Rebane's Ruminations
December 2010
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the 17dec10 transcript of my regular bi-weekly commentary on KVMR-FM 89.5.  I have provided links to the Compton school and Governor Pawlenty’s public service union references.]

Remember the story of John Henry, the steel drivin’ man, celebrated in legend and song.  He was extremely strong and fast at chiseling holes into rock and driving spikes to hold down rails.  He chose to go head-to-head with the newly invented steam steel driver in order to save his job; it didn’t work out for John Henry.

Ever since the early 1800s new technology has been trumping human labor to deliver more, better, faster, and cheaper.  Those who chose to compete with technology were swept away like John Henry.  But in the olden days new technology was still dumb, and workers had an alternative – do something else or retrain and learn to work at a higher skill level with the new machines that were flooding work places.  But as the machines became more complicated and capable, working with them also required more from people – skills that everyone could not master.

In the last fifty years technology added a new page to its game book – intelligence.  Not only could machines handle work with brute force and high speed, they were now adding smarts to the mix that would let them make fast and reliable decisions, decisions that only people used to make.  And today we have machines that can out-think humans in more and more areas such as medicine, finance, distribution, transportation, and war.  Furthermore, the cost, capability, and reliability of these machines are all racing in the right directions – or the wrong directions if you consider that more and more of us are becoming John Henrys.

In the world highly paid workers – aka Americans – can only compete if they acquire new skills in which machines are not yet dominant.  But in the United States our government has made that path extremely difficult through its near monopoly of the public schools.  Too many of these schools are now operated by so-called professionals, an alarming number of whom are not qualified to provide the education our youth needs, and instead, featherbed their jobs through government service unions.  The result is that our schools’ output consists overwhelmingly of young workers who cannot even class themselves with the legendary John Henry, a man who at least had a competitive skill set.

Parents know this and have started protesting the treatment that their children receive in government mandated schools.  Recently in Compton, California parents ‘pulled the trigger’ on a public school, demanding its conversion to a charter school that would better educate their kids.  This type of parental activism may start a revolution that could help put an end to our suicidal educational system.  The teachers’ unions remain vehemently opposed to anything that would get rid of their cadres of ignorant and stupid yet understandably compliant members.

On the larger scale, leading politicians like Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota are beginning to make a public noise against the growing cancer of government service employee unions.  If we don’t cure this systemic disease, we can see our future in the riots of Greece, Great Britain, France, Italy, and soon other European countries with equally failed socialist expectations.

Unless our educational system is rapidly reformed into a professional meritocracy, our new unemployment norm will climb above the 10% where it is now.  And from there it will keep rising as our students and unemployed take to the streets demanding an unrealizable redistribution of wealth – a solution put in their heads by dysfunctional teachers, political demagogues, and reinforced daily by agenda driven journalism.

Today the promise of green jobs to solve our structural unemployment problems is an intentionally distracting placebo.  India and China are making huge investments in supplying the latest energy efficient products with their burgeoning workforce.  It is they who will sell the world ‘cleantech’ products at an economical price. The only way we will buy any green technology manufactured here is when the government sticks a gun to our head and says ‘… or else.’

My name is Rebane and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Posted in , ,

38 responses to “Jobs and Schools – we may be too late”

  1. Russ Steele Avatar

    George,
    I worked for TRW an aerospace and automotive supplier in the mid 1990. One of the Automotive Electronic Division products was an engine controller for Caterpillar. One of the issues was sealing the controller against dust and dirt, which required a bead of silicone around the cover plate. The rejection rate was rather high until Sony provide a robot to apply the sealant. To demonstrate the robotic skill of the machine, the Sony reps had the robot build a Walkman without any human involvement from just racks of parts. It was awesome to watch the machine perform. Remember, this was the mid 1990, the robots are much more proficient now.
    At one time industry employed the marginal students to do what the robot does better now. There are no room for the marginal students any more, it is be at the top of the educational game or be unemployable. There is no middle ground. Unfortunately our schools are turning out students that are only capable of competing with robots. Robots that do not require benefits or health care and can work 24/7 with out time off for an mental health day. Guess who gets the job?

    Like

  2. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Can’t we train those marginal students how to care for and feed the robots?
    George and Russ, I’m not yet ready to give up on American exceptionalism. Today was the last day of school for my 6 and 9 yr.-old in 2010, and we had a nice afternoon with Kuk Sool Won and rain.
    After dinner I showed them this NASA footage: http://bit.ly/hp2lpf. They are ready to contribute to American exceptionalism in the 21st century, but they also know where China and India are located (-:

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    I tried to point out that caring for and feeding the new robots belongs to the old paradigm of technological progress and is rapidly fading from the scene. It is and can be maintained only by government diktat.
    The level of care for robots that most people are capable of can be provided by other robots. The level of care that remains for humans to give is highly specialized and reserved for the very few.
    My suggestion has been the launch of for-profit corporate owned non-profit public service corporations as described here http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/09/workers-and-work—the-coming-crisis.html#more . That’s my best shot of how to implement productive and sustainable redistribution of wealth. Others may have better ideas, and I think this national dialogue should start. The collectivists of whatever stripe have not come up with a new or working idea on redistribution in over 150 years. Talk about stasis, and some of them even continue to call themselves ‘progressive’.

    Like

  4. RL Crabb Avatar

    Over at Pelline’s blog, I’ve been following a “spirited” debate between the atheists and Pastor Stoos, who is admittedly a ringer sent in from the McClintock machine to disrupt the mutual admiration society Jeff has cultitvated over there.
    The good pastor let it slip that he is an ardent believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible, including the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. He has no problem believing that dinosaurs were lurking behind the bushes in the garden of Eden, or that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the Great Flood.
    Now while I have my own problems with the collecto-lib-progressos, I find it hard to believe that the creationist version of science will advance the reasoning skills of our young impressionable minds.It would appear that conservatives have their own brand of bad juju.
    I suppose when the singularity comes to pass and the robots assume the weighty mantle of superior intelligence, they will have to find their own god. All hail the holy grid of Ampia Watt.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    Bob, I share your concern over the Bible literalists (to coin a word), they are among the several significant impediments that Christianity has to tolerate and ultimately overcome as it seeks to survive let alone flourish.
    But in saying that, please do not confuse the arguments for intelligent design as being some kind of ‘code word’ for creationism. I would direct you to learned authors like Behe and Meyer who will easily show you where the chasm lies between those two belief systems.

    Like

  6. RL Crabb Avatar

    I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject, as in my personal life experiences I have encountered phenomena that doesn’t fit in with any accepted scientific belief.
    However, I do wonder about conservatives that buy into the literal interpretation of scripture. Having people who would use the Book of Revelations as a guide to foreign policy makes me a bit queasy.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    Agreed. Having ‘end-timer’ religionists in high places does make one have second thoughts. Technically Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all end-timer religions. I guess how close the one in power thinks that it is to the end time, and what role s/he feels destined to play is what we really should worry about. Self-declared ‘agents of God’ would have many of us hearken back to the duck and cover days.

    Like

  8. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “Intelligent design” is just creationism in a different wrapper; I suspect Stoos is tolerated at Peline’s because that gives ‘balance’, and there’s no chance whatsover he’ll ever give pause, let alone convert, one of Pelline’s fans.

    Like

  9. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Greg, can you explain then how it is that there are atheists that adhere to intelligent design? I.D. is a scientific look at what we know about the information involved in reproductive life and how the idea that it simply sprang into being by chance is just not a realistic probability. The scientists are discovering that “simple” life form is a relative term to say the least. The most simple life form that we know of is far beyond our ability to reverse engineer. Remember the project to map the human genome? It turns out they know more but now have even more questions about how it works. One of the scientists involved declared there is far more to how that code works than they even imagined. Also, kids at Christian private schools continue to out perform on standard science tests than the kids at public schools. One reason libs hate standardised testing of school kids.

    Like

  10. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Without any specific claim to evaluate, all I can suggest is that there are idiots of all creeds, including atheism. Perhaps if you could actually provide a testament from an atheist or two who “adhere to intelligent design”, there would be something to discuss here.
    From my time in the Math Wars, I can attest to the fact that there are a number of Marxists teaching math in the CSU system who are BORN AGAIN standardized testers. It ain’t a left/right thing.

    Like

  11. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    RL Crabb wrote: “Having people who would use the Book of Revelations as a guide to foreign policy makes me a bit queasy.”
    Bob, your queasiness will vanish once you are floating up to outer space, rapturing skyward with the rest of the good people. Ice cream and lollipops for dinner, free health care, and no politicians.
    Oh wait, that would not be heaven for you…w/o politicians, you won’t have anything to draw!
    Never mind, you were right the first time.

    Like

  12. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    George wrote: “Others may have better ideas, and I think this national dialogue should start.”
    Shouldn’t it be more than a dialogue? Shouldn’t the USA have a business plan, just like any other organization of human beings trying to move in the same direction economically?
    Can a republic like the United States of America actually incorporate a business plan into its political framework?

    Like

  13. George Rebane Avatar

    Well yes, it should be more than a dialogue and end in a comprehensive plan to a new approach on how the nation should be taxed and its people provided fulfilling employment. But it must first start with a national recognition of the problem, and that itself may turn out to be the hardest step to take – it has been so far.
    In the end, I don’t think a central plan like a ‘business plan’ would work for all the reasons that have been argued on RR. But creating the environment in which such solutions can come to be and be appropriately rewarded seems to me the best approach. And yes, that does require some co-ordinated legislation. That may be as close as we can get to incorporating a business plan into our political framework.
    I think the last time we as a nation came to close to accepting such a unified plan was at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    Like

  14. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    OK Greg, anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of science is an idiot. How intellectual! Why don’t you post your critique of the writings of Dr M Behe – a tenured professor of bio chem at Lehigh University. Or maybe Phillip Johnson – clerked with Chief Justice Earl Warren and then taught law at Boalt Hall at the Univ of Ca Berkeley for 30 years. Obviously there folks on both sides of the standardised testing issue, but it’s always libs at the top of the educational food chain that don’t like them. They say that teachers will just teach for the tests. What they miss is that even if that is all the teacher does, at least the kids will learn something. All this debate about education is moot, anyway. The kids that are motivated to learn, will learn. And the ones that believe there’s no point, since the feds will give them everything all of their lives, will not. For them, the school system is just a place to keep warm and get a free meal or two.

    Like

  15. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Scott, one at a time and let’s stay on the subject. Do you have any evidence that Behe or any other intelligent design booster is an atheist?

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    In discussions of this nature it is good to be reminded that atheism, as a strongly held belief that God does not exist, is also a religion in that it satisfies neither Occam’s razor nor can it be falsified.
    Not sure where Greg is going with that line of questioning. Does a Christian scientist’s work in, say, quantum mechanics disqualify itself because of his religion? The Christian’s work can still be subjected to independent verification and the two pillars of science. And this, of course, is being done daily in the science community.
    I refer the reader to my recent piece on creationism and ID. http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/10/whos-afraid-of-id.html

    Like

  17. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Greg, creationism is belief in the Biblical story of the origin of the cosmos, including earth and all living creatures. It states that a self-existant God caused all of it to happen. The story offers no scientific proofs of any kind. It is not science. ID looks at all of the same scientific facts that Darwinism sees and comes to a different conclusion. Both are scientific theories. ID has nothing to say about what or who is the “intelligence” behind the design. There is nothing in ID that demands that God even exists, let alone is the intelligence. A persons belief or non belief in any or all gods has nothing to do with whether they believe in ID or chance as the source of the cosmos and life as we know it. ID is most certainly not creationism in a different wrapper. If you want names of people, I’m sure you know how to use Google as well as I. I hesitate to name anyone in particular, since I don’t know that much about any of them and can only go by what they claim. And I don’t want this to devolve into endless arguments about some particular individual. I have heard about (but not read) Bradley Monton’s book about atheism and ID.

    Like

  18. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    I might add that I never claimed that Behe was an atheist. You claimed he was an idiot.

    Like

  19. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    From my genius little brother: “their work ethic is my job security”

    Like

  20. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    It’s easy, George. Scott challenged me with “Greg, can you explain then how it is that there are atheists that adhere to intelligent design?” and I still don’t have a clue as to the identity of a single atheist who adheres to intelligent design. Scott seems to think they exist, perhaps he’ll actually point me towards one. Perhaps not

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    Greg, you and Scott are dissecting a point different from the one I raised with you. I don’t know how you plan to bring in the requirement that ID and creationism are different cosmological notions only if atheist scientists agree. Maybe I misunderstand, but my only position is that ID and creationism are distinct views of the origin of the cosmos. Lumping them together cuts out the work and words of unnumbered scientists and thinkers who have written about the ID framework. They cite everything from lack of ‘probabilistic assets’ to the interpretation that at its finest level, the universe appears as if it were a ‘running program (software)’.

    Like

  22. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    George, I’m just trying to defend myself from Scott’s unfocused rhetoric. His first claim was the one I remain on. If he’ll admit there really aren’t any atheist ID’ers that he knows of, we can go on to his second claim. If by some miracle there is an atheist scientist who agrees with ID, I’d then be able to answer Scott’s challenge to account for that in my original claim.
    There aren’t so many scientists who believe in ID that they can’t be numbered, and it remains that the ID movement didn’t arise until Creationism was barred from public school science curriculum.

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    OK, let’s see if we all can plow through this Greg. In the interval let me throw out the following –
    1. I don’t think there are any scientists who claim to be atheists, since proving the non-existence of God (or the negative of anything for that matter) is not a scientific enterprise. At best, a scientist would be agnostic on the matter, and maintain that no elements of proof for the existence of God have yet to be presented (‘It’s turtles all the way down.’)
    2. I didn’t say that ID-believing scientists “can’t be numbered”; I did say that they are unnumbered. For example even Einstein’s musing on God and the improbability of our universe has been raised in this debate. The notion of ID (in the sense that I speak of it here) started way before creationism and public schools, which is a fairly recent (20th century) controversy.
    3 The record does show that the number of scientists, who would admit to the possibility of an impersonal intelligence kicking off what we humans perceive as the cosmos, is fairly large. That aspect of ID still complies best with Occam, although it does suffer on the falsifiability side in spite of Stephen Hawking.
    4. Finally, man has arrived at the stage where we, using our present knowledge of science and computability, can conceive of being creators of what would be perceived as a complex universe to new ‘artificial’ life forms. Therefore, if downward becomes possible, why not upward?

    Like

  24. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    All of the ID proponents I’m aware of go way beyond a supreme being kicking off the process, with ID being essentially a sequential creation.
    There are certainly scientists who are atheists, including agnostic atheists, who do not see evidence of a god and so operate as if god(s) don’t exist, but don’t believe it’s provable.

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    Greg, I don’t know of anyone, nor would I include anyone in this discussion who uses ID to label sequential creation. None of my arguments come remotely close to that. Here are some major published apologists for ID (also noted in previous RR pieces) – Francis Collins, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay W. Richards, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, … . There are many, many more scientists who accept various forms of ID, and in their informal interviews admit that they don’t dare publish about it because of the secular humanist dominance on grant committees and their university faculties.
    I use the following common definitions:
    Atheist – a person whose belief system strongly denies the existence of God (as opposed to one whose belief system lacks a tenet for the belief in a god). The atheist assigns a probability zero to the existence of God, and behaves accordingly.
    Agnostic – a person whose belief system has no tenet for the existence of God, but concedes that God may exist and that the knowledge of such existence is unknown to him. (A bifurcation between ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable to Man’ exists here. For an agnostic God may be unknowable but still exist.) The agnostic assigns a probability greater than zero to the existence of God, and behaves accordingly.
    Hope this helps decipher some of my scribblings.

    Like

  26. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    I didn’t dig out the Nature article it claims to quote, but this reports a survey showed a large majority (72%) of elite scientists (who were in the National Academy) having a “personal disbelief”,with only 7% of those surveyed having a “personal belief”.
    http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
    Still, that doesn’t say that Scott isn’t right, that there are one or more in the supposed 72% or so that are atheist who also believe in some part of the ID story, but I doubt it; it seems contradictory to me.

    Like

  27. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    From Scott:
    “I might add that I never claimed that Behe was an atheist. You claimed he was an idiot.”
    I challenged your claim that there were atheists who supported ID. My only claim was that if there was such a person, “Without any specific claim to evaluate, all I can suggest is that there are idiots of all creeds, including atheism.”
    This was before you mentioned Behe. Wondering if you meant your citation of him to be an answer to my challenge, I asked you if he was an atheist. I never claimed he was an idiot, which means there are probably two claims of yours that you should retract.

    Like

  28. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    George, I suspect your definitions of religion, atheism and agnosticism are most popular among those with a distinctively theistic point of view.
    Looking at the wiki article on atheism, I found the statement “The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism.” I suspect most atheistic scientists are practical atheists, in which “individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.”

    Like

  29. George Rebane Avatar

    You may be right Greg, I have made no such survey but draw my definitions from presumably neutral sources as dictionary.com and the American Heritage Unabridged.
    I don’t think that the behavior of theistic and atheistic scientists would be any different when their work is considered. The theistic scientist will not halt his pursuit of truth (especially the Christian scientist who has a commission to discover the “ordered universe” that his God has promised is discoverable). And neither will the atheistic scientist, because he is forever looking for the ‘next turtle down’ while hoping to find the bottom turtle which for him is a testable Theory of Everything – but then again, that and all TOEs must be falsifiable.
    From personal experience, as a theistic scientist I have never thought of God during the pursuit, but I have always done so when blessed with my latest ‘discovery’. I suspect my faithful peers work the same way. (Although, I will admit to spontaneously uttering a silent prayer in cold sweat when, after nine months into my dissertation research, my software produced a ‘wrong’ result that later turned out to be correct.)
    However, there are many (most?) secular humanist scientists who constantly frame their research in terms of ‘proving the non-existence or un-necessity of God. And often they gleefully publish their latest discovery in terms of ‘proof’ of a belief system that requires the absence of a higher or hyper-intelligence to keep them in their comfort.

    Like

  30. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Greg – the plain reading of your reference to idiots were people that espouse ID. Dr Behe is such a person and therefore in your opinion is an idiot. If I’m wrong then who are these idiots you refer to? I have already shown that believing in ID has nothing to do with believing in God. You have produced no arguments to the contrary. Your position is that if I can’t name any one who landed on the moon, then no one landed on the moon. Do you want to learn about ID? Have you read any books by Dr Behe or P Johnson? It seems to me that your refusal to believe that there could be an atheist that espouses ID is evidence to me that you are just not very familiar with what ID is. The I in ID stands for intelligent. ID does not and can not claim at this point to have any idea of what or where the intelligence comes from. Some claim it is God, but that is not a requirement. Atheists can believe it comes from another race of beings.

    Like

  31. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “Greg – the plain reading of your reference to idiots were people that espouse ID.”
    No, Scott, it was the plain idea that an atheist who believes in ID would have to be an idiot for having conflicting beliefs. Believing in intelligent design requires the belief in a designer, and strange as it may seem, a true atheist really doesn’t believe in such an entity.
    You asked me to account for all the atheists who believe in ID. I don’t think there are any, and you seem unable to name one.

    Like

  32. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    From a relevant court case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) for which Behe testified:”Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.”

    Like

  33. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Greg – I have pointed out every way I can think of that ID does not require a God. You obviously disagree. What good would it do for me to name someone who I felt was an atheist and a believer in ID? You have stated that these people are all idiots. I will at least try to point you to a book you might want to read on the subject. I have not read the book and I don’t know the man, but he claims to be an atheist and he believes in ID enough to write a book defending it. ‘Seeking God In Science’ by Bradley Monton. I was aware of the Dover case and I looked at what I could quickly find online. That quote you give is not Dr Behe’s and in fact is the opposition’s quote that is trying to disprove Dr Behe’s direct assertion that God is not required to be the I in ID. That case hinged on the proposition that teaching ID was “establishing a religion” and so all of the statements made by the plaintiffs were not concerned with science, but with winning the case.

    Like

  34. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Things have calmed down, and I think it’s been established that there really aren’t any atheists who accept ID as a science.
    An interesting claim of George’s is “However, there are many (most?) secular humanist scientists who constantly frame their research in terms of ‘proving the non-existence or un-necessity of God. And often they gleefully publish their latest discovery in terms of ‘proof’ of a belief system that requires the absence of a higher or hyper-intelligence to keep them in their comfort.”
    Since, by that Nature article at least, something like 93% of physicists are non believers, can you cite a physicist or two “who constantly frame their research in terms of ‘proving the non-existence or un-necessity of God’ “, or are they just ‘practical’ atheists who really don’t care about proving anything besides the value of their research into the nature of matter, energy & everything?
    In the ID debate, yes, there is much rancor, but it’s hard to make the case that mysticism belongs in a science curriculum, and the folks who are pushing hard for ID are pretty much the same folks who were pushing for Genesis a few years before.
    There is room for religion at Sunday school, at the dinner table, and in social studies. Let’s keep what little time there is in the classroom for science, on science.

    Like

  35. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “he claims to be an atheist and he believes in ID enough to write a book defending it”
    To quote his website, “”This is a brave and important book. Monton does not defend ‘intelligent design’ as true – he thinks it is most likely false.”
    Not exactly an endorsement.

    Like

  36. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Proves my point. You don’t want to discuss ID. You want to go off on anyone I could name. That quote, by the way is not Monton, but some one else. The book jacket itself says “An atheist Defends ID” That would be his stance. The NAZIs loved Darwin. Are we to have a discussion about Darwinism by looking at them? Or would we debate Darwinism on it’s merits? You have already made up your mind about this and I will not bother you further on this topic.
    Merry Christmas!

    Like

  37. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    By Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies, you’ve just forfeited. Thank you, I accept.
    The quote is by a reviewer of Monton’s book, quoted on his website. I expect that means Monton agrees with it.
    I just don’t think there are any sentient atheists who espouse ID, and you seem unable to find any despite your belief there are a multitude out there for the discovering. Even challenged me to account for their existence.
    Change my mind. Find just one of these atheist ID’ers that remains in independent living arrangements, without a court having granted power of attorney to a guardian for their own protection.

    Like

  38. George Rebane Avatar

    Greg, how about about this gleeful number?
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/09/god-gets-to-stay.html
    And then we can go on to Dawkins and Dennett.

    Like

Leave a comment