January 4, 2008
Is too much respect given to fundamentalist/literalist clap trap?
The brief answer is `yes’.
I will illustrate the point with the example of Mike Huckabee, the candidate for the Republication presidential nomination who came first in the Iowa caucuses. There are many other examples of obnoxious and dangerous fundamentalism, much but not all of it religious, that I could have put in the stocks, but for now Mike Huckabee will do. Before entering politics, Huckabee was a pastor at two Baptist churches.
Sexist fundamentalism
Mike Huckabee, when he was governor of Arkansas, signed in 1998, alongside 129 other evangelical leaders, a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the new statement of faith adopted in June 1998 by the Southern Baptist convention. This statement declared that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." Thanks to my Calvinist upbringing, I know the source of this statement well. It’s Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33. My parents used to read it to us when we were children, to impress us with the need to engage our brains when reading the Bible, and specifically to filter out the all-too-human dross that so often obscures its divine message. What made perfect sense for those recording the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) - the religious traditions, doctrines, dogmas, myths, parables, metaphors, legends and history first of a collection of Middle-Eastern nomadic tribes from around 2100 BCE, and then of one or two small Middle-Eastern kingdoms from about 1050 BCE, and what may have seemed self-evident to the Judeo-Greco-Roman first-century CE authors of the the New Testament, can easily become a bizarre abomination in a different age. The passage is worth quoting in its entirety (I am using the New International Version).
"22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
Some of this is beautiful. It is possible that Paul was progressive, ahead of his time, even a feminist in the first-century Mediterranean culture in which this was written. But if you take the whole chapter literally today, as Huckabee does, it is deeply offensive, sexist and objectionable. The notion of a President of the United States of America marching under the banner of "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", is very scary.
Fundamentalist homophobia
All three Abrahamic faiths reflect their desert-dwelling, Middle-Eastern cultural origins through the manifest homophobia of their holy books - the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament (Paul again) and the Quran. Fortunately, enlightened followers of Judaism and Christianity, and to a lesser extent also Islam have purged their interpretation and practice of their faiths of the homophobia that pervades their holy books, just as they have shed the (from today’s perspective) sexist baggage of the ancient Middle Eastern cultures.
Not so Mr Huckabee, however. He believes that "Homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." He suggested in 1992, that the federal government commit no additional federal funding to finding a cure for AIDS, which was then considered by many to be a gay disease.
I don’t want a homophobe bigot in the White House.
Creationist fundamentalism
Huckabee is a creationist. He does not "believe in" evolution - he was one of three candidates for the Republica presidential nomination who raised their hands when the moderator Chris Matthews, at a debate early in 2007 in Little Rock, Arkansas, asked who did not believe in evolution. It is unfortunate that the moderator phrased has question in terms of "believing in" evolution. The proper way to put the question is whether you think the modern statement of Darwin’s theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation thus far of the origin of species. "Belief" and "believing" have nothing to do with this.
When I say that Huckabee is a creationist, I am not talking here about creationism ‘lite’, which argues, as I understand it, that God created the universe and the laws of nature that science studies and tries to understand. That is a non-testable proposition: no evidence could confirm or refute it. So it should be taught in religious study classes, alongside other non-scientific matters of faith. Not anti-scientific, just non-scientific: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Unlike science, which requires logical consistency and empirical verification or non-falsification, faith is based on belief and trust. That doesn’s mean that anything goes. If some article of faith, like the literal interpretation of Ephesians 5: 22-33 is morally or ethically objectionable, there is no reason to respect it or be tolerant/understanding of its expression. Even if religious (or other) views and beliefs are held sincerely, deeply and passionately, to the point even of defining the essence of what a person or community holds sacred or is, this does not provide a reason for treating these views and beliefs with respect and deference. No doubt Hitler was a sincere, committed Nazi with deeply held views, and Attila a dedicated, confirmed Hun. A view, belief or position advanced as a religious statement or proposition (a) has to make logical sense (be internally coherent); (b) must be consistentent with the available empirical evidence if it makes a statement about the real world; and (c) must be morally acceptable if it makes a normative statement.
Huckabee is also not just a believer in "intelligent design", which holds that life is too complex to have evolved without an unidentified intelligent "designer", aka God. In principle this could be formulated as a falsifiable proposition, if one could, using either mathematical models/computer simulation or laboratory experiments, put bounds on the complexity of organisms that could evolve from, say, single-cell organisms. In practice, intelligent design always has ‘creationism lite’ as a fall-back position, which makes it non-testable and therefore non-scientific.
Huckabee is a six-day or six-time-slots creationist. He has stated he believes that Adam and Eve were real people. He has been trying to waffle his way out of the six-day quagmire: in the third CNN debate on June 5, 2007, when pressed about whether he believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis - that God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago - Huckabee said, "I don’t know. I wasn’t there…But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." … "Whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that’s what’s important." Neither the two churches where Huckabee was a pastor nor his campaign are willing to release the texts of his past sermons to the public.
Six-day creationism/six-periods-of-time creationism is a nonsense. It falls foul of requirement (b) for a faith worthy of respect. It is inconsistent with the available evidence. It is not an article of faith that has to be respected. It has to be assaulted with fact and logic, and if that fails, with ridicule and contempt. Anyone taking the 6-day creation story of Genesis as the literal factual truth, ought to have his head examined. I do not want a man in the White House with his finger on the nuclear trigger, who is incapable of even minor acts of logic and empirical verification/falsification.
The scariest feature of Huckabee’s statement is that is it treats as matters of belief or faith things that are in fact amenable to logical examination and empirical verification or falsification. This intellectual laziness, dishonesty even, has infected a suprising number of Americans. Apparently there are more Americans who believe that the biblical account of the creation is the literal truth than Americans who consider the theory of evolution to be the best available account thus far of the origin of species. Nonsense is not a matter of conscience; intellectual garbage must be taken to the dump.
Conclusion
Fundamentalism and literalism are the enemies of an open society - the enemies of liberty. People of faith should be in the vanguard of a determined assaults on the bastions of ignorance and stupidity represented by the fundamentalist, literalist cabals that so often drown out the voices of reason and tolerance in church, synagogue, mosque and temple. Fundamentalism has had it far too easy. It is time to fight back.
For me, my Christian faith amounts to (1) the untestable assumption that God created the universe and the laws of nature (including the laws that shape the processes that govern the evolution of living organisms); (2) the moral commandments: love God and love your neighbour as yourself ; and (3) the belief (in principle verifiable) that Christ came among us and died for our sins. The rest is interpretation and footnotes, most of it irrelevant at best, dangerous at worst.
That homophobic/female submission/creationist stuff needs to stay inside the building where these people worship.
They can internalize it all they want too, but they better not try to force it on us unwashed heathens.
Posted by: Idaho_Spud | January 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm | Report this commentMy conservative Catholic mother and my equally conservative Protestant uncle, (ret. military), and their like-minded friends circulate emails that confirm their beliefs. The original sources are unknown and immaterial. A recent example featured pictures of American presidents matched with quotations about sacrificing our sons for the cause of freedom. The final picture was of the crucifixion matched with a quote from God declaring that the sacrifice of his beloved son was necessary for the forgiveness of our sins.
Posted by: Mary | January 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm | Report this commentYou argue strongly for reason and rightly call on Americans to challenge the fundamentalists. Yet you too have accepted the proposition that this creator who can create a universe and all its natural laws had to resort to a gruesome and bloody and barbaric sacrifice of his “son” in order for his creatures to earn HIS forgiveness. Think about it. This is truly wacky…and sadistic…stuff. And juxtaposed with all your preceding rational and intelligent argument, enough to compel me to comment. Blind spot? Indeed. But the condition is widespread and easier to “see” in those whose blindness is more profound than your own.
Wonderful morning read and food for thought though. You’re absolutely right on the main point.
Thank you,
Mary
CA, USA
“When I say that Huckabee is a creationist… Not anti-scientific, just non-scientific: ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’
Unlike science, which requires logical consistency and empirical verification or non-falsification, faith is based on belief and trust.”
While I agree with your general opinion of the Huckabee situation, your logical fallacy concerns me greatly… any argument worth winning is worth winning with logical consistency.
Most importantly, there is no such thing as empirical verification. This is the classic lesson that’s made another round through the popular press in Taleb’s “The Black Swan.” I think his most amusing example is one that re-uses the verification argument in a different context: “I did not see him kill a man today, nor yesterday, nor the day before. Therefore, he must not be a murderer.” How many days does it take to *veryify* empirically that and individual is not a murderer?
Further, technically (though I would never seriously argue it), creationism (even the non-”lite” version) is as far as I know non-falsifiable, though I’m not an expert on its precise implications. Even if the world were created in six days, there would never be a way to go back and prove that it had not happened… like the God-clockmaker, it’s outside of our scope of analysis except where it makes falsifiable predictions about the state of the world today. In fact, by extension, there’s insufficient evidence to “prove” any version of history, you can only disprove those which are inconsistent with reality today (i.e. a history where someone was supposedly killed… someone that is still alive today).
But the more vexing proposition comes when we assume that something like gravity, a well accepted scientific approach, is not built on its own kind of faith as it is literally characterized by “the evidence of things not seen”.
We each have our faith, in absolute principles of right and good and in scientific “truths” (which are regularly and actively falsified), among others. The issue should not be the presence of faith, but the implications that a particular brand of faith has on someone’s actions.
There are certainly lines that should not be crossed and sexism and homophobia meet that criteria so you have every right to blast Huckabee on faith that leads to those behaviors. You can also argue that his particularly blend of beliefs will cause him to take actions in the *future* that will be undesirable to voters. For example, if you were in support of fetal stem cell research, you could justifiably argue that his beliefs would prohibit progress on promising (and in your mind moral) medical technology.
However, beliefs that do not impact his job performance (like whether it was 6 days or 6 billion years), while politically and journalistically expedient, are hardly relevent.
Posted by: Clayton | January 6th, 2008 at 4:32 pm | Report this comment“God created the universe and the laws of nature…”
Are the universe and the ‘laws of nature’ two different things? Do the
‘laws of nature’ have an independent existence outside that of the universe, ie outside that of material reality? Or are they just ‘forms’, abstractions from reality? (See for example Mac Lane’s views in Mathematics: form and function).
“the moral commandments: love God and love your neighbour as yourself ”
I take it again you’re using a rhetorical device. Is it not Christian doctrine that those two commandments are one and the same? (Matthew 25: 31-46)
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | January 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentMary: “Yet you too have accepted the proposition that this creator who can create a universe and all its natural laws had to resort to a gruesome and bloody and barbaric sacrifice of his “son” in order for his creatures to earn HIS forgiveness. Think about it. This is truly wacky…and sadistic…stuff. ”
Well Mary, you seem to be committing the literal-reading fallacy yourself. This is only a metaphor. Of course God didn’t sacrifice His Son, because according to Christian doctrine Jesus was Him (or an attribute of Him; at least such is my understanding of Christian theology, please correct me if I’m mistaken): God sacrificed Himself, put simply he SET AN EXAMPLE for us earthly humans — one which we mostly disregard.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | January 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this commentMr. Cohen-Seban - I am not reading anything literally - or even metaphorically. I am commenting on Prof. Buiter’s 3rd tenent of his personal Christian faith - and I quote: “the belief (in principle verifiable) that Christ came among us and died for our sins.” Again, this deity chose a (ok, metaphorical) crucifixion of Himself/or an “attribute of himself” to SET AN EXAMPLE (no need to shout) of self-sacrifice for “us earthly human beings” and we’re stubbornly disregarding it. I feel your (His?) exasperation. He must be banging his metaphorical head against a celestial brick wall. “What is wrong with these people?????”
Posted by: Mary | January 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am | Report this commentThat clears it right up for me. Thank you.
I still contend that crucifixion, metaphorical or actual, is barbaric and speaks poorly of the “sinners” who believe they’re saved by it, as well as the creator who couldn’t find a better “example” to set. In the context of the argument that “people of faith” should stop respecting “clap/trap” and take the “intellectual garbage to the dump”, it struck me as inconsistent. While I share the moderates’ legitimate concerns about their fundamentalist brethren, I urge reasonable, tolerant believers to examine their own faith for its quotient of moderate, albeit non-literal, “clap/trap”. Your certainty that you DO understand the intended lesson of Christ’s crucifixion and your effort to set me straight leave me unpersuaded. As I suppose you are by my arguments.
Onward…….?
Firstly, the crucifixion is probably an historical fact. Secondly, the Q source in the Gospels is insight without parallel in any human text, religious or otherwise. The theological interpretation is possibly just that –human interpretation. But it serves its purpose: to bolt us into going beyond ‘rational’ reasoning, which is severely limited, as Kurt Goedel demonsrated.
Here’s an example from a different system, that of Zen Buddhism, entitled Ganto’s Axe:
“Ganto picked up an axe and went to the hut where the two monks were meditating. He raised the axe saying: “If you say a word I will cut off your heads; and if you do not say a word I will also cut off your heads.”
Disturbing? Yes if read literally. But that is precisely its purpose — to jolt us from any literal understanding…
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 am | Report this commentIt’s good to overcome the limitations of ‘rational’ reasoning. Intuition, empathy, imagination, wonder, humor, awe and transcendent inspiration are available to us with or without deities and supposedly divine texts. Each of us judges for ourselves what is getting “beyond” the limitations of various ways of knowing and what is wandering around in a mental cul-de-sac of nonsense. You believe and state with absolute certainty that “the Q source in the Gospels is insight without parallel in any human text, religious or otherwise.” Quite a claim as there are lots of ‘human’ texts and it’s unlikely you’ve read them all. I make no such grand claims, merely express my skepticism of those who do. You might of said “without parallel in the 100 (500? 1,000?) human texts I’ve personally read, and is at least the equal of the other 50 authored by deities”. But I did get your point. Which was: You know and recognize God’s intent and which books He’s authored - and I don’t. Should I be persuaded by your forcefulness and conviction? Or should I verify the truth of what you say by reading the Gospels and all other “human” texts to see for myself? And my clue as to which is the most insightful? The more disturbing the text, the more jolting, the more “beyond” rational, ergo the more insightful. Don’t like disturbing Christian metaphors involving human sacrifice, torture and slow, painful death? Try a disturbing Zen metaphor. This one features an ax! Take that!
Posted by: Mary | January 7th, 2008 at 5:38 am | Report this commentOne man’s jolt is another man’s BS.
I think I’ll pass on the Zen clap/trap as well.
This all began with a moderate believer scolding fellow moderates for “respecting” fundamentalist crazies too much. Believers often demand respect for their beliefs. I cannot oblige.
I congratulate Professor Buiter for proclaiming his Christian faith, while warning against illiberal expressions of religion that, in my view, have noting to do with true religion.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” What a wonderful quote.
However, perhaps the relationship between faith and science is closer than it seems. Science accepts epistemological realism and rejects epistemological idealism. The assumption that objects of perception exist independently of the mind seems to be unfalsifiable.
Humans also relate with one another assuming that associated the physical body is a “person” who is a purposeful being. Again, this assumption seems to be unfalsifiable.
The strong human tendency to ascribe purpose, not just to other human beings, but also to biological systems (including human systems) is perhaps nothing more than a very efficient way to employ scarce mental resources to comprehend a complex reality characterized by uncertainty.
Perhaps “God” is just a concept that some of us employ to make sense of reality. Or perhaps “God” does really have a reality - albeit not one of this world - that is independent of our minds. Again, neither hypothesis is falsifiable.
I agree that creationism has no place in science classes. But I’m not sure if it belongs to religious study classes. I think creationism should be discussed in philosophy classes. Perhaps the reason why fundamentalism and literalism is so problematic today is that we don’t take philosophy seriously. We teach science without getting students to think about the philosophy of science.
Students don’t have the tools to reconcile science to their religious beliefs. As a consequence, they either give up religion altogether, or retreat into fundamentalism.
Science and true religion (as opposed to religiosity) are compatible. They are both a mixture of faith and rationality.
“The resurrection of Jesus”and “the Big Bang” are both unique events occurring sometime in the past. They are both susceptible to empirical investigation. Astronomers speculate about the origins of the universe based on observations of the effects of the origin. Historians speculate about the resurrection based on observations made up of historical records including archaeological evidence.
Posted by: Kien Choong | January 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am | Report this commentDear Mary,
I disagree. But I have to admit that was a great post — and your cynicism had me laughing out loud!
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | January 7th, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this commentHello,
A comment on ‘Is too much respect given to Fundamentalist/Literalist claptrap?’
This blog argues against Mike Huckabee’s Christian fundamentalism in three forms: sexist, homophobia and creationist. The conclusion asserts: ‘Fundamentalism and literalism are the enemies of an open society - the enemies of liberty. Fundamentalism has had it far too easy.’ It is time to fight back and defines three planks of Willem Buiter’s Christian faith.
In today’s UK politics, does the difference between two Christians: Mike Huckabee and Willem Buiter matter? I think it does. There follows my reasons and a UK example. (Like every psychoanalytic construction, this is bound to fail as the arguments which follow are based on assumptions about each man’s Christianity when neither man is known personally to me).
Mike Huckabee and Willem Buiter differ in the assumptions they make which give the position from which they act in the world.
In his ‘Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father’, Jacques Lacan distinguishes and defines different versions of the Other. (1) the father of ‘satisfaction without reins’ which precedes the advent of the Law. (This is derived from the Old Testament ‘Elohim’. (2) The Pact. This is the father who says no and puts limits on satisfaction (jouissance). Thus, the Law comes into place. (Old Testament ‘El Shaddai’) (3) With the third father, there is a hole which is unfilled. (Old Testament ‘The One whose Name must not be pronounced: YHWH’) This hole is named by a plurality of names which designate but not fill the hole. Thus, there is a move from the One Father to fathers. Each father is named by being the agent of an act. The act gives not only their own version of desire but equally their modality of ‘knowing how to do’ (savoir y faire) with satisfaction or enjoyment (jouissance). This plurality is to the detriment of the universal value of One Name. ‘Knowing how to do’ with satisfaction (jouissance) involves a relationship which finds a position relative to satisfaction (jouissance).
(Gil Caroz commentates in more detail on these three positions linking them to Jacques Lacan’s biblical references)
Fundamentalism implies the universal One Name. Thus, there is ricocheting between being consumed by unlimited zeal (jouissance) and obeying the law limiting the enjoyment (jouissance). The constant is the One God who knows all and has to be appeased. (I am reminded of a pre-conversion St Paul.) This ricocheting also gives the illusion of certainty and consistency. Sigmund Freud in ‘Totem and Taboo’ refers to this One as the dead father.
An open society allows difference from the One (a separation). Willem Buiter quotes ‘the moral commandments: love God and love your neighbour as yourself’. Both commandments or Laws imply a relationship. The relationship with God is initiated by the individual Christian. There is no One relationship. The relationship to neighbours is also not based on universal laws. Instead of receiving your position, it has to be found.
Application to two Financial Times articles: Editorial January 8th ‘Abandon the bill’ and Philip Stevens January 8th ‘Westminster sees parallels in Washington’.
Editorial: The Health and Social Care bill currently before Parliament seeks to implement the Universal One in two very different areas of care. This imposition of the One (standards, processes, training, waiting list times,) has been a hall-mark of governance and regulation over the last 10 years. This process obliterates difference and imposes certainty and consistency. Thus, there is a standard for happiness and well-being with a cabinet place for managing the latter. The ft editorial argues against this merger of these areas of care.
Philip Stevens points out that both Hilary Clinton and Gordon Brown have (or had) extremely sophisticated plans for when they take office. Gordon Brown’s have failed. This planning is at the level of the pact. I can make events safe for you or protect you (Heath Professions Order 2001 ‘safeguard well-being and health’) by imposing this plan or law. I suspect that Barack Obama copies his preacher Grandfather and makes sense of what people are telling him from the position he has developed.
Application to Polly Toynbee’s article on the NHS (Friday January 4, 2008 The Guardian ):
Polly Toynbee makes the following points:
National targets make progress visible. Waiting times have plummeted.
Offices for National Statistics measures of “productivity” count numbers in and out, not quality.
Who chooses in the end – markets, local patients or local professionals who knows where results are best?
Cameron’s populist hit-and-run phrases “choice” and “independence” are not backed by detail and will look increasingly frivolous.
Measurement, targets and those ‘who know’ implicate the all-knowing One who cuts to limit and control what is going on. The result of this cutting is certainty. What is going on is transparent, predictable and measurable. The government promises results. Differences, between patients, medical staff, and regions are not acknowledged. Differences in patient need are not recognized. Everything is measured by the One national standard. There is a government organization for developing these standards and the application of them is by law, for example, Health Professions’ Order 2001 which promises to ‘safeguard (the population’s) health and well-being’ by the implementation of standards (The One).
In the meantime, as Polly Toynbee also points out, relationships, based on an individual’s position and ‘knowing how to do’, which are the motor of the NHS, are not recognized by the unitary standard as implemented by this government.
Julia Evans
Posted by: Julia Evans | January 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am | Report this commentwww.psychoanalysislondon.org.uk
References:
‘Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father’ Jacques Lacan published in ‘Television: A challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment’ edited by Joan Copjec. W. W. Norton & Co 1990
‘Three Names in the inexistent seminar’ Gil Caroz. Published in ‘Almanac of psychoanalysis’ vol 5 ‘Names-of-the-Father in Religions and Cultures’ July 2006