About a week ago, the Miami Herald reported its results of hand recounts in four disputed counties, regarding "undervote" tallies. Using the most liberal standards--dimpled chad, hanging chad--the paper found that no matter how you sliced and diced the data, Bush would still have won.

Don't worry. This piece is not about the election. That's been done to death. However, looking at the reaction of what LA talk show host Larry Elder calls "toe tag liberals" leads us into a topic that is frankly far more interesting than a presidential election.

Elder first described the Herald findings, and then asked if they, or ANYTHING, will finally put the "stolen election" nonsense to rest. Cynical as I am, I was not quite prepared for what followed.

One caller questioned the integrity of the Herald and the public accounting firm it retained. When asked whom she would trust, she had no answer. A man, overly impressed with his own knowledge of basic statistics, kept repeating that the election was a statistical dead heat, so that somehow there could be no winner. Another caller outlined a vast conspiracy involving Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, that even included all media.

In their convoluted way, they WERE making a valid point. Ultimately, nothing can be proven, since all knowledge is based on certain assumptions. There is no such thing as non-antecedent reasoning. In Geometry, for example, you start out with certain unprovable assumptions (axioms), that everyone just accepts, based on reason--or is it faith?

Clearly, demanding an excessive level of "proof" will stifle accumulation of knowledge.

One is reminded of the joke concerning a man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but there is always the doubt, always the doubt. He hires a detective to watch her when he leaves town, and upon his return gets the detective's report. The gumshoe relates in great detail how she met a man, and went with him to a bar, where they kissed constantly. Then, they spent the night together.

But, since there are no videos of his wife in flagrante delicto, the husband can never be sure. There is always the doubt, always the doubt.

Ask any believer to defend his faith, and he will probably relate certain personal experiences that convinced him that God was working in his life. There would seem to be no way that these events could have occurred randomly. Of course, this contention can't be proven, so at some point, he just has to believe.

Ask an atheist how he knows that Timbuktu exists. He read about it in a book, he saw a picture of it. Thus, he had to believe that the book was true, or his teacher was correct, or what he calls Timbuktu, is actually Timbuktu. Even if he were to visit this town himself, ultimately, he would have to believe the signs in the town identifying it as such. At some point, he has to accept a basic item on faith.

As you can plainly see, there is no difference between faith and reason!!

To be sure, at some time in history, "scientific" knowledge was deemed more pure and rational than theological thought. And, the many facets of Scholasticism didn't help, although ironically, this branch of philosophy began with the notion of the conjunction of faith and reason.

Given the confessions of former Clinton allies, and their conversion to the other side, we are reminded of the zealous faith of Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of Christians, who became Paul the Apostle.

Perhaps the Clinton fallout will have some positive effects, beyond mere amusement.

Send Mike e-mail