Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is enjoying a late surge in the polls for the Republican nomination, especially in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa. Part of his appeal is a sense of humor, as evidenced by this clever appropriation of the Chuck Norris Facts meme:
Chuck Norris, in addition to his considerable thespian credentials, is a proud creationist who wants the Bible taught in public schools. So it is not surprising to find Mike Huckabee denying the reality of evolution during a televised debate.
But this video, while also quite funny, is pretty scary. Via Cynical-C, it’s a 2004 speech to the Republican Governors’ Association.
A phone call from God! Quite the thigh-slapper. Huckabee artfully includes an assurance that God doesn’t take side during elections — although we all know his preferences, apparently.
I understand that it’s a joke. But there are moments of solemnity during the “phone call,” when Huckabee is being perfectly serious. One of those is at the 2:00 mark, where we are reminded that the President talks to God. And then we receive a list of instructions, including “protecting marriage.” (It needs to be protected from The Gays, for those who don’t have your decoder rings.) George W. Bush himself has occasionally mentioned talking to God, although usually in private meetings where it’s difficult to get objective verification, and admittedly his theology is somewhat unsystematic.
A lot of people who don’t really believe in the old-fashioned supernatural nevertheless think it’s a good idea to appropriate spiritual terminology for their own uses — re-defining “faith” as “any hypothesis that has not yet been proven,” or “God” as “the warm feeling I get when contemplating the universe,” or “religion” as “a nice kind of social club that brings people together to reinforce each other’s goodness.” It’s not a good idea. These are words, and they have meanings when you say them — people think they know what you have in mind. When you say “God,” most people think of the dictionary definition — “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.” They’re not thinking of “the laws of nature.” And they honestly believe in this dictionary-definition God. And they let that belief affect, or at least justify, how they govern the country. Shouldn’t every non-religious person be deeply alarmed about this state of affairs?
At the Beyond Belief II conference, Stuart Kauffman gave an interesting (although flawed, I thought) talk about complexity and reductionism, and then ruined the whole thing by suggesting at the end that we should re-define “the sacred” as something arising from the radical contingency of the empirical path of biological evolution. Or something like that, it was a bit vague. What an abysmally bad idea. If you want to choose a word that refers to something other than the traditional religious conception of supreme beings and all that, then don’t use religious language. Because there are other people out there — far vaster in number than you — that are using those same words to mean exactly what they straightforwardly denote: a supernatural power with a vested interest in smiting the wicked, especially boys and girls who fall in love with boys and girls, respectively. And they’re running this country at the moment, and their beliefs are enacted into policy.
Of course, arguing with Mike Huckabee and his friends runs the risk that Chuck Norris will come along and kick your ass. That’s just the chance we have to take.
Mathieu, the “human condition” is despair. And changing it is the rational and caring thing to do.
John Merryman in #16 (are you descended from any of Robin Hood’s crew? 😉 Heh, I can never forget Worf: “Sir, I object! I am not a Merry Man!”
If there is one thing the conservative mindset needs, it is a clear opponent. Just as Bush needs bin Ladin and vice versa, conservative religion (the version that insists on the paternal deity) needs equally strong minded atheism. Their worst enemies are not those who directly oppose them, but the ones who do breach the walls of religious terminology with meanings that confuse the tribal function of us vs. them.
Yes, very cogent. That means that philosophical theologians like me, mystics, and other religious third-party types are the worst enemies of the religious conservatives, not Sean and other atheist types. Well, am I going to get any credit for that? ;-|
I think that from a purely logical perspective, the most rational refutation of monotheism is to point out that the absolute is conceptual basis, rather than apex, so if there is a spiritual absolute, it would be the essence out of which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. I admit I don’t get a lot of response when I bring that point up, so maybe it isn’t as obvious as it seems to me.
It isn’t obvious because it isn’t true. Think of a snake eating its own tail. The Absolute is both a basis and the holder of All, so it is an apex as well as a foundation. There is no specific final state but a receding boundary condition, it’s like Omega in infinite set theory – any attempt to describe it fails, but yet we can refer to it the way I am now. (You’ve just got to read Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker.) You don’t really have to think of anything we “fell” from, although some imagine we have to be reduced to a lower state here to learn something, as in Theosophy. I don’t know what’s true, but neither does anyone else (pro or con: really, that isn’t what distinguishes what you can get away with.)
Thomas said that
and that
That kind of obsession with death, concept of the divine, and insistence on faith represent but a few strands in the world tapestry of religion.
Thomas, you speak only for yourself, not humanity.
John Merryman, John Phillips perhaps was a bit rude with his comment, but he really has a point. When you write something like that, you might want to try putting yourself in the shoes of readers who aren’t acquaintances.
As far as Platonic idealism goes, the genocidal deity of the Old Testament and the eternal-gulag creator of the New seem about as far as you can get from desirable adult-male personhood, ideal or otherwise.
“Sean for President!” Now there’s an idea to conjure with! 🙂
Of course, I speak for myself and not humanity; nonetheless, Bob is correct with his description of the human condition. Knowing we have only a finite numbers of tomorrows and encumbered by our inability to reanimate our yesterdays, despair at life’s fleeting nature should be no surprise.
People react in all kinds of ways to the fact of being alive, and in different ways at different times.
Despair is only one color on the palette. Gratitude, acceptance, joy, curiosity, delight, and wonder are a few others. What stance we take is often dependent on our circumstances: David Sloan Wilson has some nice comments relevant to that toward the end of this.
Cheers!
As soon as the Democratic Atheists party gets on the ballot on all 50 states, I’d be happy to run.
Thomas, Michael, et al: I do take a fancy to fancy upscale Platonic idealism, and you’re right that traditional religions fall well short of that. (Well, why not then become a neo-Platonist? Now that I think of it, that’s probably the best title for me, which as a Unitarian Universalist I can add on to my fraternal affiliation.) But note about Christianity: It was ruined by the substitutionary atonement glimmerings and developments in John (written much later) and Paul (ditto, who never met Jesus, and whose wrongly centralized scheme is a misguided diversion I call “Paulianity.”) Jesus had many cool liberal type things to say (I mean too, the ones that are likely real sayings) like “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone” and how the division of sheep and goats for heaven and hell is not based on whether you belive He “died for your sins” (what happens to those who never even heard of it, or before that time?), but on who fed and clothed the hungry, etc. – it seems hand crafted to target Republicans; how ironic! Maybe instead of rejecting a twisted and self-serving development of it (see how justification by faith and not works makes it easy for the wealthy clients of conservative fundamentalism?) Christianity should be reclaimed from the religious right and not surrendered to it.
As for survival, I indulge fancy thoughts of how computer programs are still existing even though the computer doesn’t anymore, hence our minds in superspace, or even “quantum woo” (I wish those who complained about quantum mysticism would hit against unempirical BS operations like many worlds and maybe even decoherence, instead of hypocritically referring to things like “the appearance” of collapse, as some poor post-modern meta-physicist bubbleheads are doing even now in these pages….) But I do respect the idea, appreciated from others in my denomination, that life here and now does have meaning as such. I admit to being touched by Leo Buscaglia’s charming and poignant The Fall Of Freddie The Leaf, about the leaf that forms on the tree, has it’s time, and then falls to it’s death and yet lives on as part of nature. I think there’s more than that, but I respect this little story very much – if that is all, then I can see it being worthwhile anyway.
And BTW yes it’s scandalous that an atheist would have so much trouble getting elected President in this country.
Sean, the Democratic Atheist Party will by definition be even more diverse than the religions of the world, if all you have in ‘common’ is atheism.
Atheism does not make one a pacifist per se
Atheism does not make one a socialist working for the greater common good per se
Atheism does not make one inmune to suffering or disease per se
Atheism does not guarantee happiness or ‘jobs’ & homes for all per se.
And Democracy? – which democracy?
Greek (Athenian) democracy?
The Roman Democracy of the Roman empire?
The British democracy of the United Kingdom? – kingdom???
The Spanish democracy – when a nonentity non-elected wanabee king thinks he has the right to sit at the table and tell the President of Venezuela to shut up, because Chavez accuses the Spanish Popular Party of being a Francoist fascist party
or
the US democracy of the founding fathers (with black slaves?)
the US democracy – where foreign policy dictates any terms on oil, trade or climate – do not hamper or threaten the US economy, or rather the status quo of the well off in the US. For lets face it, workers or workers rights have never been a concern in any democracy whose god is ‘profit’
PS – Would Sean a Democratic Atheist President of the US, defend the right of every citizen to believe in whatever god or religion or custom or tradition, as long as they don’t attempt to ram it down the throats of others.
But more important can a democratic atheist US President explain the purpose of living (or rather dying) in suffering and pain from whatever disease, any better than a ‘religious’ president. Does atheism have a magic wand that will make all the ills of the world (or rather the human condition) evaporate into thin air. Or will it be just as powerless as any other absent or non-existent god?
Or will an atheist society still be lost in the same turmoil of crime, unfulfilled desires, unreturned love, hate, disease, pain, suffering and … ‘death’.
Is ultimately an atheist ‘heaven’ any different from any ‘theist’ heaven, other than the decidedly unlikelyhood of 99 virgins – though one can surgically have a hymen cosmetically restored. But before stem cells promise us self-replacing hymens, I should like to see stem cell research offer us self-replacing’ teeth. After all sharks have them, and one can safely presumne sharks are not ‘theist’.
It should be a piece of cake to mimmick for atheist researchers, don’t you think.
Quasar9, many good points. Oh, plenty of atheists are quite illiberal:
Atheism does not make one a pacifist per se
Atheism does not make one a socialist working for the greater common good per se
Atheism does not make one inmune to suffering or disease per se
Atheism does not guarantee happiness or ‘jobs’ & homes for all per se.
Oh yeah, especially the miltant Objectivists, who I run into a lot in Mensa for some reason (eh, snobbery and heartlessless run together? I still find it a gratifying engagement overall.)
BTW, I suspect you are rather much a neo-Platonist, true?
Quasar9,
Yeah, but one common thread in atheism seems to be skepticism and rational inquiry. There is enough opposition to rational inquiry among other demographics that this alone is enough to unify some rather diverse groups. And there is good enough reason to promote rational inquiry.
Hi Jason,
the common thread of any religion or belief system, is that they are different from another – and think themselves more logical or ‘rational’
As far as humans can be considered ‘rational’ beings, it would be a leap of faith, or an assumption (not an indisputable fact or statistic) to claim that atheism makes humans more or less rational than theism.
It would simply imply a pre-sumption on your side that theism and therefore theists are irrational – or that one needs to be an atheist to understand the world. I’ll agree one may need to be an atheist to ‘fully’ understand an atheist view of the universe, though in my eyes – “god only knows what that might really be or mean” – so to speak. However one does not need to be an atheist to understand maths or physics or chemistry, or that which describes the observable universe. After all as you know, there is more to the universe than meets the eye.
Just an attempt at being humorous. Does not require a counterargument.
Neil,
It comes from old English religious festivals, as in Merrie Olde Englande. My ancestors came from Herefordshire in the 1600’s, to Maryland! The closest town is Hereford, so we haven’t moved much since.
Only if we succeed in transcending the current impasse. Religion is inherently top down as a social institution, while science is predicated on bottom up process. The problem is that with the western tendency toward structured monistic thinking, we lack the appreciation of paradox that is at the heart of eastern Taoist dualism. So it’s the usual us vs. them. Sean prevails upon his readers not to use theological terms to describe objective concepts, not for scientific reasons, but for expressly political reasons; That it might provide aid and comfort to the likes of Mike Huckabee.
As we have both argued, the scientific bias against religious concepts goes to ridiculous lengths. Science is willing to propose other dimensions and universes to explain the physical reality that it presumes to have some grasp of, but won’t accord similar features to the understanding of consciousness. For one thing, atheists tend to have little understanding of the evolution of religious constructs and insist on putting up the most childlike versions as strawmen. Biology has found the line between organisms and eco-systems to be illusionary and the only definition we can currently define life by is that it only exists on this planet, so it could reasonably be argued that the planet is one large, multicellular organism and this Gaia paradigm is quite similar to the original tribal conception of God as a larger spirit of the group.
Yes, absolute is both everything and nothing, but it isn’t ideal form, because it doesn’t have form. Form is subjective, it follows function. Evolution is an upward process in terms of increasing complexity and we can only view it downward, from the perspective of our biologically complex apex. Which is simply the furtherest state of process, not any final destination, as it’s a horizon line of perception, since we cannot know what it is that we haven’t yet learned. Both western religion and science view it from this top down perspective, both looking for their unified field theory. Monotheism declares it to be God. Science is still chasing its tail, as it just can’t escape the reality of paradox.
Michael,
That is what I’m trying to make, since most of the people I know personally are more involved with horses then philosophy or science. By putting my ideas out there, I’m looking for feedback, as that is how I learn and improve my understanding of reality. That I was a little sharp in my response to John Phillips was balanced pushback to his opinion of my efforts.
That’s a good example of top down perspective of early twenty first century idealism. Not exactly the perspective of eighteen hundred BC. male virtues. I think monotheism has destroyed the natural knowledge and psychology of early religions. All those gods, goddesses, heros, nymphs, centaurs, etc. were archtypes that provided educational models for communication of concepts, virtues, vices, laws, principles etc. Much as children learn from narratives, examples and fables. Monotheism has been especially detrimental to the balance of powers between the sexes. Women represented lifegiving and therefore had a strong basis of power, with males as providers and protectors. Monotheism claims both spiritual source and political power as dominant male attributes, seriously tipping this balance for thousands of years and even today we don’t respect the foundation from which everything rises, only the apex to which it aspires.
Regards,
John
Eve was created from Adam’s rib? Try the other way around.
Religious stuff aside – Huckabee is a progressive and wants to save you from yourself and is a ‘big government’ conservative on steroids. If you thought Bush had no grip on spending, wait until the Huckster gets a hold of the checkbook.
Not in the least. Theism requires adherence to at least one irrational belief (the positive belief in the existence of an unevidenced entity, a god). Atheism has no such requirement. It is certainly possible for atheists to be irrational. Humans are rather prone to it after all. But it is at least not required, as atheism, in and of itself, contains no beliefs.
Furthermore, as I stated, a common thread among those who label themselves atheists is active championing of rational inquiry as a good thing in and of itself, something which is sorely lacking among the theists, and is even actively denounced in many circles. This isn’t to say that theists denounce all rational inquiry, rather they tend to separate the world into two separate “domains”, one of which can be investigated through rational inquiry, the other which cannot. And they are invariably rather confident that they know certain aspects of the area which they claim cannot be analyzed rationally. And that is very irrational behavior.
beezle,
Personally, I’d like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.
Jason,
Rational inquiry is presumably objective, but structure requires some subjectivity. Such as that a calendar requires some essentially arbitrary starting date, otherwise it is worthless. It is a simple fact that it is far easier to recognize others subjectivity, then it is to admit to one’s own.
Are three dimensions an objective description of space, or are they the coordinates of the center point?
Not at all. Rational inquiry is built upon the principle of non-contradiction. This principle is entirely objective. If this were not the case, there could be no progress in science, as arguments could never be settled: you would instead have continual splintering as new ideas gained popularity among certain groups, but failed to gain popularity in others.
Dimensions are not coordinates. Nor are they a description of space. They are a property of space. Whether or not that property applies exactly is open to observation. The description is that space has this property.
John wrote: Science is willing to propose other dimensions and universes to explain the physical reality that it presumes to have some grasp of, but won’t accord similar features to the understanding of consciousness.
I’m not sure that I can clearly present a proposition that suggests the difference between atheism and theism is related to the objective and subjective aspects of human consciousness. Suppose that within space and time God had to evolve in order to survive–just as we will have to evolve to survive. I am sure the classical unchanging nature of God will be presented as a argument against this concept of God being the standard theological concept of God; however, if we consider, as a model, a function that equals one at one and whose first and second derivatives are also one at one, then we can conceptualize a unity that is subjectively unchanging at unity. Please understand, this is offered as an idea to explore not as a statement of fact.
Jason,
again we know the affairs of humans and human emotions are for the most part irrational – there is no grand mathematical equation that tells you whether you should cry or laugh, be happy and be sad when your grandmother dies. And as we know, how people feel when their father dies will depend entirely on what their ‘relationship’ was, oh and perhaps some social commitment or other.
Neither theists or atheist are free from human emotions, or from telling little white lies to their spouses, and more little white lies to their children – ok it may not be about santa claus or tooth fairies or little green – but hey you may tell them they are cute, or that they’ll be ok when they are sick – even though they may be ugliest thing on two legs (supposing they have legs), and it may take a ‘miracle’ for them to get well.
Atheists (and theists) may get drunk and have unprotected sex with strangers, or drive recklessly whilst drunk. That does not mean that when they are sober they are not capable of ‘rational’ inquiry, supposing they make it thru to the next day.
Therefore your argument that holding a belief – which in your eyes is irrational – makes those who do not adhere to any such belief more rational, is irrational. The Belief in or lack of belief in the ‘supernatural’ does not make one more or less amenable or adept to ‘rational’ inquiry. It is a ‘wholly’ false presumption on your part – and therefore quite irrational of you.
Jason,
There is an old saying that the opposite of small truths are false, but the opposite of large truths are also true. What about the concept of matter and anti-matter, don’t they essentially contradict each other? Existence is a function of contradictions. Content must be in opposition to context, or it would be neutral and therefore not exist. Think of electric polarities, you can’t have positive without negative. Do being and not-being contradict each other, yet how would you be able to define either, except in terms of the opposite? Doesn’t expansion contradict contraction, yet how could you have one without the other? Are left and right opposites? Yet wouldn’t either be meaningless without refreence to the other? No form is absolute.
Dimensions are coordinates. A plane is two dimensional, but if you didn’t define where these two dimensions are, you wouldn’t be able to locate that plane. Same for a line being one dimensional. Unless you specify the specific line/dimension, it could be anywhere, therefore meaningless. So what about space, you say it is three dimensional, yet say the specific dimensions do not have to be defined, so what good are they, since you wouldn’t be able to use them to reference anything in that space? Dimensions are a map of space, not space itself. They are the model, not the ideal. Suffice to say, any number of such coordinates can be used to map the same space. People do it all the time, then fight over it.
Thomas,
Unity and unit are different concepts. Unity implies neutrality, thus is zero. A unit is a set, which is defined by what is internal and external to that set, so it is not neutral. An eco-system can possess unity, but it is made up of innumerable, everchanging organisms, which balance each other out. When we define an ecosystem as a unit, it becomes a multicellular organism and is separated from some larger ecosystem. This is why the concept of the one universal God breaks down. Unity is not a unit and a unit isn’t about unity.
I may not know much, but I recognize wisdom when I see it. John Merryman, thanks for your words. The idea that “doesn’t get much response” is a deep and perceptive one, concerning a subject that is notoriously difficult to approach linguistically.
In response to your comment #45, I’d point out that “unity” in its typical usage is not a neutral concept but expresses the idea of existence, i.e. other than void, thus its identification with the number 1. The state or concept which represents that which is prior to the void is, in my experience, literally impossible to describe or define in language, but the term nondual is sometimes used to indicate it. But now we’re getting deep into philosophical bulls^H^H^H^H^H discussion more appropriate for another venue.
Stephen (comment #8), if you’re ever in Portland, Oregon I’d like to buy you a beer or coffee or something. You sound like my kind of person.
=================
Not everything is politics. I’ve read Stuart Kauffman quite a bit, and while I agree his tendency to jump from very cogent scientific argument into discussions of the “Sacred” can be disconcerting and, in some cases, undermines the presentation of his ideas, after reading enough of his writing I know what he means by “sacred” and am fine with it. I don’t feel exactly what he feels, I think, but I respect the presentation, especially since his main contribution has been to attempt to bring rigor to a field that needs it.
As for politics: if one is merely trying to approach the issue tactically, avoiding key words like this one is in effect a concession or retreat, and I think quite an unfortunate and unsophisticated one.
There is a linguistic (or socio-linguistic, or whatever) concept known as revalorization which is in play here. The idea is to take a symbol (word or otherwise) which has taken on negative connotations, and instead of running away from it, attempting to create new positive meaning or force a return to prior, neutral or positive meaning. One example is the US LGBTetc community’s use of the word “queer”. The classic example of a symbol which cannot be revalorized is the swastika, though note this is a cultural judgment, and on the Indian subcontinent and in some Native American tribal cultures this symbol has kept its ancient meanings.
Religious conservatives hate it when we use their terms in ways that contradict their own meanings. By refusing to cede the linguistic territory we are in effect fighting their attempt to move the Overton Window by claiming certain words which have positive associations among a large percentage of the voting population as their own. Another classic such word is family.
For me, “sacredness” is a feeling I get at certain times when I am able to perceive a larger-than-usual slice of reality and its absolutely staggering complexity and densely interdependent causal structure across scales from the Planck to the horizon. I see no need for “eternal” forms in any Platonic or prior sense, no need for a creator of any kind, no need for it to “mean” anything except subjectively, no need for any kind of causal explanation, no need for anything but the thing itself. It is profoundly beautiful to me, in fact this is the definition of beauty for me, and I am frequently stunned and amazed that the world is thus.
I will not stop using the term “sacred”, though I will try to make what I mean clear, and offer it as a counterbalance to the faith-based view, which I believe is detrimental to our species in that it restricts the natural path of human cultural evolution.
If the term “sacred” literally corresponds to nothing inside you, then don’t use it, and please accept my condolences. If what it means to you simply doesn’t match what the Bible-thumpers mean when they say it, why let them get away with it?
Jason, you are wrong that believing in an unevidenced entity (UEE for short! and not to be confused w/ a counterevidenced entity or CEE) is irrational. If an entity is unevidenced (like alien life, “other universes”, the multiple worlds of QM, or even borderline issues like the exact words spoken at an unrecorded meeting in the past, claims about the future (unevidenced until then, and so “irrational” until then?) – then it’s all about how good an *argument* you have for or against it. Not even the claim that the “not exist” option is an inherently preferable default for a UEE (I mean, over and above the specific sway of the particular pro and con) despite the commonly fostered pretense that it is – I have never seen other than circular take it or leave it bluster about that. Some good thinkers say, very to the contrary, that “everything exists” unless it can’t!
BTW I am a theistic philosopher, not a very-different “religionist.” I do separate things into the realms of what we actually have available to know (like that specific hits from ostensible “wave functions” actually happen… A-hem…) and the things we have to speculate and provide mere arguments about (one of which is the question of God, but there are many more that aren’t religious type questions.)
tyler,
Much appeciated. Any wisdom on this end has been earned the hard way. You sound like you have a good grasp of the larger issues.
My description of wisdom is that intelligence is knowledge, while wisdom is editing.
Even the absolute can be dual, as both everything and nothing. I think the concept of the universal one is a goal that has us running in circles.
Neil B. wrote:
whether the wave is “static” (in the silly sense of misinterpreting the ultimate significance of the Minkowski diagram, just because time was simply *graphed* with space all in one piece, as if that actually made time go away?) or “dynamic.”
If by “static” vs. “dynamic” you refer to eternalism (all times are equally real, time is just a sort of dimension) vs. presentism (only the ‘now’ is real, the past and present don’t exist), I think the reason most philosophers and physicists tend to favor eternalism is not just because time is graphed as a dimension on Minkowski diagrams, but because of the relativity of simultaneity in the theory of relativity–two events which happen at the “same instant” in one frame can happen at “different times” in another, and the laws of physics place all reference frames on equal footing.
Neil B. wrote:
Glib talk of our most fundamental experiences (in the classic shared scientific sense too, not the highly individual/subjective sense) as being “illusions” is presumptous and so antithetical to the orginal spirit of empiricism – I see no reason to surrender the empirical given to a bunch of affectedly too-clever-by-half, post-modern pseudoscientists.
Would you consider the notion of time “passing” as opposed to just being a dimension to be one of our most fundamental experiences? If so, do you think Einstein was being a post-modern pseudoscientist when he said “For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent” (see here)?