Review: Godless: The Church of Liberalism 61

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 by Jillian Becker on Saturday, July 18, 2009

Tagged with

This post has 61 comments.

Permalink
  • Andrew M

    Do you have a proposal for a superior political position, laplacesdemon? Right now, it just seems like you are berating us merely for being conservatives and libertarians without actually addressing our arguments in favor of this stance.

    Another thing to consider is that evolution is directionless. Every species alive today is “fully evolved” until the next present occurs.

  • C. Gee

    No, sorry, I got to Godwin’s Law first.  So I win. 

  • Liz

    “a dictatorship…thru the merging of state and business leadership” is EXACTLY what Obama is doing.  And if the only difference between the Nazis and the conservatives is that the conservatives whine about paying their taxes, then I guess that makes you a good little obedient slave of the government who dutifully bows to their all knowing wisdom and allows yourself to be screwed.

  • George

    Well folks  , I just happen to be net surfing and I came across this fantastic book that counters that nut-case Ann Coulter. The book is titled— ” Brainless : The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter “    by Joe Maguire   ( hard cover ). You can even order at amazon , com or your local bookstore.  I read the reviews and they are great. Check it out !

  • Brad

    Political conservatism and atheism seem like obvious philosophical counterparts, but the American landscape of political opinion differs completely. The same skepticism, reliance on evidence and reason, and aversion to illegitimate authority that “knows best” how I should think and act is the source of my conservatism AND my atheism. 
    Knee-jerk, uncritical dismissal of atheism persists mostly due to its associtation with the Left. The communists and socialists that decimated Europe and Asia had atheistic manifestos, forever contaminating the idea to free-market westerners forever. The tyrannical despots of the communist regimes, however, began with atheism as an intellectual ideal and sustained it because one could not have fanatical, unthinking allegiance to the state if one spend it all on the church.
    Eric Hoffer brilliantly elucidated the essentially religious nature of secular mass movements in his book, “The True Believer.”
    Even though most intellectual conservatives seem to “indulge” religion as a personal liberty (which it is)  I think  they fear alienating their traditional constituents by approaching it with the same skeptical rigour that they approach the absurdities of leftist ideology. Dedication to truth, however, compels the intellectually honest to do just that. 

  • George

    Except atheism didn’t decimate Europe and Asia . If you’re referring to the dictators who ruled Asia and Europe , let’s examine the facts.   Adolp Hitler was a staunch Catholic and admitted such in his writings and speeches.  Joseph Stalin was accused by US theologians of being atheistic but Stalin attended a seminary twice  ( once as a teenager and later in his adult life ). Stalin was a staunch supporter and follower of the Russian Orthodox Church ( which prevailed strongly in the USSR and actually wielded the true power and control in that communist nation with Islam also having a significant although minor position in that nation —just look at the Russian architecture with it’s flourishing minarettes which is islamic architecture clearly , and acknowledged by historians as well )  , and during his later years preceding his death , Stalin converted back to hardcore religious belief and ferver .  It was only rumored by a close associate of Stalin via third party hearsay that Stalin badmouthed religion and I have the exact documented quotations if you ever want me to post them later. It was during this time after converting back to religion in hiS last remaning years that he was considered to be the most ruthless. It was only during his middle years that he was accused of being atheistic and even that is questionable considering that during these mid life years Stalin stated that it was his intent to start his own religion.  Both Pol Pot  , the Marxist who studied in Paris France ( whose real name was Sadath Sar )  and Mao Tse Tung  (aka- Ze Dong ) were Buddhists . Mao often switched to variations of Taoism and Shintoism but was never a secularist.     Alexandro Fidel Castro was never an atheist but always a Liberation Theologist and continually embraced Liberation Theology staunchly .  American Christian  theologians have branded anyone who doesn’t embrace the top three Abrahamic religions as a seculr heathen , infidel or atheists and they do so in order to denigrate secular freethought.
                        Actually conservatism is more in accord to secularism than theology becasue conservative ideology demands proof , veification and substantiation except the religious Christian right that has virtually hijacked the conservative movement just as the liberals of the radical left have virtually hijacked the secular freethought movement.  It’s a sad state of affairs no matter which way you look at it.

  • Jillian Becker

    Yes, please George, do post the exact documented quotations (with sources if possible) on Stalin’s late-life return to religion. I’d be very interested, and I think others would be too. 

  • George

    Do keyword  search on internet under the title :
    [     Were Stalin , Hitler and Pol Pot atheists ?   ] ,  the actual website is http://www.freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com…id…stalin
                          It indicates Stalin converted back to religion in his later life. I have another article in a paper file in a box in storage stating that it was AFTER Stalin converted back to religion that he was the most ruthless . I will search for that one and then present info for substantiation.  I have a paper file on Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Pol Pot and Castro and I will later jot down the source names and titles as well.  The Chistians have used their false propaganda via the media to villify atheists perpetually.

  • Liz

    Brad –
    I think that is an excellent point that both conservatism and atheism require the same reliance on evidence and reason, etc., that you mention.  They are NOT antithetical, but, in fact, are completely compatible, in contrast to conservatism and religion, or atheism and leftism, for the very reasons you pointed out.  But since both atheism and conservatism have been “contaminated” by their association with leftism and religion, respectively, they seem to be forever polarized.  

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BSXOJSGY2CFNGV44B2DDP2AROY Bobgood1

    You Atheist spend a lot of time trying to convince people of Religion, that you are Atheist. Funny.

  • George

                           No Bobgood1    , we atheists don’t spend a lot of time  ( or any time for that matter ) trying to convince people of  religion that  we are atheists.   That’s a given.   Duhhhhhh  !!!!!!     There is no reason to convince anyone that we are atheists . It’s arrogant people like you who have no problem with fundamentalist christian zealots ( or other religionists – aka theists ) perpetually trying to shove your indoctrinated theological dogma down our throats .     We are NOT the ones telling people that if they don’t accept secularism that they are going to burn in some eternal secular hellfire. We are not the ones filling houses of worship and bashing anyone and everyone who doesn’t accept our beliefs .   Secular freethinkers today are simply finally standing up and speaking up to be recognized like everyone else.   People like you feel that it’s ok for you and  your religious cohorts to impose YOUR religious beliefs on us and everyone else but as soon as we speak up for ourselves then we have to put up with your ad hominem attacks ,  bashing , mockery, vilifying , maligning , denigrating , defamation , lies & deceit, threats , violence , discrimination , harrassment, ostracism and more 24/7 .   
                         You knew that this was an atheist website when you posted on here but instead of simply asking a question for information purposes or trying to engage in some form of civil discourse , you come on here with your trolling derogatory behavior   per your comment.  Now if there is something you have of as a question then ask , and we will give you a straightforward and honest answer .  If you’re going to post insulting and/or sarcastic comments  then may I suggest that you simply STFU  !!!!!!!    You’re the one whos funny or rather pathetic !  Grow up and get a life !