttered in English. ‘I do not exist’ is self-refuting, for one must exist to utter it. The claim ‘there are no truths’ is self-refuting. If it is false, then it is false. But is it is true, then it is false as well, for in that case there would be no truths, including the statement itself.”[2]

I wish to give an example taken from pantheism that shows how this relates to our experience. According to pantheism, there is no reality except the all-encompassing God. Everything else, meaning material things (i.e., train, floor mat, your arm, etc.), is an illusion (maya). This however is a nonsensical statement that is logically self-refuting. If everything is illusion, then those making that statement are themselves illusions. There’s a real problem here. As Norman Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University of Chicago) pointed out, “One must exist in order to affirm that he does not exist.”[3] When we claim that there is no reality except the all-encompassing God, we are proving just the opposite. The fact that we exist to make the claim demonstrates that there is a reality distinct from God, which makes this key doctrine of pantheism a self-defeating proposition. It is an untruth by definition.[4]

This same problem applies to atheism and agnosticism, as will be shown later. Atheism also involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. There are numerous logical problems inherent in the atheists belief system, one will be quickly considered here. The declaration, “There is no God,” for instance, is unfounded. I realize that only some atheists explicitly state that there is no God, however, all atheists believe it. Logically speaking (the rules that govern logical and coherent thought) this assertion cannot be defended by any from the atheistic position.

Observe the irrationality of the atheistic premise. The only way for the atheist to be absolutely certain that there is no God is for the atheist to know everything about reality. In order to maintain the premise, “there is no God,” the atheist must have total knowledge of all reality. He must know all facts and realities of existence. This would imply that an atheist must have a knowledge which only God could posses. He must posses infinite knowledge throughout time, be everywhere at the same time and be absolutely sure of everything. Theirs is not a statement made on facts (i.e., observation), since one would actually have to be God to claim this. Such a statement is based only on assumption or faith, not on the facts. Herein lies the dilemma, as Ron Rhodes (Th.D. & Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary) makes so clear:

Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God. This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: “What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?” The atheist will likely respond, “I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent.” You can then ask: “Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?” Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.[5]

This does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence or this argument; however, to reject it is to reject formal logic and the rules of thought. By doing so, one would undermine his or her own argument from which their position is starting from, that is, reason. Philosopher William Lane Craig (Ph.D., Univ. of Birmingham; Ph.D., Univ. Munchen), probably one of the finest Christian theist debaters around, rightly notes, “Atheism is a claim to know something (‘There is no God’) just as much as theism (‘There is a God’). Therefore, it can claim no presumption when the evidence is equal.”[6] You see, the atheist believes in life with no real meaning. By faith he believes there is no God and without any evidence he believes the universe was uncreated. He believes in morality with no absolutes. It is a journey without a destiny. So when a person says, “you cannot prove God and I cannot disprove God, this is why I don’t believe,” the weight of that decision should err on what gives life more meaning. Mark Twain put it best when he said, “It is amazing what a man will believe as long as it is not in the Bible.” From a logical point of view it is impossible to disprove God:

• Premise 1: The statement “God does not exist” is a universal negative;
• Premise 2: But in principle it is impossible to prove a universal negative;
• Conclusion: Therefore atheism is false.[7]
  

Atheism falls into the category of what logicians call “self-refuting statements.” In reality the atheist must be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, in which case the atheist must become God in order to prove there is no God. In fact, he has to become the very God he is seeking to disprove. But the atheist says there is no God, so how could he argue his position? There is no way by which he could defend his case. Consider the analogy: In order for me to affirm that there is no pin in your room, I must examine every space in your room. Then I could conclude there is no pin in your room. It would be meaningless to assert there is no pin in your room when I only have a limited knowledge of your room.

No one knows enough to be an atheist; therefore, there is no logical ground to claim such! Atheism, then, is logically impossible! An honest atheist must admit he is wrong and become an agnostic. The basis by which the atheist proclaims his faith is empty and he or she has no foundation, rationality, or epistemology for his denial of God. The atheist is committed to a set of beliefs, which makes the atheist – by faith – believe atheism to be true. He offers no evidence for his beliefs but merely imagines that there is no God, only because God is outside of his frame of thinking. The atheist mind-set is adequately illustrated in an analogy employed by the famous scientist Sir Arthur Eddington.

He spoke of a fisherman who argued from his experience with a particular net, “no creature of the sea is less than two inches long.” The people did not believe it: they affirmed that a great number of sea creatures were shorter than two inches and simply slipped through the holes in his net. But the fisherman was unconvinced, he simply insisted, “what my net can’t catch ain’t fish,” and went on accusing his opponents of having a pre-scientific, medieval, and metaphysical bias. He confines God to a particular point of reference and defines him out of existence. The net which the atheist habitually uses is hopelessly deficient – what I cannot see does not exist. Whatever does not fit into his view of reality (naturalism – the reductionist view which insists that all reality is just matter and excludes the supernatural) is meaningless. His blind faith in naturalism will not allow anything supernatural, transcendent, and metaphysical, thus subverting the question before it is asked.[8]

A clear example of this appeared in the classic debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston. Russell, arguing from a naturalistic base, insisted that God was a meaningless proposition outside empirical verification. Copleston gave a fitting response that merits our attention:

“The proposition that metaphysical terms are meaningless seems to me to be a proposition based on an assumed philosophy. The dogmatic position behind it seems to be this: ‘What will not go into my machine is non-existent, or it is meaningless.’”[9]

The atheist in reality is engaged in explaining and defining God out of existence. The atheist (or, philosophical naturalist) cannot allow the possibility of a theistic world, the existence of God is ruled out a priori,[10] and any discussion about his being, nature or behavior is futile; in other words, the naturalist (atheist) pronounces the answer before he asks the question.[11] I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student:

Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, etc.].”

Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”

Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”

Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘an event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”

Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”

Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists,[12] you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible.”[13]

So an honest “atheist” would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional one[14], and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.

Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,

Conclusion: there is no God.[15]

What about agnosticism, does the belief that one cannot ultimately know anything about God hold up to rational and logical thought? Before going any further, I should define the two different types of agnostics:

Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. The humble [soft] agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. The less humble [hard] agnostic says that you don’t either… [and] thinks that we can’t ever really know.[16]

I am mainly dealing here with the “hard” agnostic. The “soft” agnostic is open to receiving information about God from others and then tests these claims by the rules and science of logic, history, and experience. An example that bears striking similarities to the “hard” agnostic is that of a conversation between a teacher and her student:

Teacher: “Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one person has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Elizabeth: “Yes I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What’s the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?”

Teacher: “No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?”

Elizabeth: “Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every single person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.”

Teacher: “This should prove to be an interesting semester.”

Another Student: “(blurts out) Ain’t that the truth.” (Students laugh)[17]

The hard agnostic dismisses the argument even before hearing it. This type of agnosticism is refuted by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin, J. Budziszewski (Ph.D., Yale University):

“To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him.”[18]

Agnostics basically claim that nothing can be known about reality (or, Reality). Norman Geisler points out that “in its ultimate form [agnosticism] claims that all knowledge about reality (i.e., truth) is impossible. But this itself is offered as a truth about reality.”[19] Atheism and agnosticism are basically stating that, “God does not exist because his existence threatens my worldview.” That’s all it says! Nietzsche, however, predicted that someday people would realize the implications of their atheism; and this realization would usher in the age of nihilism – the destruction of all meaning and value in life.[20] We are in an age where people assign their own reality to the universe and their life, thus destroying all meaning and value in life. This subjective assigning of “reality” doesn’t magically give the universe or a life meaning, value or context. For one person can believe it to be one way (their reality) and another can believe the opposite (another reality). This being the case then, one isn’t confronted with an argument against atheism more so than with the reality of its outcome.[21]

We have seen that the truth claims of atheism cannot be proven. The simple fact of the matter is that atheism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.[22] And if true, is a “life [that] is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” ~ Macbeth.[23] Or as Sartre put it, atheism is “…a cruel, long-term business…”[24] The antithesis, then, would be a universe and a life full of meaning, hope and context. Which is by default – theism.

Appendix

Why I Am Not An Atheist

By Dr. Robert A. Morey[25]

Introduction

As a worldview, atheism must justify itself intellectually just like any other worldview. It makes various statements about the universe, man and God, which it expects us to accept as the truth. These assertions must pass the same tests for truth that judge any and all such assertions. Atheism is thus not exempt from having to prove its truth claims.

The creed of atheism is as follows:

In the entire universe,

there has never been in the past,

there is not now in the present, and

there will never be in the future,

any god, gods or goddesses

of any size, shape or description.

We will now examine the creed of atheism to see if it passes the tests of truth.

1. The first question is this: Is the creed of atheism logically valid or invalid? If it is invalid according to the laws of logic, then it is irrational and unacceptable to the educated mind.

The atheist’s creed clearly violates the laws of logic and is thus irrational in nature.

A. According to the laws of logic, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. When an atheist makes the assertion, “There is no god anywhere at any time,” he is making a universal negative which he cannot prove. Since he cannot prove or demonstrate his assertion, he is being irrational.

B. The second logical problem is that the only way he could prove his assertion that there is no god is to become God.

1. He would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time, i.e. he would have to be omnipresent and infinite.

2. He would have to travel throughout the past, the present and the future at the same time, i.e. he would have to be eternal.

3. He would have to know all things, i.e. he would have to be omniscient.

4. In order to be infinite, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, he would also have to be omnipotent.

C. Thirdly, if only an infinite and eternal God can logically say there is no infinite and eternal God, this itself would be a self-contradictory statement and, hence, irrational.

---

• This is an old paper, the links below may not work any longer
  

[1] Questions? You can reach me at: seang200@hotmail.com

[2] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1987), p. 92.

[3] Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1976), p. 187.

[4] The above is from my paper, “Reincarnation.”

[5] From an online article found at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html

[6] William Lane Craig, The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino: Here’s Life (1979), p. 32.

[7] Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson (2000), p. 73.

[8] Ibid., p. 76.

[9] John Hick, The Existence of God. New York: Macmillan (1964), p.p. 170-171.

[10] a priori – existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience.

[11] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheist?. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press (2000), p. 33.

[12] Materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it.

[13] Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64.

[14] presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

[15] Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.

[16] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies. Chicago, Illinois: IDG Books Worldwide (1999), p. 238.

[17] Francis J. Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1998), p. 74.

[18] Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (2001), p. 54.

[19] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson (1999), p. 637.

[20] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books (1984), p. 64

[21] Peter Kreeft, The Journey. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1996), p. 85.

[22] Alister McGrath, Glimpsing the Face of God: The Search for Meaning in the Universe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans (2002), p. 22

[23] Clark H. Pinnock, Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock 1997), p.24.

[24] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press (2000), p. 134.

[25] From an online article found at: http://www.faithdefenders.com/sermons/hu4.html

Atheism a Religion? … Say What!

The United States does not have an established church, but it does have (and always has had) an established religion, or at least a dominant religious philosophy, an established way of thinking.

What is religion and can it be defined? I will attempt to do so for the purpose of clarifying terms. The best term I feel is applicable to religion is this:

Religion may be defined as a way of thinking about ultimate questions. A persons religion answers questions such as how and why (and everything else) came into existence, whether the purpose of life has been established by a Creator or is up to us to decide, and how we can have reliable knowledge (revealed by God or revealed by Nature) about the world and about ourselves.

The officially recognized answers to these questions make up a society’s established religious philosophy, its culturally dominant way of thinking about origins. But let us look at what some dictionaries say about faith and religion.

v Webster’s New World Dictionary defines religion as a specific system of belief, worship, often involving a code of ethics. Faith is defined as unquestioning belief… complete trust or confidence… loyalty.

v Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary has this to say about religion, The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man’s relationship with the powers and principles of the universe. On the matter of faith it says, Confidence in or dependence on a person, statement, or thing as trustworthy… Belief without need of certain proof.

There is nothing sinister or inherently unconstitutional about the existing of a de facto established public philosophy on religious questions (such as origins and mans purpose). The philosophy is established not in the sense that it is formally enacted or that dissenters are subject to legal punishment (although in recent years this has started to happen), but in the sense that it provides a philosophical basis for lawmaking and public education, in law school this is taught as public policy. For example, one culture may endeavor to encourage its schoolgirls to look forward to lives as mothers and homemakers, while another may encourage them to reject traditional gender stereotypes and pursue formally masculine careers. To encourage either choice reflects a dominant public philosophy about human nature and gender roles. Similarly, any community that operates a public school system must have a policy of some kind concerning, say, sexual morality, even if the policy is merely to encourage adolescents to choose for themselves. Relativism itself is a policy choice, it rests on assumptions about reality, and man’s relationship with the powers and principles of the universe as Funk and Wagnalls says.

Soldiers use to march to the Battle Hymn of the Republic – a song that is banned from most public schools today. Some people would say we, as a Nation, have become neutral about religion. The evidence, however, points to one philosophy replacing another. Lets see if we can glean what this new religious belief is that so dominates the Western hemisphere now. For instance, the public schools have become a battleground for religion. John Dunphy, a secular humanist, wrote in the Humanist magazine:

I am convinced that the battleground for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith; a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level – preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of Christianity together with all its adjacent evils and misery . . .

John Dewey, the father of modern education, hoped to replace sectarian religion with a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. The religion envisioned by Dewey is that of secular humanism. The Supreme Court has even recognized it as a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins). This is why there are tax free atheist churches with pastors and counselors. The Humanist Manifesto was signed by many of the prominent atheistic and evolutionary educators of the day. Among its signers were John Dewey, Harry Elmer Barnes, C. F. Potter and John Herman Randall. The manifesto called for a radical change in religious perspectives. A religion adequate to the twentieth century regards the universe as self-existing, not created, and regards man as part of nature evolved in its processes. Mind-body dualism, supernaturalism, theism, and even deism are rejected. The goal of life is the realization of human personality. Social and mental hygiene are priority items. Social control is a means to the abundant life for all. That statement was updated in 1973 by a Humanist Manifesto II, which adds an additional emphases on human responsibility toward humanity as a whole, a specific system of belief, worship [of man], often involving a code of ethics, as Webster puts it.

This is one of the catalysts that brought Judge Pendergerst of the Baltimore Superior Court to say:

It is abundantly clear that the petitioner’s real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system. If God were removed from the classroom, there would remain only atheism [secular humanism: a religion]. The word is derived from the Greek atheos, meaning ‘without a God.’ Thus the beliefs of virtually all pupils would be subordinated to those of Madalyn Murray.

SHOWDOWN ON THE VIEW

Rosie O’Donnal 9/11 Truthers SHOWDOWN Named

This next Thursday, the 24th

The view will be the stage of a showdown that has been brewing for quite some time. Rosie has repeatedly called the U.S. terrorists and used false figures (655,000 dead) of innocents killed, mostly blaming the U.S. for those deaths. She had repeatedly said the U.S. was responsible with the towers falling (at least tower 7), and most other recent events she has blamed overtly on the U.S.

This will be one of the most watched and talked about shows in quite some time. I am sure at least 35% of the Democrats will be rooting for Rosie… helped by 12.5% of the Republicans.

(He, He)

Sandy Berger – HUGE

He has forfeited his law license so he doesn’t have to go through the lie detector and cross-examination that was part of his deal. This is just the nail in the “obvious guilt coffin” of a guy who was stuffing secret documents down his pants, and in his socks, like a kid stealing candy from a liquor store.

Maybe some day video will pop up of Sandy Burgler actually stealing to cover up 9/11 info. We have video of Roger Clinton, Bill’s brother, saying while chopping up lines:

"Gotta get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner!"

A Sandy video would be classic!

Media Bias & Pro-Choice Crazies

Vent – Abortion Clinics Caught Lying…

The above link is the latest “Vent” and should be watched by any who check in on this site. If you have any questions or inquiries… just ask.

1592 – Hate Crimes In Reverse?

No Ones Asking

I want my regular readers… which are maybe two people… to take the time and to read the story over at La Shawn Barber’s site, and also watch the video at Hot Air’s site.

This is just another example of how the laws we have in place are just fine.

McDermott Is A Nut

“tag”, Crazy Dems

This article at Hot Air (article) is another indicator just how crazy the Democrat Party has become. Now there are 10/10 Truthers apparently. Read it and weep Democrat!

L.A. Times and Crazy Democrats

This is my kind of article found in the L.A. Times. And this is why I have as a “tag” in my blog, “Crazy Dems”. Enjoy:

Just how crazy are the Dems?

A new poll on 9/11 indicates that they definitely have a paranoia problem.

Jonah Goldberg

May 15, 2007

MOST FAIR-MINDED readers will no doubt take me at my word when I say that a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.

But, on the off chance that a few cynics won't take my word for it, I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here's how the research firm put it: "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure."

So, 1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can't quite make up their minds.

There are only three ways to respond to this finding: It's absolutely true, in which case the paranoid style of American liberalism has reached a fevered crescendo. Or, option B, it's not true and we can stop paying attention to these kinds of polls. Or there's option C — it's a little of both.

My vote is for C. But before we get there, we should work through the ramifications of A and B.

We don't know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it's so stupid. It's like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn't real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn't work that way. Or you can just say, "It's make-believe."

Similarly, why try to explain that it's implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he's such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — who Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to greenlight one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMD?

No, the right response to the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is "It's just make-believe." But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the "reality-based" party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61% of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, "blame America first" doesn't really begin to cover it, does it?

So then there's option B — the poll is just wrong. This is quite plausible. Indeed, the poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they're just answering in a fit of pique. I'm game for option B. But if we're going to throw this poll away, I think liberals need to offer the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to data that are more convenient for them. For example, liberals have been dining out on polls showing that Fox News viewers, or Republicans generally, are more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, however flimsy, tendentious, equivocal or sparse you may think the evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 may be, it's ironclad compared with the nugatory proof that Bush somehow permitted or condoned those attacks.

And then there's option C, which is most assuredly the reality. The poll is partly wrong or misleading, but it's also partly right and accurate. So maybe it's not 1 in 3 Democrats suffering from paranoid delusions. Maybe it's only 1 in 5 , or 1 in 10. In other words, the problem isn't as profound as the poll makes it sound. But that doesn't mean the Democratic Party doesn't have a serious problem.

Gallup Poll

A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.

Democrats control the Senate and the House. Basically they have a lower rating than the Pres. OOooopps.

Real Clear Politics averages all the polls, so I must say that these averages are a good indicator:

President Bush Job Approval

Approve

34.2%

Disapprove

62.0%

Spread -27.8%

Congressional Job Approval

Approve

36.7%

Disapprove

55.5%

Spread -18.8%

R.I.P. Jerry

Jerry Falwell’s influence behind the scenes of Christian conservatism was large. In waned the past few years as both his health waned and his time needed at the seminary grew. I salute his young-earth views and his hiring of great professors, like my favorite author, Norman Geisler. Liberty University is a seminary I would love to teach at as well as attend (Dallas Theological Seminary is another “big-boy on the block”). Some will remember him only for his misstatements, but if I were a religious leader of such stature, I am sure I would stick my foot in my mouth more often than he.

I will post here his last column he wrote.

Preserving religious expression in schools

May 14, 2007

By Rev. Jerry Falwell

In the May issue of my National Liberty Journal newspaper, we featured the story of Megan Chapman, who last year was forced to make a choice between standing up for her faith in Jesus Christ or allowing school officials to silence her.

She chose not to be silent, even though Russell Springs, Kentucky school officials told her she could not mention Jesus or her faith in her valedictorian speech. At the commencement, more than 3,000 people packed her school gymnasium, with members of the press in attendance. And before the principal of the school could finish making his opening remarks, the senior class stood together and recited "The Lord's Prayer."

What an inspiring scene!

Then Megan walked to the platform, prepared only to read the poem, "The Road Less Traveled" because she had been warned not to mention her faith. But as she looked out over the audience, she prayed that God would give her a message.

And He did.

Megan put away the poem and began speaking from her heart, sharing how God is real in her life. She spoke of the peace she has encountered since giving her heart to Jesus Christ and wished that same peace for her classmates.

The speech was frequently interrupted with cheers.

One local media outlet noted a "revival-like atmosphere" at the graduation.

The next night, Megan appeared on the Fox News Channel where she was able to again share her faith in Jesus Christ.

Today, Megan, along with twin sister Mandy, is a student at Liberty University, where she is planning to study law and attend Liberty University School of Law.

Her story has inspired many young people across this nation.

I hope it encourages more to take a stand for their faith.

I'm proud to stand with Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, and his wife Anita, president of Liberty Counsel, in the national "Friend or Foe" Graduation Prayer Campaign.

This program is designed to educate and, if necessary, litigate to ensure that prayer and religious views are not suppressed during graduation ceremonies across the nation.

As part of this year's campaign, Liberty Counsel has created red prayer wristbands that students can wear as a reminder to pray at graduation and all throughout the school year.

The wristbands are embossed with "I WILL PRAY" and "PRAY WITHOUT CEASING (THESS. 5:17)." The wristbands serve as reminders to students that they have the constitutional right to wear religious jewelry and to pray during non-instructional times while at school. Liberty Counsel also has a free legal memo on graduation prayer which is available online at Liberty Counsel.

Mr. Staver stated, "The purpose of Liberty Counsel's 'Friend or Foe' Graduation Prayer Campaign is to protect religious viewpoints at graduation. Liberty Counsel will be the friend of schools that recognize the free speech rights of students and the foe of those that violate their constitutional rights. The key to graduation prayer is that the school should remain neutral – neither commanding nor prohibiting voluntary prayer or religious viewpoints."

High school students, don't be afraid to voice your faith in Jesus Christ! Liberty Counsel is here to help you if you should face persecution or punishment for doing so. I urge Christian students across this land to exhibit the strength of character of Megan Chapman by refusing to be silenced.

Boldly live out your faith!

Thank you Jerry, I am living out my faith… boldly. Because of your influence in “living our faith boldly,” others are impacted by it. If Liberals had their way, this public expression would not be allowed. All one has to do is read a book like Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity to see how the Left is trying to quell the Christian faith in any venue of public life, or, Fish Out of Water, where the author tells of her own experiences at a university and how she responded to her professors in their tirade against anything Judeo-Christian. Liberty University was a place that a Christian student could go and learn ethics in conjunction with that business degree. In the secular university ethics are a bygone idea, business is taught with a similar strain that political-science is taught by secular universities, which is this: “the goal is to win.”

A little known fact about Jerry Falwell is that with friends and colleagues he was always the funny man. His sense of humor was well known. Dr. James Dobson mentioned that when together and walking through those rotating doors, Jerry would stop the doors to get Dr. Dobson to bump the glass. I do the same thing with my boys.

It will be nice to here more and more of these personal stories come out. Often times we get our view of people through fopauxs presented us by the press, or merely because whenever we see the person he or she is in a business or professional role.

Much thought and love to the Falwell Family. His legacy, especially in regards to educating generations of public believers, will live on.