Review: Godless: The Church of Liberalism Comments

Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter Three Rivers Press, New York, 2007 326 pages

Ann Coulter is always witty, pithy and funny, and a dead shot at hitting her targets. A rational political analyst if ever there was one, she writes a barbed prose that is a delight to read, especially when she is about the business of exposing the absurdity, hypocrisy, and the sheer bad faith of the Left.

Sometimes her jibes seem exaggerated but are essentially true: ‘Environmentalists want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living, and vegetarianism. The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind’. Or, ‘the Left’s most dangerous religious belief is their adoration of violent criminals.’

She’s an expert in throw-away lines such as: ‘The democrats’ leading geopolitical strategist, Bianca Jagger, said …’ And she’s funny even when she stalks the wilder shores of nonsense as with: ‘Why hasn’t the earthworm evolved into a beagle? Just for being cute, a beagle can acquire a six-room coop apartment on Park Avenue, surely an evolutionary advantage.’ On a liberal’s objection to another liberal’s argument for bestiality that an animal cannot ‘consent’ to having sex with a human being, she remarks: ‘It is only through a quirk of its species that the poor mute goat is unable to communicate its consent, and man and beast are forever condemned to being star-crossed lovers, like Tristan and Isolde.’

When she comes to religion, however, clarity of thought fails her. Though still funny, still trenchant and eloquent and highly readable, she soft-pedals reason as she lets us hear it for her faith. Like a great many American conservatives, she is a believing Christian. To her, ‘liberal’ is synonymous with ‘atheist’, and both are synonymous with ‘Darwinist’ .

Darwin’s theory of evolution she regards with the utmost contempt and irritation. She observes that Darwinists – or ‘Darwiniacs’ as she frequently calls them – cling to their theory with fanatical faith rather than subject it to scientific criticism. Not that she is against fanatical faith as such. She can see great merit in it as long as it is faith in the supernatural.

Evolution, she claims, cannot stand up to rigorous scientific testing. It has no proofs. That is why evidence for it, such as the Piltdown Skull, has had to be forged. Having no proofs, and failing the Popperian ‘falsifiability test’, it is ‘pseudo-science’. Those who embrace it do so, in her opinion, only to spite God or God-believers, and to let themselves ‘off the hook morally’ – as if moral laws really had been dictated to us by a divine legislator and not, as they must have been, conceived for sound reasons by human beings.

‘No [lack of] evidence will ever shake their confidence in the theory of evolution,’ she accuses Darwinian biologists. And I suspect that no lack of evidence will ever shake her confidence in the theory of divine creation. But is it not passing strange that while she absolutely cannot believe in the possibility of simple life-forms evolving into complex life-forms, she has no difficulty at all in believing that a virgin gave birth to a son? It is always interesting to hear the religious demanding iron proofs of any and every scientific finding or idea that calls a divine Creator into question, while they themselves hold unshakeably to beliefs which have no proofs whatsoever.

So how does Coulter account for the world being as it is? She ascribes creation – following the current intellectual fashion among the religious when they argue with evolutionists – to an ‘Intelligent Designer’, aka God. And although evolution, to her certain satisfaction, is a busted theory, if it really did happen then it was God that made it happen. ‘God can do anything, including evolution.’ In fact she discovers that if you look at evolution as God’s handiwork, it is not so absurd after all. The higher species came into existence because God was learning as he went along:

‘The successive appearance of more complex species does seem to show something that looks like progress. But that has nothing to do with the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. One also sees progress in the Wright brothers’ increasingly complex air-planes, a master’s paintings … progressions all notable for being the product of “intelligent designers”. The appearance of progress hardly establishes mutation and natural selection as the engine of change. To the contrary, the similarities that so mesmerize Darwiniacs look more like the progress of a designed object than the result of a series of lucky accidents. Far from the fantastic competition of a dog-eat-dog struggle to survive, we see a fossil record that reveals a rather clean, well-organized sequence.’

So the Intelligent Designer had to work on his ideas to get them better and better? He needed to improve? Quite apart from the question of what an intelligent designer was intelligently designing the world for, which the religious never can tell us, doesn’t the idea that He or It has to learn as He or It goes along ruin the notion of a perfect, infallible, omniscient, omnipotent Being? Coulter doesn’t notice that, or at least doesn’t say.

One of the facts she raises to question Darwin is the ‘explosion’ of species in the Cambrian period. Darwin himself, she says, referred to the great difficulty of explaining the absence of ‘vast piles of strata rich in fossils’ before it. Therefore, she implies, they could not have evolved and must have been – what? Plonked down on Earth all at once by the hand of the experimenting Creator? And where was Man then? ‘We have dominion over the plants and animals on Earth,’ she writes, because the Book of Genesis says so. Where was Man when the dinosaurs stalked the Earth? Why did we not have dominion over them? Or did we? Perhaps Man was already there enjoying dominion over those gigantic creatures, and maybe his fossil remains will yet turn up in the geological strata. Just when did God fashion a man from the dust and a woman from one of his ribs and set them down fully-formed in Eden?

And why did He give them an appendix?

Jillian Becker

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Saturday, July 18, 2009

Tagged with

This post has Comments.

Permalink
  • John Harding
    Dude - Coulter is not witty, pithy & funny - rather caustic, nasty and completely close-minded. I am a conservative - but she gives conservatism a bad name - a really bad name. You can't reason with these types. Better to ignore them - or if you can't, just attack back. I think this is the only modus operandi she can understand.
  • excellent post, keep it up! I'll be coming back often
  • Proxywar
    I've been kicked off American Thinker 3 times now for openly stating I'm an atheist-libertarian. Finally, I find a intelligent site that speaks for me. Don't get me wrong The American Thinker produce good conservative articles but their religious views are
    always prosecuting people like myself over there. I finally found a place that will allow me to speak my mind.
  • aeschines
    Welcome, Proxywar!

    It's too bad that "conservatives" today in America stand for a fickle freedom. Freedom to them means freedom to go to the Jesus-loving church of your choice, freedom of God-praising speech, freedom of arms to defend against those Godless heathens, the freedom to listen to Jesus-prasin' country music (but not that stuff that rots the minds of our kids like rock or rap), and the God-given freedom to hang a giant poster of John Wayne up in your window. Any other freedoms are evil and Godless and fulla sin.

    You'd think for all the lip-service that they give to the Founding Fathers, they'd realize that the Fathers weren't exactly a united lot on matters of religion.

    Having lived in Boulder, Colorado, and a very nasty small right-wing town, I can say with authority that the two places aren't too different - they're just different sides of a freedom-hating coin.
  • Proxywar
    Though I disagree with Jay-Z's liberal-politics the man has some good music. For example: Empire State of mind is right up there with Frank Sinatra's new york, new york. Those evangelical right-wingers would never admit Jay-Z is gifted.
    Their problem is they can't compartmentalize. Thus, You hit the nail on the head when it comes "Jesus-prasin' country music" and "a giant poster of John Wayne" no offense to country music but johnny cash and willie nelson are about the only country artists I could ever really tolerate. John Wayne is overrated as hell.
    I'm more of a steve mcqueen and edward norton fanboy myself. Hannity has some of the worst taste in music as well.

    You're also correct the only freedoms they do seem to care about is their so-called right to worship God and praise Jesus in public schools and to hang moses 10 commandments in Court Rooms as if any of that affects their life for the better in anyway, shape, or form. It's a bullshit argument based on pseudo-victimology. As you pointed out "the Fathers weren't exactly a united lot on matters of religion" I'm actually reading a great book on this very topic it's called, "The faiths of the founding fathers", without question the founding fathers who mattered were deists and they hated how England's monarchy didn't seperate chruch from state.

    What the Religious-right and religious-left don't seem to understand about themselves is they are both Tyrants with different agendas, but religious dogmatic tyrants nonetheless. I'm sorry you had to live around them. It must of been a anthropomorphic hell on earth.





  • Proxywar
    I believe, John Wyane helped sell war-bonds though, but you are correct he never went to war. The excuse I heard was he put off signing up so long that by the time of Pearl Harbor he was much too old to enlist. I believe, the real reason he didn't want to enlist was because he wanted to further his movie career. At least he was anti-communist. The problem I have with John wyane is he's over-rated, wasn't really the duke, thus he would never hang on my wall. I never knew that about James Stewart. Very interesting indeed. That man was a Hero who belongs on my wall.
  • aeschines
    The worst part about John Wayne is how he's an "American Hero" while he did absolutely nothing for the country. Take James Stewart, a real Hollywood American hero, who volunteered at the outset of WWII for the army. He was rejected several times because of low weight and then tried to get into the air force, which he also failed. After convincing the enlistment officer to finally induct him (Stewart was still underweight), Stewart went on to a long and glorious career in the air force. He flew well over 20 missions well into the heart of Germany, often with casualty rates as high as 25%. He retired a Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve. He received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Croix de Guerre, the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


    What did good old John Wayne do? He dodged the draft in the most legal manner he could.


    "It must of been a anthropomorphic hell on earth."

    You have no idea.
  • Proxywar
    Great review.

    Ann is good at attacking the left logically but then her religious veiws show up and conservatives like ourselves get turned off by her convoluted logic.
  • faciaina
    Church is involving to much in political problems when the Church has as many problems of their own with more and more corrupt priests , the Church should use sabbath to look in their own organization and not accept anyone to be a priest
  • Jillian Becker
    No videos of our own. As yet. Someday maybe. But click on PajamasMedia in our margin, and then on PajamasTV.

    They like us, we like them, and they make good ones.

    Not much about religion there.
  • Jon_McGill
    Thanks Jillian! I'm definitely attracted ;-)

    Keep up the good work.

    Is there a video section? On the Atheist Media blog, they love to show videos which spin conservatives as all a bunch of religious nuts. When I come to the US (once or more a year) and actually watch Fox news, I rarely have seen anything about religion... unless they do stories about Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Jimmy Carter... all as ridiculously religious as the Atheist Left likes to portray all Republicans as being.
  • Jillian Becker
    Thank you, Jon_McGill.

    We appreciate your comment. You're the sort of reader we hope to attract.

    Please comment again - the more often the better.
  • Jon_McGill
    Great review! I do like Anne Coulter's political discussions... no Atheist I have met on RichardDawkins.net could even come close to saying a thing like this. And I also agree that Coulter's take on evolution, religion is pure nonsense. Would that more people could point out where people are right and where people are wrong on these important topics.
blog comments powered by Disqus