Fairy Tales

In my debate liveblog, I expressed some admiration for Mike Huckabee's answer to Wolf Blitzer's question about why he doesn't believe in evolution. I see that Jamie Kirchick didn't care for the reply at all: "Sorry, but if someone believes in fairy tales, I think that's pretty relevant to their qualifications as president." But why? The core of Huckabee's answer is here:

It’s interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I’m not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I’m asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.

That's quite right. Blitzer is just being a pain in the ass. It would be a serious problem if Huckabee were proposing to meddle in eighth-grade science textbooks, but he rightly understands that in the American system this isn't a federal question. On the fairy tales part, well, I'm unimpressed. My understanding is that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama all believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind and then rose from the dead. This strikes me as a hell of a tall tale. But, obviously, it's not what you'd call a rare view in the United States and if we're going to start writing off politicians who believe in "fairy tales" of this sort there's going to be nobody left.

To me, the only truly grating remark about religion in the GOP debate was Rudy Giuliani trying to pretend that his faith is important to him. Giuliani's like the reverse of someone who takes his Catholicism seriously -- the divorces, the affairs, the gay rights, the abortion, the preventive war, the total absence of any Christian Democratic spirit of generosity -- and everyone knows it.

Comments

Well, almost certainly for Clinton, maybe for Edwards, and at least possibly for Obama, they only pretend to believe all of that.

Posted by Dan | June 6, 2007 8:36 AM

Ahh, Matt you can be so stupid at times. Abstinence-only ring any bells? The Federal government can impose a lot if it wishes to.

Posted by Rob | June 6, 2007 8:36 AM

Barack Obama is a member of a liberal protestant denomination that makes literal faith in Christian doctrines optional, so I wouldn't be shocked if he saw traditional Christian doctrines in a purely figurative, or metaphorical sense.

I'm sure Obama isn't the only candidate like this, but he's easier to spot since he belongs to a denomination where a lack of literal belief is OK.

Now if the Wolf and others continue to be a pain by asking questions that don't bear on the job of president, then I would doubt ANY candidate would volunteer that their Christian faith is non-literal.

Posted by Jay J. | June 6, 2007 8:38 AM

Matt,

I'll agree with Rob on this. Even ignoring that a President appoints judges who decide cases on the issue of whether teaching creationism constitutes religious indoctrination, a President who believes in creationism is not one I want making decisions on, for example, whether global warming is occurring.

Posted by Dantheman | June 6, 2007 8:48 AM

Giuliani's like the reverse of someone who takes his Catholicism seriously -- the divorces, the affairs, the gay rights, the abortion, the preventive war, the total absence of any Christian Democratic spirit of generosity -- and everyone knows it.

Well, actually, they don't. 50% of voters don't know his views on abortion. I've yet to meet anybody oustide the media junkies in NYC who know he left his second wife by press conference, and then tried to move his girlfriend into the house where his wife and children were still living, and when he couldn't do that, moved in with 2 gay men.

So, no, people don't know that.

Posted by anonymous | June 6, 2007 9:01 AM

I still agree with Kirchik here. Their beliefs about stuff like this sure as hell are relevant. Fine, you can nitpick that that specific question is a dumb one because so many candidates might give the same answer. But it certainly is relevant exactly how irrational and counterfactual someone's religious belief is, and Huckabee's answer is a dodge. He may not be typing passages in the textbook himself, but he's deciding which "new and improved" educational programs like abstinence-only education and God knows what else get funding, he's appointing the secretary of education, he's appointing judges that decide whether those programs are constitutional... And while in theory this stuff is federal, so much of what goes on in public schools depends on federal money or policy that it's really not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to vote for a Christian in November 2008, and depending on who wins the nomination it might be a devout Christian or a member of a sect I think is pretty bizarre. But I think voters have a right to ask and know about this stuff and I think it's relevant to how the candidate will handle the office.

Posted by Cyrus | June 6, 2007 9:05 AM

I differ somewhat from Matthew. To me, the height of hypocrisy in the debate was several candidates proclaiming that (a) they think God created us all and loves us all (b) that the Republican party values LIFE and (c) that they will drop tactical nuclear warheads on the people of Iran if the Iranians don't do what we kind peace-loving Christians say.

What this debate showed the other major powers of the world is that the USA is ruled by a bunch of deceitful, murderous psychopaths.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 9:06 AM

I'm not sure the personal beliefs about creationism matter that much (anymore than I think personal tolerance matters that much). For instance, I suspect that Edwards might really be less comfortable with gay people than George W. Bush (who by all accounts is fine with gays personally). But Edwards cares about people and doing what's right, and he sees treating gay people fairly as important. Bush doesn't.

So, personal beliefs probably mean less than: (1) the base that you're accountable to and (2) what you believe and emphasize in governance.

Second,
"Liberal protestant denomination that makes literal faith in Christian doctrines optional":
Really? Most Liberal Protestant Denominations make faith in the Bible as literal, infallible truth optional (or even discouraged, because it's incorrect), but most also require their adherents to profess belief that: "Jesus is the Christ." That Jesus was both God and Man, rose from the dead, and Jesus is the route to salvation (what that means is open to interpretation). Is Barack's so different?

Posted by MDtoMN | June 6, 2007 9:13 AM

Also, Matt is right about the fairly tales. Most people believe some. And, Dan, it would be nice if you didn't assume that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all pretending. We have no idea what they really believe.

I agree that Guiliani is disgusting. He is a completely immoral man who has put himself above everyone else in every venue and step of his life. Personally, I don't need to know whether he believes in Christianity & Catholicism are not. You know them by their fruits: Guiliani's actions have been reprehensible, and we can assume he'll be bad news.

Posted by MDtoMN | June 6, 2007 9:17 AM

I agree with you on one part, the part where you say that if we start eliminating people who believe in fairy tales we'll swiftly run out of politicians.

I don't agree with you that its not relevant. Belief in gods indicates an acceptance of certain postulates. For one, it generally indicates a willingness to believe things based on conviction rather than on evidence. I think that after Bush's term in office, we can all see why believing things based on a sense of conviction is not actually helpful.

So there may be no better option, and if one day an atheist politician openly runs for the presidency I'm not saying he'll automatically be the best choice. But the degree to which a person is willing to make firmly held but evidence free conclusions is relevant.

Its especially relevant where there IS evidence, and it points the other way...

Posted by Patrick | June 6, 2007 9:21 AM

Is it just me or does the image of these GOP tough on terror contenders seem shallow and hollow when not one of them has the cajones to say, " I believe that the story of creation should be taught in sunday school only."? A genuine discussion of actual issues would be nice, or is that too much to ask?

Posted by Brian | June 6, 2007 9:37 AM

If a candidate stated that he believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, or that aliens were talking to him via his tooth fillings, I doubt Matt would be so ecumenical in his attitudes toward ridiculous beliefs.

I mean, there are different levels of ridiculousnous. If not at a philosophical level, then at least at an empirical level. We know that young earth creationists are completely unserious people. People who follow a less literal Christianity might, at some deep level, be just as ridiculous. But, we know from experience and common sense that they don't take the Bible literally precisely because they are more rational, even if they are not as rational as people who reject it outright.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 9:39 AM

Matt, you're saying that a complete disregard for science is acceptable in someone running for president? As numerous others have pointed out, the president doesn't write the books but he appoints judges, decides what to enforce, and proposes legislation.

Posted by eriks | June 6, 2007 9:40 AM

I was with you until you said, essentially, real Catholics are opposed to gay rights and want to make abortion illegal. As a pseudo-Catholic who was raised Catholic, is marrying a practicing Catholic, and attends Catholic church, I can tell you that many, many committed and active Catholics (maybe not a majority, but a significant number) who think the Pope is up to his elbows in bullshit.

Posted by Aaron | June 6, 2007 9:54 AM

I wanted to make the same point as Aaron, without the suggestion of a Pope in poop.

Please don't suggest that Catholics must agree with official line on all matters.

The Church often winds up venerating people who at the time are dissidents. The Church is hierarchical, of course, but it is not a totalitarian dictatorship.

I want to like Huckabee. Before the specters of Thompson and Gingrich, I was betting on him to be the nominee. He seems like a genuine person. The unfortunate fact, though, is that evolution denial tends to be part of a cultural package, one that isn't filled with Christian charity towards gays, for example.

People who follow a less literal Christianity might, at some deep level, be just as ridiculous.

Well, what makes a person ridiculous? Adhering to fringe views, like that there is no God? Or adhering to views that evidence does not compel, like that there is a God?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2007 10:07 AM

Re Jim W's "we know from experience and common sense that they don't take the Bible literally precisely because they are more rational, even if they are not as rational as people who reject it outright."
---------

Agnosticism is more "rational" than atheism. I suspect that's why Huckabee's honest "I don't know" resonated with Matthew.

Scientists don't allow preachers to depict religious beliefs as science.

But real scientists also don't make provisional scientific theories into the new public religion. Doing so would be contrary to the scepticism necessary for science.

I think Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught in school --and "young earth creationism" should NOT --because there is evidence for evolution and not for creationism.

But Darwin's evolution requires a long period of time and became accepted only after work in nuclear physics circa 1900-1930 indicated that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

But that estimate ASSUMES that uranium decays into lead at a constant rate.
I.e, ASSUMES that what we've observed for the last 100 years can be extrapolated back over 4.5 billion years.

If a preacher proclaims there is a God, then one would ask: prove it. Show him to me. What is your evidence? Where are your measurements and observations?

But if an athenist says "there is NO God" , then I would ask the same. Prove it. Have you checked every last galaxy in the universe? How did you do so? Where are your measurements and observations? Could God be hiding behind the Hubble Telescope?

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 10:09 AM

But Darwin's evolution requires a long period of time and became accepted only after work in nuclear physics circa 1900-1930 indicated that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Not true. It was Mendelian genetics, not the process of radioactive decay, that made the new synthesis possible.

But if an atheist says "there is NO God" , then I would ask the same. Prove it.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The onus is on the people who think that there is a God to provide evidence for their belief.

Posted by ajay | June 6, 2007 10:16 AM

But Darwin's evolution requires a long period of time and became accepted only after work in nuclear physics circa 1900-1930 indicated that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Not true. It was Mendelian genetics, not the process of radioactive decay, that made the new synthesis possible.

But if an atheist says "there is NO God" , then I would ask the same. Prove it.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The onus is on the people who think that there is a God to provide evidence for their belief. See the "teapot orbiting Jupiter" argument. If you said "I believe there is a three-mile-long teapot orbiting Jupiter" and I said "I don't think so", you couldn't ask me to provide evidence that there wasn't. The onus is on you to support your teapotism, not on me to support my ateapotism.

Posted by ajay | June 6, 2007 10:18 AM

Re: "Agnosticism is more "rational" than atheism."

Agnosticism can be rational if it includes the rejection of ridiculous beliefs. For example, rejecting the bible outright.

These terms are subject to different interpretations by different people. One person's agnosticism is another's atheism. I agree that it is rational to say that the universe is a mysterious place, and there are many things we don't know, and perhaps are incapable of understanding.

However, I don't buy into a fuzzy version of agnosticism which says all beliefs are equally likely, and therefore one cannot reject outright particular ridiculous religious beliefs.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 10:24 AM

Re Ajay's 'See the "teapot orbiting Jupiter" argument'

Is that anything like the "Saddam Hussein is building nuclear bombs and we need to sacrifice American lives to stop him" argument?

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 10:27 AM

Don Williams: I tell you that there is a Great Turtle of Life and Doom who lurks in space, and from whom all life and all matter emerges.

You say there isn't? Prove it. Could he be hiding behind the Hubble Telescope?

I am not an atheist, but I hope you see my point. Atheists simply believe that there isn't evidence for a God, just as you believe that there isn't evidence for a Great Turtle. Of course you can't "prove" either negative.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2007 10:30 AM

Hmm. Ajay beat me to it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2007 10:37 AM

In defense of Don Williams, you can't "prove" that love, justice, truth or beauty exist, either. But we believe in them. Don't we?

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 6, 2007 10:59 AM

"Love, justice, truth, and beauty" are not physical things, per se. They are concepts and/or states of mind.

We are not saying that religion or belief in god or spirituality don't exist. They do exist as concepts or states of mind, just as love, justice, etc, do.

What we are saying is that certain particular belief systems associated with these things are so preposterous, in the face of physical evidence, that they cannot be true.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 11:08 AM

For the record, while its not possible to prove a negative, it is possible to provide evidence of a negative. With sufficient evidence, it is responsible to conclude the negative, even though it has not been proved to a philosophical certainty.

Hence, atheism.

Posted by Patrick | June 6, 2007 11:09 AM

God isn't supposed to be a "physical thing" either.

Posted by JP | June 6, 2007 11:10 AM

"The various modes of worship , which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."
--Edward Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

----------

1) The REAL question for candidates is: what are your moral values and to what extent would you use the power of the state to punish those who violate those values??

2) I personally consider pedophilia of a 14 year old girl a crime which should be punished --even if the girl does not call for persecution. But I'm not sure that I can justify that belief with any more "reason" than can those who persecute homosexuals.

3) Similarly, I think a mother who kills her infant to be a murderer who should be punished. But I'm not sure that I can justify that belief with any more "reason" than can those who would persecute first-term abortions.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 11:11 AM

Re Patrick's comment: "With sufficient evidence, it is responsible to conclude the negative, even though it has not been proved to a philosophical certainty.

Hence, atheism."
---------
Hmmm. That sounds like something that one BELIEVES , not something that one KNOWS.

Plato recorded the elaborate arguments Socrates made to REASON that there is a Heaven after death (see the dialogue PHAEDO).

I find Socrates unconvincing. I find posters to the contrary here to be also unconvincing.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Desperately Seeking Chris Mooney.

Posted by jason | June 6, 2007 11:45 AM

Similarly, I think a mother who kills her infant to be a murderer who should be punished. But I'm not sure that I can justify that belief with any more "reason" than can those who would persecute first-term abortions.

But that's not a belief about objective truth, it's a subjective preference. Different category.

If you were to say instead that you think God wants mothers who kill their infants to be punished, or that such punishment is somehow a law of the universe then you would be obliged to justify it with reason.

Posted by Seamus | June 6, 2007 12:19 PM

His comments betray a lack of judgement and reason, two elements that are important in our leaders. It doesn't matter that this fairy tale is widely believed; after all, we don't want Everyman for our president. Brian and you may have a soft spot for Huckabee; I don't. But maybe that's because I worship Zeus.

Posted by anon | June 6, 2007 12:25 PM

IMHO, there's a big difference between believing in a 'fairy tale' for which no evidence, for or against, will ever be available, and believing in one that flies in the face of a mountain of scientific evidence.

Only the latter indicates that the believer will allow his/her beliefs to override reality.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | June 6, 2007 12:40 PM

Matt has a good point about Dems believing in Jesus rising from the dead. Every politician either believes crazy stuff, or must pretend to believe crazy stuff in order to appease some part of his base.

I wouldn't be surprised if Huckabee doesn't believe in creationism, and he's just pandering to part of his base. For that matter, let me go a step further and say that I doubt most declared creationists actually believe in it -- and for lefties to focus on the silly aspects of this belief is to miss the larger point of creationists. The belief that man was created by a deity in his image and is subject to that deity's laws is the foundation of morality in Christianity (and other forms of religious absolutism). Creationists lament that, by kicking the creation story to the curb, secular education types have knocked out the foundation stone of American morality, with disasterous consequences for public behavior and mores. They actually have a point here, though lefties are usually too busy mocking the silly aspects of creationism to consider it.

A post-Christian Europe may have enough of a secular philosophical tradition not to need Christianity to support its public morality, but this isn't true of America. Christianity has been the driving force behind key moral issues in American history, from abolitionism, to civil rights, to charity (the Catholic Church is America's largest charity), to advocacy for marriage and monogamy. As religion as been weakened, public morality has declined. Illegitimacy rates are higher across the board, though they have jumped most dramatically in the black community (from 27% in the 1960's to 67% today), teenage girls through their newborn babies in dumpsters, etc.

Posted by Fred | June 6, 2007 12:50 PM

I don't want a President who is either ignorant of or hostile to science and/or has an infantile understanding of the Bible. Neither the Catholic church nor the Jews who wrote the story of Gensesis in the first place believe literally in the creation story happening 6,000 years ago anymore. Both religions and most others have accepted the overwhelming evidence provided by science that the universe began billions of years ago and that life evolved over time. Anybody who does believe in young earth creationism is ignorant of both science and religion and has no business being in public office.

After 7 years of a President who thinks it was God who elected him not Scalia and God who told him to invade Iraq not Cheney, we desperately need somebody in the White House who didn't get his religious beliefs from watching the 700 Club.

Posted by Ron | June 6, 2007 12:52 PM

It would be a serious problem if Huckabee were proposing to meddle in eighth-grade science textbooks, but he rightly understands that in the American system this isn't a federal question.

As a litmus test, look at what a candidate proposes is sort of dumb. Lots of people refrain from proposing their more controversial ideas; it's bizarre to conclude that "he hasn't proposed this, so we don't have to worry about it!"

A far more logical approach would be to look at Huckabee's record as governor. Did he introduce religion into the public sphere to an unacceptable extent? Did he meddle with school textbooks? These are all more productive questions than looking at what he's proposing in the heat of a political campaign.

Posted by Steve | June 6, 2007 12:54 PM

Both religions and most others have accepted the overwhelming evidence provided by science that the universe began billions of years ago and that life evolved over time.

The Catholic Church has not accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence against the belief that a 3-day-old decomposing human corpse came back to life.

Posted by Seamus | June 6, 2007 1:00 PM

Huckabee's true faith is dieting. This is a guy who lost a hundred pounds. As president he'd be more likely to advocate a tax on twinkies than school prayer.

Posted by Fred | June 6, 2007 1:02 PM

MDtoMnN,

My understanding is that Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, not to be confused with the Church of Christ.

The UCC, as it's called, has official literature that explicitly states that although they have the traditional Christian creeds, these creeds should be viewed as "testimonies not tests" of faith. This includes beliefs such as the Virgin Birth, resurrection, and the idea that Jesus was literally the son of God.

The question that might be asked if if a denomination makes this piece of faith optional, then can it legitimately be called Christian.

I personally don't care if people can find deep meaning if their lives through seeing the Bible (in parts) as broadly inspired by God rather than dictated...more power to them. And if they do that within a Christian context, fine with me.

If you Google the UCC and go to their website, you should be able to find the stuff I'm talking about.

Posted by Jay J. | June 6, 2007 1:13 PM

'"Love, justice, truth, and beauty" are not physical things, per se. They are concepts and/or states of mind.'

The question is: Does Love, Justice, Truth and Beauty exist? Gravity is not a "physical thing" but it exists. Or maybe you mean that there is no such thing as Love, Justice, Truth and Beauty except how it exists in an individual's mind.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 6, 2007 1:38 PM

Matt, just don't post about science.
You don't care about and don't understand it.
Stick to things on which your opinion has value.
A young earth creationist rejects science root and branch, and it is extremely important to know that before we are faced with the choice of voting for people. Spare us the too-clever-by-half english major postures on this one.

Posted by Marc | June 6, 2007 1:47 PM

Gravity is a physical thing. Obviously, we don't completely understand physics yet, but we do know that gravity exists.

The other concepts (love, etc) do not exist in a physical sense, except insofar as they exist as states of mind. How mind corresponds to physical states of the brain is the biggest mystery of all.

But, people who claim the existence of God or of particular religious truths are doing more than saying they believe that the concepts exist. They actually believe that God exists, or that Jesus rose from the grave, etc. Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but they really believe it. Or, at least they say they do.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 1:55 PM

In a recent New Yorker article, Tom Delay was quoted as saying that God had apoken to him and told him to rebuild the Republican party. To my way of thinking he either believes that and is insane, or he doesn't believe it and is lying to fleece the rubes. In either case, it's good to know that he says this kind of thing about his religion because I know that he is not to be trusted and certainly not to be voted for. This analysis applies to any politician who believes he receives his instructions from God.

Posted by skeptical | June 6, 2007 1:55 PM

Giuliani's like the reverse of someone who takes his Catholicism seriously -- the divorces, the affairs, the gay rights, the abortion, the preventive war, the total absence of any Christian Democratic spirit of generosity -- and everyone knows it.

Given that William Donohue is the public face of Catholicism in this country, with creds like that, Rudy's practically a saint already!

Posted by C.L. | June 6, 2007 2:19 PM

Dear Jim W:

It's hard to argue with a person who thinks Truth is a state of mind.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 6, 2007 2:53 PM

Re: For one, it generally indicates a willingness to believe things based on conviction rather than on evidence.

A universal human trait. Everyone with any sort of belief at all (including political beliefs or beliefs about purely personal matters) is relying on a number of tacit, unacknowledged postulates which may or may not be true. Let's not throw condescending stones. All of us have glass windows.

Re: But that estimate ASSUMES that uranium decays into lead at a constant rate.

A very good assumption though, since decay is governed by some physical constants which, if they varied, would produce so much instablity in reality that matter, energy, time and space would not exist as we know them.

Re: It was Mendelian genetics, not the process of radioactive decay, that made the new synthesis possible.

The best estimates of the Earth's age in the late 19th century was a few hundred thousand years, since it was believed at the time that the sun's energy came from conventional physical processes and these could not have been lasted much longer than that. The discovery of nuclear processes allowed an understanding of solar fusion which then allowed for a much older solar system.

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2007 3:08 PM

Re Jim W's comment: "They actually believe that God exists, or that Jesus rose from the grave, etc. Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but they really believe it."
------------

Maybe they believe God exists because of the evidence for his existence. Like Riddick/Vin Diesel in Pitch Black:

*************
Imam: Because you do not believe in God does not mean God does not believe in - .

Riddick: Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe?

Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe?

Got it all wrong, holy man.

I absolutely believe in God... And I absolutely hate the sick fucker. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 3:38 PM

It doesn't make much sense to object to the resurrection account on the ground that people can't rise from the dead. It's not as if mankind didn't know this prior to the advent of modern medicine. The reason why 1st-century Christians believed the resurrection to be a noteworthy event was that they knew it to be impossible and unprecedented in human experience. It is not much of a counterargument to point out that it is impossible and unprecedented in human experience.

Posted by JP | June 6, 2007 3:48 PM

Ok, JP. But, the fact that these beliefs were ridiculous even given the rudimentary state of sceintific knowledge in the 1st century AD is hardly a point in their favor, either.

Hey, no one would be happier than me if any of this stuff turned out to be true (particularly the whole life-everlasting part). But if wishes were ponies, etc, etc.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 3:58 PM

JonF-

Re: A universal human trait. Everyone with any sort of belief at all (including political beliefs or beliefs about purely personal matters) is relying on a number of tacit, unacknowledged postulates which may or may not be true. Let's not throw condescending stones. All of us have glass windows.

I didn't say that a postulate had to be provable. I said it had to be supported by evidence. This is a nontrivial distinction.

Frankly, your argument here is obnoxious. You may not realize it, but all you've done is dress up the "atheism is faith too" argument in pseudo philosophical language, with a nod towards equating a denial of solipsism with belief in specific religions.

Posted by Patrick | June 6, 2007 4:17 PM

Jay J.

I can't speak for the UCC, but it's not at all clear to me that testimonies versus tests thing means they do no believe things. It sounds like they have different attitudes towards their beliefs (perhaps a more humble attitude) than many other religious denominations.

Further, I think their statement of faith is pretty explicit:
"United Church of Christ Statement of Faith—original version

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds we testify:

. . .

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself.

He bestows upon us his Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

He calls us into his church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be his servants in the service of men, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory.

He promises to all who trust him forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, his presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in his kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto him.

Amen."

Maybe not every member of the UCC believes that, but I would say any religious institution that makes that their statement of faith is probably Christian. Maybe it's not a "test", but it is certainly sounds like they ask all their members to reach a point where they make a statement of faith that Jesus is the Christ.

Also, every UCC service I've been to certainly seemed to invoke Jesus as the Christ.

This is a big problem Liberal Denominations face. They do believe things, but they reject treating them as tests or checklists. It doesn't mean the belief is absent, it just means it's viewed in a different way than most Christian denominations approach it.

Posted by MDtoMN | June 6, 2007 4:42 PM

It doesn't make much sense to object to the resurrection account on the ground that people can't rise from the dead. It's not as if mankind didn't know this prior to the advent of modern medicine. The reason why 1st-century Christians believed the resurrection to be a noteworthy event was that they knew it to be impossible and unprecedented in human experience. It is not much of a counterargument to point out that it is impossible and unprecedented in human experience.

Huh? The fact that people living at the time the event supposedly occurred had good empirical reasons to doubt it, even given the rudimentary nature of scientific knowledge at that time, is not in any way a response to the objection that it is scientifically impossible.

Posted by Seamus | June 6, 2007 4:50 PM

MDtoMN,

If some members of a particular faith don't believe the historical Christian doctrine literally, then there you have it.

What one person takes "Christ" to mean, another person can take it to mean something else. I know that the word has a particular meaning, but in religious discourse, (particularly the type in liberal Christianity), it's much broader than many people realize.

Theologians who are regularly called "Christian" have said things like "God is not a being, but the ground of all being." That's Paul Tillich. The Episcopal Church USA has many Clergy that are surprisingly liberal on theological issues.

Saying that people invoke Jesus as the Christ is not a trump card in discerning what people actually believe, in spite of the fact that in certain times and places, this expression would have a very fixed meaning.

A denomination can describe itself as "Christian" and still allow much freedom of intellectual conscience among it members and even their clergy.

The original entry from Matt talked about Hillary, Edwards, and Obama believing that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead. Well, believe it or not, many left-of-center Christians talk about these things in a way that would make you think they literally believe them, but when pressed, they may reveal a more metaphorical understanding. We could quibble over whether or not that's an intellectually honest thing to do, particularly for a politician, but that's a different thing than deductively concluding that Obama believes these things because he belongs to a "Christian" denomination. If full membership in good standing is offered even to people who will admit a less than literal belief in Christian doctrine, then it's not necessarily the case that Obama believes in the atonement or resurrection they way say, George W. Bush does.

It's only the necessary inference about Obama that I quibble with, since the UCC is left of even most mainline denominations, which includes the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church USA.

Posted by Jay J. | June 6, 2007 5:39 PM

Re: I said it had to be supported by evidence. This is a nontrivial distinction.

Most (all?) religious people believe that their postulates are supported by evidence. What you are failing to see here is that there is an irreducible subjectivism about life. I find it arrogant when religious fanatics insist "Everyone must believe my way" but I find it just as arrogant when non-believers do (or imply) the same.

Re: You may not realize it, but all you've done is dress up the "atheism is faith too" argument in pseudo philosophical language

I am not saying "atheism is faith". I am saying that if you start from a different origin you will reach a different conclusion. Why should everyone have to believe the same about everything? Why are you threatened by non-accord on beliefs? It's just a fact of life about us all.

Re: The fact that people living at the time the event supposedly occurred had good empirical reasons to doubt it, even given the rudimentary nature of scientific knowledge at that time, is not in any way a response to the objection that it is scientifically impossible.

If someone who was dead (indisputably so) came back from the grave today, would you insist that it was impossible, even if you could see, touch and listen to the revived person? The first Christians were pretty sure that Jesus had come back, and that they had seen and spoken with him. Moreover we know that the "laws" of nature are not absolutes at all. They are at most empirical generalizations which (rarely) admit of exceptions.

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2007 7:30 PM

I didn't say it was, Seamus. Clearly, it is scientifically impossible - as anybody living in the first century would have been able to tell you. (They just wouldn't have used the word "scientifically.") And yet, a significant number of them claimed to have personally witnessed this man walking around and talking to people after he was killed. Maybe they were all insane, maybe they were all hallucinating, but I don't think you would have been telling them anything useful if you traveled back in time and informed them that in the future, we've discovered that people can't really rise from the dead. People already knew that.

Posted by JP | June 6, 2007 7:57 PM

JP,

If I had said anything to suggest that I think it would have been useful to do such a thing, your comment might be remotely relevant. Your claim that my "counterargument" against belief in the Resurrection (that is, that the belief is irrational and contradicted by science) is weak because people knew it was extremely far-fetched even back when it is said to have happened doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Posted by Seamus | June 6, 2007 8:29 PM

Not to mention the death penalty. Someone should ask Giuliani if there is an issue on which John McCain and the Pope disagree and he agrees with the Pope (the Pope was the head of the holy office but they haven't been torturing for a while). Hell forget McCain, how about Clinton or ... well anyone.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | June 6, 2007 8:39 PM

JonF,

If someone who was dead (indisputably so) came back from the grave today, would you insist that it was impossible, even if you could see, touch and listen to the revived person?

Probably not, no. When someone who was indisputably dead comes back from the grave and starts talking, be sure to let me know. Also, if you see Santa.

The first Christians were pretty sure that Jesus had come back, and that they had seen and spoken with him.

The possibilities that they were lying or mistaken, or that the accounts of their experiences were fabricated or misrepresentations, are far more plausible than that a three-day-old decomposing corpse actually came back to life. The ridiculous hoops some people jump through to try and argue for the reasonableness of plainly absurd religious teachings never fails to amaze me.

Posted by Seamus | June 6, 2007 8:44 PM

Re: Also, if you see Santa.

Do you really think arrogance adds to any argument? How are you any better than the late (but noy very lamented) Jerry Falwell?

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2007 9:43 PM

Re: "I am not saying "atheism is faith"."

Right. You are saying that atheism, like religion, is just another opinion in an irreducibly subjective world.

Like I said before, you've taken the "atheism is faith" argument and dressed it up in freshman philosophy. Throwing on the "why are you so threatened" canard is just icing on the cake.

Posted by Patrick | June 6, 2007 9:53 PM

Great post.

It's so refreshing to see a blogger take this issue on.

Hopefully, it's because you realize that all that has come of the heavy incidence of aetheist jihadis and their sympathizers in the liberal/progressive blogosphere, whatever you want to call it, is continuation of USELESS CULTURE WARS, wars that should have been over years ago, that would have been if bloggers could resist basically taking the bait of very smart Christian fundamentalist trolls.

I'm a believer in only one moral code: tolerance. And I am most definitely not a fan of capital punishment. HOWEVER, if someone offered to execute the initiators of the Intelligent Design theory, I might just go for it, JUST SO liberal bloggers would shut up with their science-as-religion jihad. It's grown so tiresome and is so obviously going nowhere, not just the howling of existential pain into the void, but causing actual political damage.

This is coming from someone who thinks of evolution as my personal religion, but doesn't look forward to a future with no horoscopes in Vanity Fair magazine--it's like the born-again Christian Al Gore said:

"We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

and I will add to that: Just say no to culture wars.

P.S. Ur right on Guiliani too. But what can one do, he knows how to look like an altar boy, he's got the act down to a T, it's long practiced. Those with Catholic background know what's going on there, he's showing respect for his sainted Mama or some nun who scared him senseless to this day or similar. It's hard to explain: there's no cynicism involved, he does respect the faith, but there is hypocrisy, and while he does it, he will use and abuse it whenever he can, because it's rationalized this way: why not, as long as you respect the belief?

Posted by artappraiser | June 7, 2007 12:24 AM

I's a hopeless quest I know, but evolution - the succession of creatures over long periods of time - is a fact, and was known to the scientific community before Charles Darwin; look up Hutton, Lyell, Buffon, Cuvier, Erasmus Darwin .. Charles Darwin's distinctive contribution was the theory of natural selection, as the explanation of that fact.
A man who denies deep time and the fact of evolution is certainly unfit to be President. I would myself say the same for denying natural selection; it shows an inability to engage seriously with evidence and argument on emotionally sensitive matters, which is the stuff of politics.

Posted by James Wimberley | June 7, 2007 6:35 AM

I’m not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I’m asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.

Does he think the president of the United States should be able to do long division? How about if he can't read above a third grade level?

How about if he doesn't believe the east coast used to be a group of British colonies?

How about he doesn't believe the earth goes around the sun?

After all, he's not running for math or reading or history teacher. Is it important that he know the basics of any of those fields?

These are basic concepts in subjects we teach to every single schoolchild. Do we want an illiterate for president? It's not about believing fairy tales; it's about knowing the basics of a subject that our society specifically trains everyone in.

Posted by eyelessgame | June 7, 2007 11:28 AM