Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
Religiosity, Romney, Huckabee And Ron Paul Politics Is Faith A Part Of The Presidential Paradigm?by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
I have to confess that when I heard Mitt Romney was going to give a speech on his Mormon "faith", I had no interest in hearing what he had to say. And of this writing, I am still ignorant about what he wanted to dispel for the nation, and what he wanted to sell.
I have also not seen any of Huckabee's ads describing himself as a man of faith. If I bump into one, I may watch it. If I miss those pious moments, they'll come around again in another election. Faith is a card that gets played over and over at election time. Even Hillary and Obama have discovered its appeal. The deck is simply stacked.
I did, however, see Ron Paul's opinion on the religious question. Predictably, his answer was humble and framed within the context of the original intent of the founding fathers-- It shouldn't even matter. One's faith, and one's politics, are as separate as church and state.
As a rationalist sitting in the political tepidity of the placid body of thought known as the middle, I have to ask the very blaring question-- "Why does what one places in their "faith" mental box, not matter?"
Faith is an idea that basically means believing in something without evidence. It is a word and a concept that have become unassailable in America, as if faith had supernatural backing. If you have faith in something, you have not vetted its veracity. You have not applied rational, scientific thinking models to the question (and/or answer), and are using some other rationale to come to your conclusions.
Faith is by nature a fuzzy, imprecise, predominately EMOTIONAL response to such heady questions as morality, origin, purpose etc.. It can be, however, an indicator of the mental acumen of the person utilizing it. One could generally surmise the GULLIBILTY of an individual, by the amount of faith he/she utilizes in their answers to the deeper questions.
The Garden of Eden, for example (wherever it may reside in the minds of the faithful) is solely reliant on belief to exist at all. The degree to which an individual claims its certainty tells us just how far someone is willing to go to promote their faith outside of the bounds of concrete evidence and realistic assumption. The stronger the certainty of its existence, the higher the level of gullibility.
The President of the United States is a pretty powerful position in the scheme of human kind. To be granted that much influence and power, one must be checked and tested for mental flaws and irrational beliefs. If in your faith box you keep too many notions that are counter-intuitive and contradictory of evidence and science, is it not logical to assume that your mind is predisposed to unscientific thinking, irrational thought, lack of REASON?
It is easy to point one's finger at the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the North Korean leader KimJong-il, and make claims of their insanity by virtue of what they hold in their box of faith. Ahmadinejad believes in the 12th Imam, whatever that means. Kim Jong-il (claims to believe) that his father was a God of some sort. These are two, silly, crazy leaders, playing on the world's stage and tying up far too much man-power and energy from the rest of the world.
During our election cycle, while we are contemplating our own leaders- putting them through their paces, granting them one very long interview, if you will- I think it prudent to ask ourselves-- "What notions, lacking evidence, rationality and reason, do they hold dear to them, and can we tolerate those notions, in the purview of the job as President?"
Ink wiring mimes want to know.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
2007 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, December 8, 2007
Last modified: Saturday, December 8, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I agree with Ron Paul, I do not agree with you. I would like to see the comments from Ron Paul that you mention, a citation would be helpful.
Unfortunately you have the same incorrect view of faith as most of the country.
"If you have faith in something, you have not vetted its veracity. You have not applied rational, scientific thinking models to the question (and/or answer), and are using some other rationale to come to your conclusions."
Your belief that science is the ultimate source of truth is taken on faith. There is no scientific experiment to prove the veracity of your belief.
"Faith is by nature a fuzzy, imprecise, predominately EMOTIONAL response to such heady questions as morality, origin, purpose etc."
This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what faith is. Many people act upon pure emotion and call it faith. This is not what has been historically understood by the term faith. Consider the following quotes.
"The issue is whether the Bible gives propositional truth where it touches history and the cosmos...or whether instead of that, it is only meaningful where it touches that which is considered religious. T. H. Huxley, the biologist friend of Darwin, the grandfather of Aldous and Julian Huxley, wrote in 1890 that he visualized the day not far hence in which faith would be separated from all fact, and especially all pre-Abrahamic history, and that faith would then go on triumphant forever. This is an amazing statement for 1890, before the birth of existential philosophy or existential theology. Huxley indeed foresaw something clearly. I am sure that he and his friends considered this some kind of a joke, because they would have understood well that if faith is separated from fact and specifically pre-Abrahamic space-time history, it is only another form of what we today call a trip." -Francis Schaeffer
"One of the greatest misinterpretations of the history of philosophy is that contained in the statement that the Renaissance was the period in which reason cast off the chains of faith (or theology) and ceased to be faith's handmaid. Reason can never cease to be the handmaid of faith: All thought must start somewhere, and that initial postulate is unproved, by definition. What the Renaissance represents is not the liberation of reason from bondage of faith, but the exchange of faiths - the adoption of new axioms - in the minds of men. Reason is and must always be the handmaid of faith. The only question that remains is, Which faith - which axiom - shall reason serve?" -John Robbins : Without a Prayer - Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System
(It would serve you well to read the book just quoted)
Ron Paul would not agree with you that one's faith is completely irrelevant. His humble reaction to the present focus on religion in politics is because the questions asked generally have nothing to do with policy. People wave their faith around as an endorsement from Jesus. Paul takes his faith more seriously and thus does not cheapen it. That does not mean he thinks its irrelevant.
Good article, you could at least mention that it is "prudent" to believe in the spiritual world in the way of an agnostic like Einstein without giving into any "irrational" thinking. You tend so sound like an atheist that thinks non-atheists are idiots.
I am an athiest, but I find the candidates discussion of their faith useful and illuminating.
The problem with your thinking is that most questions of policy (indeed, of life) lie "outside of the bounds of concrete evidence and realistic assumption". The essence of politics is to plan for an unknowable future.
I believe a person will face both kinds of uncertainties in the same way. For proof, look no farther than Bush, whose response of bludgeoning insistance to policy questions exactly mirrors his bludgeoning insistance in response to metaphysical questions.
If we wait for scientific certainty in this life, we will never act. But if we want to judge how a person will make his way through the mists and mirrors of real life, seeing how he addresses the question of faith is a good place to start.
Per the constitution it doesn't matter. But it does in the minds of people constitution or not. People are concerned woth a PRESIDENT that, lets say, is a muslim, of some sort of poligamist religion, atheist, or even gay. These are all some of the things okay with the constitution but not some people.
A better basis for judging future performance is past performance, rather than trying to second guess what someone's beliefs mean. If I want a good CPA I'm interested in his ability as a CPA, not what his religion is. I don't wonder whether my brain surgeon is a good chess player, simply because I theorize that better chess players must make better surgeons.
Based on past performance, honesty, consistency, and being right on the issues when almost everyone else was wrong, Ron Paul is my choice. I don't even need to know what kind of chess player he is.
I agree very much with Paul's stance on the relationship between religion & politics (it shouldn't matter). However, i think youre explanation of faith may be a little unfair. To most americans, what you described is unfortunately their idea of faith. BUT, faith among Christians (& probably other religions) has historical been belief that is based on reason not against reason. As a Christian, i believe what i believe BECAUSE i HAVE applied objective & scientific tests and the conclusions point me in the direction of Christianity. As for your example of the Garden of Eden, i have reason to believe that it was a historical place because the author who wrote about it also wrote about other historical places which have been verified. Its an issue of History, not science. You can't scientifically prove the outcomes of WWI & WWII, but you can determine it by investigating reliable historical sources. Science & History deal with different issues & different types of evidence. We shouldn't unfairly confuse them.
Posted By: Jeremy D. Young
Date: 2007-12-08 17:58:03
Your arguments may well be accepted by the vast majority of people, but the unfortunate truth is that human beings are limited, and to hold as honorable faith in human research over faith in other things is simply a choice among the spectrum of things to believe in. There is a truth, a definition of existence, and all people who have sought answers that are beyond our ability to observe and test must have faith because people are inherently incapable of answering many questions.
There are foundational questions that various faiths answer. Atheism is just another set of answers to those questions that are not certain. Those answers do in fact affect all that we do in our personal lives.
The dangerous variation that must be watched for is a man (or woman) who claims there is no truth, and therefore it doesn't matter whether what they say has any resemblance to truth. Integrity and Honesty are very important traits in a leader. We must know whether they will do what they say they will do. This is one of the greatest strengths of Ron Paul, and something that distinguishes him from the rest of the pack.
Human observation is not a standard that withstands reason, logic, and truth. Science is based upon human observation, and therefore cannot be claimed to be a higher level of truth than the philisophical systems that have been developed over thousands of years of human experience. It is fallacy to believe that just because a large group of people come together and agree upon a certain set of assumptions as fact, that they are such.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-08 18:04:23
"Good article, you could at least mention that it is "prudent" to believe in the spiritual world..."-- mike
Ummm, why would the belief itself be "prudent".
"A better basis for judging future performance is past performance..." -- David
Ummm, that would be ONE way to assess someone, yes. But history has a way of bringing up other issues and "ways of thinking" for our observation. For example, the whole WMD debacle vis a vis Iraq. "Evidence" was replaced in the lead up to war with a belief more closely aligned with "faith".
Posted By: Richard Church
Date: 2007-12-08 19:46:42
You use a false definition of faith and then build your argument on that definition, a classic straw man. To have faith in something means simply to believe or trust it. That faith may be rational or it may be irrational, depending on the individual and the object of their faith.
For instance, one may have faith in their spouse, meaning that they trust them. If this faith is based on a long history of demonstrating marital fidelity, then it is a rational faith. If this faith continues, despite a history of infidelity, it is irrational.
Likewise with religious faith. I believe the Bible because in every area that I can test its veracity, it proves to be true. Whether I examine its historical, geographic, scientific, or prophetic accuracy, its complete internal consistency (despite the many obstacles in this regard considering the means of its creation), or any other area, it passes every test I give it. Therefore, it is only rational for me to trust it in the areas in which it cannot be tested. For me, it would be irrational to do otherwise.
Therefore, to me the faith of the president does matter. If a candidate for president does not believe the Bible, then he is either ignorant of the complete rationality of the Bible or he himself is irrational.
It would be irrational for me to vote for someone who harbors the kinds of delusions that are taught by Mormonism. It would be irrational for me to vote for someone who bows to a corrupt dictatorship as is taught by Catholicism. It would be irrational for me to vote for someone who could delude themselves into believing that there is no God.
Finally, since our Constitution is predicated on the idea embodied in the Declaration of Independence that we were created by God and endowed by Him with inalienable rights, one's view of God is vitally important to defending American liberty. For this reason, an atheist must reject the Declaration of Independence altogether. A warped view of God will create a warped view of our liberty and rights.
I, like you, respect Ron Paul's aversion to bringing religious faith directly to the campaign table. It really does not belong there.
I would direct your attention to a problem that has plagued scholars and philosophers concerning the authority by which we as citizens claim rights and protection under our own political Constitution. In other words, who granted the constitution to us?
If your answer is that we granted a constitution to ourselves, then the authority by which we came to all those wonderful rights is really nothing more and nothing less than the electoral decision that (twice) put GW Bush in the White House with a sliver of a majority from a confused and ambivalent electorate. Do you want to entrust the Constitution back to that electorate, to do with as they can be convinced by whatever media bombards them?
If you say that "the founders" gave us the Constitution, how is that really any different than saying that a few wise men promulgated some good ideas and handed them off to us? That is, it would seem, a core argument in favor of the New Testament, too. Do you want to convene a Council of Nicea and elevate the words of the founders to sacred status?
You can say that "logic" gave us the Constitution, but what if I (or some loony dicatator) can prove that a different logic would give us a completely re-written Constitution.
Hmm, tricky problem. If you look at what the founders actually said, it is overwhelmingly evident that they simply said "God gives us our freedom." Even the free-thinking, deistic, secret-society-belonging founders pointed to some supernatural authority which had a higher power than human status, human wisdom, or human logic to bestow and protect fundamental human rights and political responsibilities. Really, really. What do you bet Ron Paul knows this story like the back of his hand?
Posted By: Greg from Iowa
Date: 2007-12-09 05:34:43
Scott wrote: "Faith is an idea that basically means believing in something without evidence"
Nothing like starting an article with a false premise to get things started. "Faith" simply means "belief". In the verb form, it means "believe". This is true both in English and in the original biblical Greek.
Most things people believe are based on evidence. Christianity is no exception. As a former anti-Christian, pro-evolutionary origins agnostic, I can tell you that from where I sit today, evidence and reason demand my faith as a Christian. While it is not possible to verify for myself whether a place referred to as the garden of Eden existed as the place where life on this planet was first established, in some regards my consideration of it is no different from considering other historical information from a different source. It is all a matter of what level of integrity and accuracy you give the source of the information. I cannot personally verify that the first contenental congress was ever convened, but I consider the historical sources that inform us about it accurate enough to belive that it happened.
Setting up a straw man of weak minded, non-evidentiary irrational "faith" to knock down so you can prop up a replacement of "reason" is the tactics of the bigot, who has not even taken the time to understand that those holding a different perspective on matters religious are often not inherently "gullible", but rather have chosen (often intellectually) to give creedence to sources of information different from those he does. Nor do their positions lack evidence or a lack of rational thought. All this is simply a claim thown out against all others who think differently than you do.
From my perspective, "gullible" is what I was at one time when I had accepted the arguments for evolution as the cause of the origin of species and that there was no creator responsible for our existance. But today, I think that in order for me to support them, I would have to set aside "reason" and what I know of true scientific evidence, for neither logic, nor evidence point in the direction of those conclusions. (Which are just as much "faith" as anything that deals with a supernatural creator - as they are ideas that some people actually "believe" - even though they are grossly contradictory to evidence.)
Bottom line though, what is most important in the blog's context, is where faith (religious or not) intersects what a person would do if elected. And this is important regardless of whether a person's "faith" - their "beliefs" are originated from a religious source or another. Unfortunately, the "beliefs" of candidates as they pertain to civil government are not explored much, instead, they are pitched to us under broad labels that rarely are adequate to inform us either regarding what drives them philosophically or regarding what they would do if elected.
Interestingly, both Scott and I probably hold to much of the same positions on things political, which means we hold to many of the same "beliefs" and share in those areas. common "faith". But, obviously, we do not share common thoughts in all areas.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-09 06:19:12
"Most things people believe are based on evidence. Christianity is no exception." Greg from Iowa
Well, without meaning to get into a religious discussion (those have been had by far better people than I) I will ask this.
What evidence do you have for this "belief", then? The only source I am aware of is the Bible for such things as virgin births, resurrections, etc... And "faith", people, as it is defined by the candidates, means more than just "belief". There is a very real lack of evidence, as well. They are talking about belief in (in this case) either a Mormon or a Christian viewpoint, both of which contradict each other logically, btw.
Posted By: Jeremy D. Young
Date: 2007-12-09 15:02:41
Your questions offer no benefit to the campaign of Ron Paul. He is a Christian, and has brothers who are Ministers of churches.
The Ron Paul campaign is one of unification and solidarity around the concepts of freedom. The ideas that Government should not define how a free citizen should believe and act in his private life is what draws us together. Quit trying to attack people by asking seemingly simple questions that have a great deal of philisophical and theoretical thought behind the answers. There is no answer to the questions you ask that is simple, not even on the athiest side of belief.
Without extremely thorough and thoughtful discussion, this topic can only bring division, because it is not a simple topic.
Ah, faith. Belief without evidence. Sometimes we must act on our beliefs because we don't know everything. But insisting our beliefs are fact in the face of contradictory evidence is stupid. If you believe in a god because someone told you about him, your faith is in the teller not the god.
Didn't anyone proof-read that before you submitted it? That is the weakest, most obtuse article I've read on this site.
The reason faith is not relevant in politics is because of the principle that individual freedom allows us all to live how we want and to believe what we want. What we believe (good or bad, true or false) is completely beside the point (as long as we operate within the bounds of not violating another's individual freedom).
Ron Paul answered correctly because he understands that what he believes is between him and God and that freedom affords him the right to participate in his religion, whereas Huckabee is claiming that Christians should vote for him because they believe the same thing.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-09 17:21:00
"What we believe (good or bad, true or false) is completely beside the point (as long as we operate within the bounds of not violating another's individual freedom)." madzebra
That statement is TRUE when applied to citizenry of a free nation and I agree wholeheartedly that what we believe is both personal and protected.
I am making the observation that "How we think" is important when judging one as a potential leader.
If belief without evidence is part of someone's thinking processes, they are more likely to make mistakes and gross assumptions by believing in the correctness of their position without gathering and testing evidence beforehand.
I already pointed to the historical WMD situation, and will point there again. Either there was sufficient "faith" that the facts supplied were true, or deliberate falsehoods were repeated. Either way, how one "thinks" bears consideration when selecting a candidate for arguably the most powerful position of the free world.
If a presidential candidate understands and is an adherent of the principles of the Constitution, then THAT is what is important about "how he thinks". If Dr Paul were the same in every regard except he were an atheist, I would still support him because I know he categorically understands the principles.
The Constitution and its tenets are our guide and this is what the founding fathers intended. Did you ever think to consider that the framers of this Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were themselves "gullible" theists?
Just relax dude and know that when Dr Paul implements his foreign policy, it will be righteous because he is down with the Constitution.
"Faith is an idea that basically means believing in something without evidence. ... You have not applied rational, scientific thinking models to the question (and/or answer), and are using some other rationale to come to your conclusions."
As you note, faith is belief in that which cannot be observed. But why do you think faith and reason are mutually exclusive? To know something is true through observation does not require reason. But reason often gives birth to faith.
Consider: reason is the best tool at our disposal to understand that which cannot be observed. And when we follow our reason to its conclusion, if we accept the answer to which reason leads us, and that answer is not provable through observation, then our belief in that answer is called "faith", arrived at through reason.
Of course, even using reason, different people arrive at different answers to the same question (for example, spontaneous Big Bang vs. God).
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.