Has the National Review Gone Bonkers?

Probably.

From a lively Conservative blogger who is justifiably skeptical of NR's delusions quoting an NR piece:

We may not be able to persuade our robot that atoms exist, but we can call in quantum physicists to do the job, and their explanation will be clear and rational. Has anyone in the history of the world explained clearly and rationally how a virgin birth works?...Let’s keep things simple and stick with god, lower-case. I invite any reader to e-mail me what he would say to convince the robot that there exists a god of any sort. Aspirants should consult the efforts of, among others, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Kant before improving on them. (“Improving”: There is a depressing philosophical consensus that those guys failed. You can disagree — but the robot will make you say why.)

Our blogger remarks:

In addition to being rationally untenable, and arriving at the convenient time of NR's endorsement of Romney, such sentiments reflect the growing alienation of much of establishment conservatism from its own heritage; the National Review of a generation ago would not have published such vacuous and sophomoric thoughts.

But it gets better. Not only are all religions more or less equally irrational - except for those that may be still less rational, as those inclined to read Steort's piece on Romney's Mormonism will discover - but Steorts would apparently have us believe that Christianity is no more warranted by reason than religious beliefs...

Actually, one wonders what Buckley actually would have published, once he decided that he was smarter than the Roman Catholic Church (of which he was a member) with his infamous "Mater, si, Magistra no" editorial.

One adds that their endorsement of Romney is curious. Romney is the epitome of the "back-and-forthright" candidate, right-flavored.

Is pusillanimity the marque of an NR hero?