Stereotypes be damned: A Liberal Atheist Supports Mitt

I’m a proud non-believer and a socially liberal person. Because of this, many people are surprised to find out I’m a Republican. Most people assume that all Republicans or Democrats must be one way or another. This is ignorant and ill-informed. Society has fed these stereotypes and many people fail to research beyond the talking heads on Fox, MSNBC and Comedy Central. Not all Republicans are fundamentalists and not all Democrats are socialist. There are loud fringe groups perpetuating a typecast. Placing diametrically politically-opposed individuals face-to-face on a news talk show makes for interesting television and keeps ratings high. This is the current state of politics today—emotionally charged debates broken into to sound bites for consumption by the masses. “Democrats stand for the working man and love people. Republicans are greedy and hate people.” False and cannot be further from truth.

In reality, the Democrat Party has a long history of bigotry and hatred while the Republican Party has a prestigious history as being forward-thinking and progressive. For nearly 200 years, the Democrat Party was known as the party of the rich white landowner. It was a party that always had a close tie to industry and big business. Through decades long control in Congress, Democrats shaped laws to benefit the industrialists, corporations, and themselves—a practice that continues today. As America grew and became more diverse, the party tried to adapt and maintain power. To accomplish this, it had to consolidate various special interests: urban blacks, blue collar works, unions, and others. In order to maintain power over these groups, the party propagandized and manipulated them into thinking certain liberties were being infringed upon when in reality they were not. Enemies were manufactured and maintained to this day. Because of the ignorance of these groups, they bought and continue to buy into these lies.

Republicans on the other hand are the party of low taxes, minimal government and individual liberty. This is the party of Abraham Lincoln, Robert Green Ingersoll, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and even Martin Luther King, Sr. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the conservative, fundamentalist Christians became extremely vocal within the GOP. Many leaders felt it necessary to appeal to this particular constituency to consolidate power as the Democrats had with blacks et al. Yes, conservative Christians have tried to impose socially conservative restrictions on abortion and marriage, but to no avail. Although extremely vocal, they have become more and more impotent throughout the past 20 years. Despite this outspoken minority, the party is still home to those with the core principals espoused by its most prominent leads throughout the past.

I support the Republican Party and Mitt Romney, because I’m liberal in a classical sense. I believe individuals should be free to do as they please without infringing on the natural rights of others. From all I’ve seen and read of Romney and based on my reading of the party platform, the GOP believes individuals have a right to be free from government intrusion into their businesses and their bedrooms. Sure, there are some who vocally express disdain for homosexuality or abortion, but neither is illegal and there is no concerted Republican effort to end either. These are mere distractions manufactured by Democrats to instill fear in their pathetic, fractured coalition. Most Republicans stand for individual liberty as do I.

I’m a Republican because I’m an atheist. The GOP has a long history of appealing to atheists. Why? Because it is the Big Tent Party. It was the party that embraced religious and non-religious diversity. Where the Democrat party sees groups, the Republican party sees individuals with varying beliefs and perspectives. It is the party of the freethinker. Robert Green Ingersoll was a vocal agnostic/atheist Republican in the 1800s. He was opposed to slavery and any sort of oppression by individuals or government. He, Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman, and other atheists are held in high regard among Republicans to this day.

Mitt Romney has demonstrated through his work as governor of Massachusetts that he is a capable businessman who understands the importance of individual liberty. He’s familiar with the hard work that goes into starting and running a successful business. Sure, he’s a Mormon, but there are plenty of good men throughout history who were indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Based his history of government service, it seems it has had zero affect on his ability to govern. Mitt is a Republican in the vein of all the other great ones before him.

The Republican Party welcomes all nonbelievers, liberals and freethinkers. It’s the party of liberty and limited government. It always has and will continue to be the mainstream party for me.

Come, let’s reason together (Isaiah 1:18)

In my former life, I wanted to be a Christian apologist. Seriously and don’t laugh. Christian apologetics is the attempt to offer a rational explanation for the faith. Apologists seek to defend the faith against objections through public lectures, debates, books, and websites. The idea is to argue that Christianity is reasonable and evidence-based, but requires metaphysical considerations. That caveat is where my contention lies. A common argument is God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of revelation, both in nature and through the Bible. This field has sprouted many famous apologetes, including St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaff, and Lee Strobel.

I’ve argued with plenty of Christians—laypersons and pastors alike—but I have never had an opportunity to debate a full-fledged apologist. Recently, I was meeting with my State House Representative, Sheila Butt, and she told me her son, Kyle, is an apologist who has written numerous books. He currently works at Apologetics Press, a publishing house established in the 70s and based in Montgomery, AL. He publicly debated Dan Barker, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2008.

I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.

Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,

“So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?”

I explained that indirect observation is but one component of science. Scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on inference alone while religion does. In science, indirect observation can be used at various stages, but ultimately we must have testable, measurable evidence if we are to send a spacecraft to the hypothetical planet. We wouldn’t dare send the craft without having exact measurements of distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc. The beauty of science is that it’s predictable. Sure, it’s fun to speculate or infer an intelligent agent as a source of creation, but ultimately you have to define this entity and it has to be testable and measureable if it interacts within the material world.

He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.

After my last email educating him on evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, DNA, and paleontology, I haven’t heard back. It’s been eight days and I suspect I won’t hear anything else. My repeated question as to how he personally determines the truth of a statement/proposition was left unanswered. So much for “rationally defending the faith”. I appreciate him being a good sport, but I expected so much more. Oh well, on to the next one.

Here is the entire conversation -->

Debate with an up-and-coming apologist

I'm having a friendly email debate with a Christian apologist and author of numerous books. He has publicly debated a prominent atheist before a large audience. The video of his debate is available on YouTube, but I don't want to spoil the results. So I'm waiting to reveal with whom. Having a good discussion--so far. Details as I have something to report.