A bit more about Palin

Byron asked me if my views on Palin had evolved in the last couple of weeks. Short answer is ‘not a lot’, although what I’ve read about the Couric interview (which isn’t a lot, and I didn’t watch it) has led to some self-questioning.

Various thoughts:
– it seems, as with the Charlie Gibson interview, to have been a hatchet job. However, that goes with the territory and should be expected;
– she seems to have been stitched up by the campaign, in the sense that she has lost confidence, and she gives the media too much importance;
– relying on folksy comments in a set-piece media interview is an error of judgement;
– if Palin had come out with a comment like Biden’s on Roosevelt then she would have been crucified – but this isn’t to defend Palin, it’s simply to point out that Biden is a moron bit of a buffoon;
– the job of a politician is not to know the facts but to exercise judgement upon facts, and then to make decisions. Obviously there are limits to this – a certain amount of general knowledge about the world is essential, along with a basic analytical capacity, which Palin undoubtedly possesses – but politicians in an advanced democracy are functionally dependent upon civil servants to provide information, and those civil servants will – with extremely rare exceptions – know much more about the subject than the politician;
– the exercise of political judgement is the essential quality that needs to be assessed at the time of an election, and the raw material for that judgement is not the words that the politicians speak but the choices that the politicians have made in their previous positions of responsibility;
– which begs the question about the politicians having actually been in positions of responsibility. I maintain the view that Palin beats Obama hands down in this respect – that is, she actually has a record that is worth investigating, with real decisions made (for better or for worse). What has Obama ever done? When has he ever gone out on a limb for something that he believed in?
– a large part of assessing the candidates is about ‘smell’, by which I mean a non-rational, ‘blink’ type assessment about how far any candidate shares values with the person making the assessment; this, in turn, is essentially answering the question ‘will this candidate advance my values in office?’ – so on that count, I am undoubtedly still a Palin fan;
– barring an ‘October surprise’ I’m now, contrary to my earlier post, expecting an Obama win, which I’m seeing as a poisoned chalice.

I have great feelings of nervousness with respect to the forthcoming debate. I hope she has a storming, break-out performance; I worry that the opposite will happen.

Reasonable Atheism (29): Why (most) atheist criticism doesn’t reach me


This is our car. It is a very nice car, very practical, capacious, safe – and it has served us very well in meeting our needs. It is not a perfect car. There are several things wrong with it – it has low mpg, it tends to get too hot inside on sunny days, it has a steadily accumulating number of bumps and scratches, especially from the bicycles of small boys – but it serves the job well. It is extremely reliable and we often depend upon it.

Now imagine someone coming along to comment upon our car. This person points out the various things that are wrong with it – as listed above – and tries to persuade me that I would be better off owning a car like his (and it normally is a ‘his’). He points out how beautiful the car looks from the outside, how seamless is the paint work, how there isn’t even a minor blemish. However, when I inspect his car, I notice various things. To begin with, the car is cosmetically perfect, as if it has come straight out of the showroom. I begin to suspect that it has never been used for a journey. So I investigate further. I look inside and see some very comfortable seats and a state of the art stereo system. But I also note with great concern that there is no steering wheel, no foot pedals, no gear stick. I look with amazement towards the owner, but the owner doesn’t seem to understand why I am concerned. I ask to look under the bonnet, which he happily opens for me, and my concerns reach fruition: there is no engine. This is something that looks very like a car, but it can never be used as a car. It won’t take you anywhere.

So I discuss with the man what I see as wrong with his car. I say ‘it looks lovely – much nicer than mine – but you can’t take it anywhere’. And the response is ‘it’s impossible to go anywhere, that’s not what cars are for’. So I try to explain, ‘No, that’s not true – we use our car to go places and do things, it’s very useful’. And he says – ‘ah, no, sorry, you’re deluded. What you call an engine and a steering wheel is in fact an extremely advanced projection system. When you sit inside your car and you feel yourself to be going somewhere, the truth is that you are being lied to and deceived’. But then I say ‘but what about the shopping that I picked up, that’s now in the boot – and I do that on a regular basis to feed my children!’ And the man says ‘I see that the delusion has really sunk its teeth deep into you, I think you need professional help. I know a lot of car dealers who are very good at removing those projection systems and helping you see cars in the way that I do’. And I say, ‘Sorry, my kids need their supper.’

Reasonable atheism – central post

This will be the central point to navigate the posts on atheism, both the ‘reasonable atheism’ sequence and a handful of others.

There are two things that I believe to be true:
– the prevalent form of atheism is irrational (and highly damaging); and
– Christianity is not irrational, when properly understood.

For the avoidance of ambiguity, those two things do not entail that all Christianity is more rational than all atheism. I do not believe that to be true. I do believe that Christian theology is the highest and most exalted expression of the Western intellectual genius, and that it is truth which sets us free.

My basic stance:
Thresholds for a sensible conversation with an atheist
Of atheisms sophisticated and humourless

What I think atheism misses in its worldview
What is acceptable to the humourless atheist?
On wisdom
Is wisdom necessary?
Emotions and decisions
Atheism and choosing the good
Why (most) atheist criticism doesn’t reach me

The problem of suffering (= ‘theodicy’)
(also listed as “my discussions with Stephen Law”)
Meaning, Suffering and Integrity
Four questions on theodicy
A few thoughts about the problem of evil
The Old Testament heart (mainly autobiographical, but relevant)
Prayer and Grief (ditto)

The nature of religious language
What do I mean when I talk about God?
The fundamental theological rule
The problem of definitions
Mystery and idolatry
Justifying language about God
Wittgenstein on language
Muscles, metaphors, mysteries and the grokking of God
A point about religious grammar and part 2
The fool and his heart

On miracles and the supernatural
On miracles
The nature of the supernatural
On the notion of ‘evidence’ for God’s existence.

Other aspects
Western atheism as a Protestant sub-culture
Religion has ‘bloody hands’?
Has spirituality changed since Newton?