Stick it to the Establishment!

A few parting thoughts on Trump and Trumpkins as we bear down on Iowa:

i) I think one of Trump's basic problems–perhaps the underlying problem–is that his vast hereditary wealth has insulated him from the consequences of bad decision-making. He's had that thick padding all his life. 

Ordinary folks don't have that margin of error. If we blow too many opportunities, the opportunities dry up. 

The boss can fire us. A superior can demote us. A teacher can flunk us or downgrade us. A principal can suspend us or expel us. Prospective employers can blacklist us. Landlords can evict us. And so on and so forth. 

By contrast, Trump has never been accountable for what he says and does. His wealth protects him. And the results are predictable. 

ii) I think grassroots Trump supporters are motivated by one thing: Stick it to the Establishment! And he's their vessel. 

They don't care that he has no moral core because, for them, it's all about "Let's stick it to the Establishment!"

They don't care that he has no ideological core because, for them, it's all about  "Let's stick it to the Establishment!"

They construe opposition to Trump as the Establishment reacting to Trump. To them, criticism of Trump is proof of how successful they've been at sticking it to the Establishment. 

But even on its own terms, there are two problems with that:

They are spiting themselves. The sharp end of the spear is pointed in their direction. Trump is not their friend. 

Trump is the Establishment. He's becoming the establishment candidate. The Establishment is lining up behind Trump. His avid grassroots supports will be shut out of the ball. 

Is Trump a populist?

I see some conservative pundits framing the contest in terms of Trump the populist v. Cruz the conservative. But Trump is no populist. He may use populist rhetoric, but he doesn't represent the common man. He's not a man of the people or for the people. He comes from old money. His presidential bid is all about self-aggrandizement. 

Populism is an ideology. Trump is not an ideologue, but a demagogue. Scott Walker was the closest thing we had to a populist during this election cycle. And Rick Santorum has some populist elements in his message.

The Gospel in the stars

Once upon a time there was a KJV-Onlyist. That's before he lost his faith in God's existence. And what, you ask, was the precipitating event that led to his apostasy?

On a camping trip he was gazing at the night sky when he caught sight of some stars spelling out John 3:16. At first he was ecstatic at this cosmic proof of God's existence. A nature miracle. Forsooth, the Gospel written in the stars!

But his elation was short-lived when he noticed that the message was in the ESV rather than the KJV. This he took as incontrovertible evidence for God's nonexistence. For surely the one true God would arrange the stars to spell out John 3:16 in the KJV!

Let there be bunnies

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2016/01/video-understanding-created-kinds-with.html

On the Use of "Arminian" as a Label

It has come to my attention that a couple of individuals have taken umbrage at my use of the word "Arminian" in my Pointless Prayer post. Since I do not wish to inflict unnecessary distress upon anyone, I want to take a minute to explain why I use the term the way that I do.

First, I am well aware there is a group of Internet Arminians who it seems treat themselves as the official guardians of what is or is not Arminianism. This group is called SEA, short for the Society of Evangelical Arminians. Most of these Arminians have blogs, and many of them are people I've interacted with in the past, especially through posts on Triablogue. In general, this group of Arminians are those who follow closer to what Arminius taught, and thus the moniker of "Classical Arminian" can be applied to them--and indeed when I am dealing with their members, that is what I call the group.

But the fact of the matter is that the Classical Arminians of SEA are a minority of those who claim the label Arminian today. To put it bluntly, I would doubt that even 10% of people who claim to be Arminian have ever once read a single word of Arminius. In contrast, while there is probably a huge minority of Calvinists who have never read a word of Calvin, most Calvinists--especially converts from Arminianism to Calvinism--read at least part of The Institutes, and thus have read something of Calvin. But since Arminianism is the default mode of theology taught in the majority of churches in America today, most American Christians are Arminian by default.

Now, I have no real scientific numbers to back up anything, but my impression is that probably 95% of Arminians in America fit that description of being Arminian by church tradition instead of through reading of Arminian works or understanding Arminian theology. This is why people claiming to be Arminian encompass such a wide range of people: from Randal Rauser and Roger Olson on one hand to Billy Graham on the other; from John Wesley to Frank Page. For that matter, Arminians can't even decide whether someone can lose their salvation or if eternal security is true.

But even if my numbers are off, it's still pretty obvious that the vast majority of Arminians today do not represent the actual beliefs of Arminius himself. I made this very point once to Billy Birch on his Classical Arminian blog: there's a reason that Birch has to differentiate himself by adding the word "Classical" to the label, and that's because the vast majority of people currently taking the label do not fit.

Think about that for a minute. If most Arminians held to the faith of Arminius, there wouldn't be a need for "Classical" to be associated with it. It is only when the majority have moved away from those beliefs that "Classical" even has any meaning. We see that in the political realm when we see that a classical liberal--someone in the vein of Thomas Jefferson, for example--is 180 degrees apart from what a modern liberal is.

Now it obviously is no fun for the person who is holding onto the classical view. In the political realm, it is quite apparent that the classical liberal is the one who actually holds to the concepts found in the term "liberal"--from liberty meaning freedom; our modern liberal movement is 100% straight up statist, and exactly what classical liberalism opposed. Yet if I wrote a blog post lampooning liberalism, a classical liberal ought to be smart enough to refrain from saying, "What you're attacking isn't liberalism, because liberalism is really what Thomas Jefferson believed." That's true as far as it goes, which won't even get you off the front lawn when 99% of people understand liberalism in the modern day usage.

Likewise, when dealing with Arminians, it does no good to say, "That's not what Arminius taught" or "Why don't you deal with Classical Arminians?" When 95% of those taking the label "Arminian" are really just anti-Calvinist, then the label fits. If Classical Arminians don't like that, they should clean their own house; it's not incumbent upon me to do that work for them.

Which reminds me. Lemme take a look at the SEA website and look at all the posts where they correct Arminians and show them that Arminius didn't say what they said.

Oh wait. You're telling me that SEA's blog is just a stream of anti-Calvinist thought, and they are likely to quote an open theist or other non-Classical Arminian without refuting the non-Classical Arminian aspects of their theology, so long as they are attacking Calvinism? Hmm. Maybe this Classical Arminianism label is just a distinction without a difference after all.

Write-in candidates

In case Trump is nominated, I've begun compiling a list of write-in candidates. Here's a start:

1. Maul Panata

2. Adam Baldwin

3. Chuck Norris

4. Ben Shapiro

5. Rich Franklin

6. David Wood

7. Kurt Russell

8. ___________

Trump meets Screwtape

There are times when it's important for Christians to be politically shrewd. In the US, that's been the case since the 70s (if not before then).

That said, it can be morally and spiritually hazardous to be too crafty and cunning. I'm reminded of C. S. Lewis's experience writing The Screwtape Letters. Now that's one of his most deservedly popular works. Psychologically penetrating.

Problem is, to write it, he had to assume the Devil's viewpoint. Had to think like the devil. He found it oppressive to cultivate that mindset. He could hardly wait to finish writing the book and put it behind him. 

When it comes down to making calculations about whether it's more prudent to vote for Trump or Hillary (or Bernie), I feel like I'm crossing a border into Screwtape territory. If it comes to that, the remaining options will be so appalling that I'm having to apply an almost devilish ingenuity to their comparative merits. I don't want to spend much time on that side of the border. I don't want to become acclimated to that side of the border. 

Admittedly, that's a melodramatic comparison. But there's a grain of truth to it. There's a point at which I find the calculations morally self-degrading. 

C. S. Lewis: exit interview

http://www1.cbn.com/narnia/the-final-interview-of-c.-s.-lewis

RINOs and CINOs

i) I'd like to begin by noting how some people use the epithet "RINO". 

On the one hand, people who employ this epithet use it to indicate that if a candidate is a RINO, then that automatically disqualifies him from further consideration. To be a RINO is disreputable.

On the other hand, many people who use this epithet are the same people who think the GOP is irredeemably corrupt. 

But if that's the case, then why isn't RINO a badge of honor? If you think the GOP is that bad, then it's bad to be a loyal Republican and good to be maverick. 

Suppose you said Klaus is a Nazi in name only. Well, is it not better to be a nominal Nazi than a zealous Nazi?

It's illogical for people to simultaneously say the GOP is hopelessly decadent and use RINO as a term of abuse. 

ii) I'd add that in principle, I don't care if a candidate is Republican in name only; rather, I care if a candidate is conservative in name only. My problem isn't with RINOs but CINOs (rhymes with Encino). 

Skywriting

Some atheists say they'd believe in God if he arranged the stars to spell out John 3:16–or something like that. Indeed, this has become an atheist trope. Theodore Drange, Jerry Coyne, Evan Fales, Matt McCormick, and Keith Parsons, among others, have used that basic illustration. 

Of course, it's a facetious illustration. Because so many atheists have intellectual contempt for Christianity, they easily succumb to thinking there's a quick and easy way to dismiss it. As a result, they resort to glib, shortsighted examples. 

The problem with the skywriting example is that it conflicts with how many atheists define a miracle. Taking their cue from Hume, many atheists define a miracle as a violation of natural law. 

But on the face of it, a conjunction of starry objects (e.g. stars, comets) to spell out John 3:16 doesn't violate the laws of physics. Rather, it fits the definition of a coincidence miracle.

In principle, God could plan the history of the universe so that in the year 2000 AD (or whenever), there's an alignment of starry objects spelling out John 3:16. That might be in the works from the time of the Big Bang. God could work through natural processes to arrive at that result. 

It doesn't require the stars to suddenly rearrange themselves. It only requires a combination of starry objects of absolute or apparent magnitude to spell out that message. It doesn't require any star to change course. This physical conjunction could be physically predetermined from the time of the Big Bang. A delayed reaction. 

(I'm not saying I subscribe to the Big Bang–just using that frame of reference for convenience.) 

NASA Study Sees Maul Panata’s Muscles from Space

I saw this conversation on Facebook and just had to report it.

Maul Panata: They don't make movies like The Godfather (1&2) anymore. This is one reason why men's testosterone levels have dropped since the 1970s.

VS: I thought it was because more and more guys are being raised by single mothers. But it could be movies!

Maul Panata: I only said it's one reason.

VS: Maybe they're connected in some way. Like, men started leaving their families because they were too intimidated by the first two Godfather movies y/n

Maul Panata: Empirical claim needs empirical evidence bro. Do the study. I'm open [smile emoticon]

John Bugay: Do you have studies that show a direct correlation between "movies like The Godfather 1&2" (that's a very vague statement to begin with) and "men's testosterone levels"?

Maul Panata: Yes, the study NASA did on me.

VS: They can see Paul Manata's muscles from space

#SundayFunnies

What if Trump is the nominee?

I'm beginning to read discussions about what to do if Trump is the nominee. One argument for Trump goes like this:

We know that Hillary will nominate the worst possible judges for the Supreme Court; we don't know that Trump will do that. And surely Trump can't do worse.  Given those alternatives, the unknown is better than the known.

I think that's reasonable. 

I've also read a counterargument. Hillary is better than Trump. If Trump is elected, the corrupt GOP "establishment" that backed Trump rather than Cruz or Rubio will cut deals with Trump. 

If, on the other hand, Hillary is elected, the Congressional Republicans will generally blockade all of her initiatives. 

And I think that's reasonable.

Speaking for myself, if Trump is the nominee, I won't vote for either one. 

There's a point beyond which I refuse to be manipulated by circumstances. If all the available options are too atrocious, I will boycott the game. 

It's like a prison guard who tells a POW, "Either shoot one of your comrades or else I will shoot both of them!"

If that's the choice, he will have to shoot them both, because that's a choice I refuse to make. I can only be pushed so far. I won't be bullied. 

You can't force me to choose by robbing me of all the marginally decent alternatives, then dare me to pick one of the remaining options. I can't control the situation, but I can control myself. 

Ultimately, it's God's world. The consequences are up to him.  

Darrell Bock on the Wheaton controversy

Darrell Bock, a theology professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who sits on Wheaton’s 17-member board of trustees, said that Hawkins’s refusal to speak further about theological issues has made it “very, very difficult.” He declined to speak on the theological issues at stake, saying it had turned into a personnel matter.

“What really tied the school’s hands was she stopped talking,” Bock said. “It was unfortunate in many ways because I think they were in a process that could’ve made progress.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/22/can-wheaton-college-survive-its-never-ending-controversy-over-muslim-and-christian-worship/

Was Nabeel Qureshi a fake Muslim?

I've seen Muslims attempt to discredit Nabeel Qureshi on a couple of grounds:

i) They say he was never a real Muslim in the first place because he was an Ahmadi, and Ahmadis aren't true Muslims. Some of them compare that to how Christians disassociate themselves from Mormons.

Now, I can understand this objection from a Muslim standpoint, but it's only persuasive to insiders, not outsiders. It's hardly a reason for a Christian to view Nabeel as a fake Muslim. From a Christian standpoint, if Islam is a false religion, then the difference between one sect of a false religion and another sect of the same false religion is often insignificant. 

By the same token, the attempted parallel with Mormonism fails from a Christian standpoint. If I think Christianity is true, then I can distinguish true Christians from heretics. I have a standard of comparison. 

Indeed, the objection either proves too much or too little. Sunnis don't think Shiites are true Muslims. Shiites don't think Sunnis are true Muslims. Likewise, the Ibāḍī deny that Sunnis and Shiites are true Muslims. And, of course, you have lots of vicious factions within Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, &c. 

ii) Now, I'm not saying you can't draw any lines at all. I think Hinduism and Islam are both false religions, but I don't think Hindus are Muslim, or vice versa. Likewise, I might say a Muslim modernist is not a true Muslim. 

The point, though, is that an outsider will draw the lines differently than an insider. Muslims can tell me that Ahmadis aren't true Muslims from their frame of reference, but they can't tell me that Ahmadis aren't true Muslims from my frame of reference. They can't dictate to me what's the proper frame of refernce. I don't share their standards. I have my own standards. My criteria will differ from theirs. 

I'd only agree with them if I was one of them. But that's the very thing we don't share in common. 

iii) Ironically, I expect much of the animosity which Muslims have towards Nabeel is because they view him as a traitor. But he can't very well be a traitor if he was never one of them. 

iv) In addition, they've taken issue with his statement that if he were still a Muslim, he might join the jihad. They object that since he was an Ahmadi, and Ahmadis reject jihad, he's dissembling. 

Now it's possible that his claim is inconsistent in that regard. It's possible that he's hyping his Muslim background to make his conversion more sensational and salesworthy. I don't rule that out. 

However, it could be a sincere statement. For instance, I've read that during WWII, many Anabaptists volunteered for military service. Although Anabaptists are officially pacifistic, Anabaptist communities suffered a significant defection rate during WWII. 

And that wasn't hypocritical on their part. The fact that they were raised in pacifism, indoctrinated in pacifism, doesn't mean they signed on the dotted line. Although nonviolence is part of the Anabaptist package, not everyone raised in a theological tradition views their theological inheritance as a package deal which they must accept or reject in toto. 

More to the point, some young men find the prospect of literally fighting for a cause enormously appealing. Consider how successful ISIS has been at recruiting Westerners. These are man (and women!) with no background in Islam. Or consider foreigners who volunteered to take sides in the Spanish Civil War. There are young men who find that thrilling and self-validating–at least in theory. For better or worse, many men are warriors at heart. The fact that some of them were taught otherwise doesn't change how they feel. Actual combat may disillusion some of them. So there's nothing inherently disingenuous in Nabeel's statement. 

v) In addition, it wouldn't surprise me if Nabeel is referring to Islam in general: to its early authoritative texts. Because he's no longer a Muslim, he can view it with greater detachment than when he belonged to one particular sect. 

Nabeel Qureshi and the Gospels

Unbelievers as well as liberals cite differences between the Gospels to disprove the inerrancy and historicity of the Gospels. They account for these differences on the grounds that, at best, the writers rely on hearsay information. Conflicting traditions. Because the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, and because they had no contact with eyewitnesses, we end up with discrepant accounts of what was said and done. They never knew Jesus. They never knew anyone who knew Jesus. They weren't where it happened or when it happened. They write at a time and place that's too far removed from events to be in touch with the facts. So goes the argument.

Let's consider a frame of reference. Nabeel Qureshi is the kind of guy whose career depends on his conversion testimony. That's how he introduces himself. That's the launchpad for his career. As a result, he often talks his background and conversion experience. Here are four examples: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3lHueRXvh0

http://rzim.org/just-thinking/seeking-allah-finding-jesus

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-february/christ-called-me-off-minaret.html

Now when you compare these four testimonies, there are differences. They are most dissimilar in terms of wording. Even when they describe the same events, they rarely use the same phrasing. 

In addition, the details vary. One account will mention something that's omitted in another account, and vice versa.

Yet all four accounts are firsthand accounts. What is more, all four accounts are from the same source. The same witness. 

Compare that to a political candidate's stump speech. Because he gives the same speech so often, even if he's not using a teleprompter, he will often use the same phrases and sentences. Likewise with prepared answers. Because it begins with a text rather than experience, there's great verbal similarity from one presentation to another.

By contrast, when you are recounting an incident from your own life, the wording may vary greatly because each time you are verbalizing what you remember. It doesn't begin with a script, but a memory. The wording wont be stereotyped. There are lots of different ways you can express what you remember. Different synonyms and sentences. Different words in different combinations. So long as you remember what happened, so long as you are fairly articulate, you don't need to consult a script or outline or cue cards to talk about your past. Your benchmark is not a text, but a memory. Not remembering what you said, but saying what you remember. 

Trump's Liberalism In His Own Words

I just saw that Ben Howe posted a good video to show people on the subject. It includes clips of some of Trump's older comments and some more recent ones. He tries to portray himself as more conservative now, but he still talks like a liberal at times.

And here's a video of Trump talking about how irrationally committed his supporters are. You may have to enable the sound on the video by clicking on the icon in the lower right.

Down to the wire

i) The Iowa primary will be a test of Cruz and Trump alike. Iowa is the kind of state where a social conservative like Cruz should do well. If he can't win in Iowa, where can he win? Moreover, if Trump wins, that gives him momentum. That weakens Cruz in other states where a conservative candidate would normally have the advantage.

However, Iowa will be a test for Trump, too. Thus far, all we have is polling data. Iowa will be the first test of how many Trump supporters are Trump voters.

It will also expose how much (or little) he's invested in a ground game? Does he have a good voter turnout machine? 

Conversely, if Cruz wins, that will weaken Trump and strengthen Cruz for NH. 

If Cruz loses, that theoretically gives rivals like Rubio an opening. But they have to catch up and overtake Trump. 

ii) In terms of pure math, having twice the percentage points of your nearest rival is not enough to win the nomination. 20% doesn't get you the nomination. 

However, the primaries function as an elimination race. It's a linear process that quickly narrows. If Trump can pick up a string of wins at the outset, then other candidates drop out, at which point voters down the line no longer have a viable alternative. By process of elimination, Trump could win be default. He may raise the percentages if later voters have no one left to turn to. Indeed, that's how primaries work. 

iii) Suppose no candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination outright. If it's a brokered convention, then all bets are off.

iv) Suppose Trump wins the nomination. Can he will the general election? 

One advantage he has over Hillary (or Bernie) is that he's better in front of a camera. That, however, will be offset by biased debate moderators who favor the Democrat nominee. 

Theoretically, Trump might appeal to voters who don't normally vote for Republicans. But that's offset by all the Republicans who will sit out the election if he's the nominee. Moreover, his crossover appeal is dubious:

Contra Rupert Murdoch’s assertion about Trump having crossover appeal, Trump is extraordinarily unpopular with independent voters and Democrats. Gallup polling conducted over the past six weeks found Trump with a -27-percentage-point net favorability rating among independent voters, and a -70-point net rating among Democrats; both marks are easily the worst in the GOP field. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

v) If it's Trump v. Hillary, both candidates have astronomically high negatives, so they might cancel each other out on that score. Likewise, both have mountains of dirt to dump on their rival. In theory, that's a wash. But in practice, the mainstream media will target Trump. 

Typically, that would be offset to some degree by rightwing media. However, Trump won't get the same support from rightwing media that a conservative candidate would. 

vi) Then there's the question of how he'd finance a presidential campaign. Thus far I don't think Trump has had to spend much money because it's so easy for him to get free airtime. And the liberal media cooperates, both because it's good for ratings, and because they like to promote a civil war in the GOP primaries.

If, however, he gets the nomination, then the media landscape will drastically change. The same media that enables him as contender for the Republican nomination will turn on him as a contender for the presidency. He has two or three options:

a) Public financing

If he goes that route, he will be vastly outspent by Bernie or Hillary.

b) Self-financing

That would be a test of his commitment and sincerity. Is he prepared to gamble or squander his personal fortune on what might be a prospect with a dubious chance of success?

How much is he really worth? Isn't most of his personal fortune tied up in stock real estate? Assuming he has a controlling interest in The Trump Organization, surely he's not prepared to liquidate so much stock that he loses a controlling interest in his own company, is he?

Is he going to sell the Trump Tower? Trump Taj Mahal? 

Even if those would fetch enough money to finance his campaign, surely you can't sell that kind of real estate overnight. How would he liquidate enough assets, and liquidate them quickly enough, to finance his campaign out of pocket? 

c. Donations

How many working-class and middle-class Trump supporters will dig into their pockets to contribute to the campaign of a man who brags about his elite status as a multibillionaire? Won't they say to themselves, "If he's that rich, why doesn't he just write himself a check?"

Likewise, how many rich people will contribute to his campaign? Is he popular among the superrich? Or do they despise him as a braggadocio? 

Obviously, I don't have the answers to all these questions, and if he loses his nomination bid, they will be moot. But these are questions that prospective supporters should consider.

It would actually be in Trump's self-interest to drop out of the race before he's overtaken by events. Trump is a salesman who sells the product by selling himself. He's a brand-name unto himself. Thus far he's succeeded in raising his public profile for free. But if the campaign continues, and he suffers a humiliating defeat in November, or sooner, then his effort at self-promotion will backfire. Thus far in the process he had much to gain and little to lose. But that's about to change. A good poker player knows when to leave the table. If he was smart, he'd take his winnings and leave. 

Vote For Yourself

I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program yesterday. I heard him say that the Republicans in Congress should have done the right thing, regardless of the political consequences. I got the impression that what he meant was that they should have put forward various policy proposals, voted for particular pieces of legislation, etc., regardless of how the media, voters, and other people would have responded. It's a common sentiment. Do the right thing, regardless of the cost.

The problem is, it's not always the right thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with something like voting for a piece of legislation that only gives you half of what you want while giving you other things you don't want. There's nothing inherently wrong with voting for a less conservative candidate who's more electable than a more conservative one. Sometimes, short-term setbacks prepare the way for better victories over the long run. You gain something more valuable by giving up something less valuable. We all apply such standards in many contexts in our lives, but some people act as though we can never do that in politics.

So, why don't they vote for themselves? Who do they agree with more? Sure, you aren't running for office. And your electability would be poor even if you were running. But so what? Do the right thing. Stand on principle. Vote for yourself. Don't settle for voting for somebody like Trump or Cruz. That's an unethical compromise. You don't agree with them as much as you agree with yourself. And that's the only thing that matters.

Prayer, physical intuition, and sample selection bias

Unbelievers dismiss evidence of answered prayer as sample selection bias. Christians remember the hits and forget or discount the misses. 

Let's take a comparison. Some great scientists are credited with physical intuition. Examples include Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Pauling, Hoyle, Feynmann, and Witten. They have insights or make predictions based on hunches. And these sometimes turn out to be uncannily perceptive. 

You have the equivalent with great mathematicians like Poincaré, Paul Cohen, and Andrew Wiles. They know the answer before they can prove it. 

Likewise, great chess players have sight-of-board. They can take in the opportunities and liabilities at a glance. 

But suppose we apply the same skepticism to physical intuition–or its counterparts in math and chess–that unbelievers apply to prayer. When we attribute physical intuition to a great scientist, why isn't that just sample selection bias? Aren't we just counting the hits and discounting the misses? Mustn't the predictions they get right be offset by the predictions they get wrong? Likewise, what about the games that chess masters lose? 

So isn't that sheer coincidenxw? Indeed, isn't that the sharpshooter fallacy?

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy takes its name from a gunman who shoots at a side of a barn, only later to draw targets around a cluster of points that were hit. The gunman didn’t aim for the target specifically (instead aiming for the barn), but outsiders might believe that he meant to hit the target. 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/texas-sharpshooter-fallacy.asp

Now, one might counter by saying, no, it isn't just coincidental, for even though they have their share of misses or losses, lesser scientists, mathematicians, and chess players don't have the hits or wins. So they clearly have something extra going for them that lesser scientists, mathematicians, and chess players don't.

But by the same token, couldn't we make an analogous claim for answered prayer–especially more uncanny examples? 

Why don't Republican leaders rally behind Rubio?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-arent-republican-leaders-rallying-behind-marco-rubio/