The Critique of Pure Huckabee

It seems that over the weekend, Mike Huckabee made the following remark about the fact that it's not really possible for him to beat John McCain at this point no matter how many primaries he won:

The pundits say the math doesn't work out. Well, folks, I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles.

This raises some serious questions about Huckabee's philosophy. Normally, the truths of mathematics are regarded as "necessary" truths and one way of explaining that idea is that these are truths that even God couldn't alter. For example, it's true that all squares have four sides because having four sides is part of what it means to be a square. God could make pretty much any kind of five-sided object He cared to, but even He couldn't make a five-sided square because something with five sides just isn't a square. This basic tension between God and math is surely something a minister should be familiar with.

Alternatively, perhaps Huckabee was suggest not a miraculous repeal of the mathematical certainty of his defeat, but rather a form of divine intervention that would make the delegate math irrelevant. It's difficult, however, to see what that could be except for the possibility that McCain might die or suffer some kind of illness or injury that prevents him from accepting the nomination. That doesn't, however, seem like a very Christian thing to wish for. Nor, I might add, is there any real reason to think that even McCain's untimely death would deliver the nomination to Huckabee.

Comments

You know who could make a five-sided square? Chuck Norris. Just sayin'.

Posted by Jacob | February 11, 2008 1:58 PM

Matt you seem to be hung up on the old fashioned concept that words have defined meanings that can't change. Apparently you can't comprehend how George Bush can say repeatedly "We don't torture" and at the same time authorize waterboarding of detainees. With God, and the redefinition of words, all things are possible. Evil can become good and dissent can become treason.
Who is to say that a square doesn't have five sides?

Posted by Buzz | February 11, 2008 2:07 PM

Huckabee reflects the rather simplistic, anti-science and anti-intellectual strain of southern white Christian conservativism. I wouldn't be surprised if he would answer Matt's point by saying that "God can make a square any way He wants to".

When you get into the relationship between religion and science, seriously, deeply into it, you get to lots of issues-- historical, cosmological, biological, physical, and philosophical-- that really are incompatible with the type of fervent literalistic Christianity that is prevalent in the Bible Belt. It's not impossible to be a believer if you understand this stuff, but you have to accept all sorts of workarounds and metaphors and a very foggy conception of what you believe. This is the reason why such a high percentage of working scientists end up as atheists or agnostics.

Huckabee is appealing to a broad swath of American anti-intellectualism with his statement that he believes in miracles, not math. He is channeling William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial-- he is more interested in the Rock of Ages than the Age of Rocks.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 11, 2008 2:12 PM

That'd seem unchristian, but ask some of his fellow travelers how hard they're praying for Justice Stevens's death (or Ginsburg's).

Posted by phil | February 11, 2008 2:13 PM

And isn't the real question not how many sides a square has but how many legs it has?

Posted by phil | February 11, 2008 2:15 PM

Uh, isn't this taking rhetoric just a little too seriously? I mean, Huckabee didn't say that paraplegics would get up and walk with injections of stem cells or anything like that, right?

Posted by Klug | February 11, 2008 2:16 PM

Relatively few of McCain's delegates are legally bound to vote for him (The Green Papers says 146). I assume that the sort of God that Huckabee believes in would be quite capable, if He chose, of inducing a sort of Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus conversion in enough of the rest to make Huckabee the nominee. I imagine such an event would qualify as a miracle.

Posted by jim | February 11, 2008 2:16 PM

That doesn't, however, seem like a very Christian thing to wish for.

That doesn't seem like a very Jewish thing to say.

Posted by John Emerson | February 11, 2008 2:40 PM

What if you majored in math but minored in "miracles"?

Hey, can God make a conservative so crazy that even God can't understand him? Or are there limits even to God's power?

Posted by El Cid | February 11, 2008 2:57 PM

Maybe it's just a pretty good line for a pretty dismal situation

Posted by southpaw | February 11, 2008 3:01 PM

Credo quia absurdum

Posted by NS | February 11, 2008 3:04 PM

Huckabee wasn't arguing about the math; he was arguing about the pundits assumptions about the results of elections. And the pundits have been wrong a whole lot in this election season. The pundits are making assumptions about what the election results are going to be, and he is trying to make those assumptions false ones. It is a quixotic quest, but he is entitled to it.

All he can do is harm McCain's election chances, and so there is no downside as far as I can tell.

Posted by Curtis | February 11, 2008 3:06 PM

Re Huckabee's statement "Well, folks, I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles."
-----------
Don't I recall someone in 2000 responding to Al Gore that we shouldn't worry about "fuzzy math"?

And now -- 8 years later -- isn't the federal debt $4 TRILLION higher than what that same someone projected it would be in Jan 2001?

Sigh.

So Why do I suddenly feel that 50 million morons --who couldn't pass a math test if you held a gun to their heads -- are now going to vote for Huckabee out of a sense of solidarity?

Posted by Don Williams | February 11, 2008 3:10 PM

"Huckabee reflects the rather simplistic, anti-science and anti-intellectual strain of southern white Christian conservativism."

Contrast that with the highly numerate and eminently rational black Christian community that has turned out in droves to vote for Obama. Unlike Huckabee's cheap reliance on religious rhetoric, Obama has won these black Christians' votes by demonstrating the logic of his policy prescriptions with rigorous mathematical induction proofs.

Posted by Harry | February 11, 2008 3:20 PM

"That doesn't, however, seem like a very Christian thing to wish for."

Ah, but you forget heaven. If God takes John McCain from this Earth into eternal paradise and those left here benefit from the faithful leadership of Mike Huckabee, I believe you call that a Pareto improvement.

And we will keep getting such odd conclusions until the God botherers finally decide once and for all whether death is a good or bad thing.

Posted by Shochu John | February 11, 2008 3:24 PM

Obama has won these black Christians' votes by demonstrating the logic of his policy prescriptions with rigorous mathematical induction proofs.

Induction is a form of reasoning that is more or less defined by the absence of proof. So "induction proof" is in the same category as "five-sided square", except less grammatical.

But hey, at least you're white!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 11, 2008 3:29 PM

When i read that quote over the weekend, I just assumed that Huckabee was referring to God killing John McCain. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Posted by bend | February 11, 2008 3:29 PM

Contrast that with the highly numerate and eminently rational black Christian community that has turned out in droves to vote for Obama. Unlike Huckabee's cheap reliance on religious rhetoric, Obama has won these black Christians' votes by demonstrating the logic of his policy prescriptions with rigorous mathematical induction proofs.

Well, Harry, as far as I know, there isn't a big movement by black Christians to take their kids out of public school because they don't want them to learn science.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 11, 2008 3:33 PM

Sigh, Huckabee was using Humor.

Huckabee understands Math quite well. He had to get balanced budgets in Arkansas. Looking at DC and the people there I think there real Math problem is located there. Not Little Rock

Posted by jh | February 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Is it still considered a dog whistle if it sounds like a trumpet blast?

"I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles," is -- without being the least bit facetious -- the essence of faith-based thinking. His belief is its own justification. And that belief can only be tested, not contradicted, by worldly facts. His base gets this implicitly.

Yeah, it's a cute rhetorical throwaway, but it's also substantive and sincere, albeit delusional.

Posted by Glazo | February 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Sigh, Huckabee was using Humor.

Huckabee understands Math quite well. He had to get balanced budgets in Arkansas. Looking at DC and the people there I think there real Math problem is located there. Not Little Rock

Posted by jh | February 11, 2008 3:37 PM

"o "induction proof" is in the same category as "five-sided square", except less grammatical."

Why parade your ignorance? "Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof"

"But hey, at least you're white!"

Actually I'm not, but thanks for playing.

Posted by Harry | February 11, 2008 3:38 PM

"Well, Harry, as far as I know, there isn't a big movement by black Christians to take their kids out of public school because they don't want them to learn science."

Why pull them out when they're not in danger of learning any subject? Have you seen any stats on black academic performance or graduation rates?

Posted by Harry | February 11, 2008 3:44 PM

Matt, I know you like to flash your philosophy chops now and then (what else are you going to do with that degree?), but you ought to recognize that there is a big difference between the certainty of Huckabee's defeat and the certainty that a square has four sides. The latter is a necessary truth; the former is not, at least not in the technical sense that you went out of your way to bring up. The facts of "delegate math" are not necessary truths the way a mathematical theorem is. God, or voters, or the GOP convention, could still conceivably (i.e., in some possible world) cause Huck to be the nominee, so the notion of "necessity" here is not the technical one used in philosophy.

Thanks, try the veal.

Posted by flo | February 11, 2008 4:13 PM

OK, maybe not voters.

Posted by flo | February 11, 2008 4:25 PM

Huckabee said it because it alliterates. It doesn't actually mean anything.

Posted by Derannimer | February 11, 2008 4:33 PM

What creeps me out about Huckabee's talk about miracles is the idea that in his heart of hearts he hopes (or rather even believes) that God will smite McCain sometime between now and the convention, leaving the nomination to Huckabee by "miracle."

Posted by Brian | February 11, 2008 4:33 PM

"Induction is a form of reasoning that is more or less defined by the absence of proof. So 'induction proof' is in the same category as 'five-sided square,' except less grammatical."

If you're going to make fun of someone, at least know what you're talking about.

I WISH induction weren't a form of mathematical proof. It would have made some of my college math classes a lot easier.

Posted by K-Funk | February 11, 2008 4:47 PM

Wow, for people interested in politics, some of you people are completely lacking in irony.

Maybe the whole Christian thing turns you into serious-faced, mean-spirited asses with a fifth-grader's comprehension skills.

It's called a joke. With playful rhetoric. The guy is a politician. Like Derannimer said, he said it because it alliterates. It's funny.

He's a politician like any other politician. Yet comments like, "in his heart of hearts he hopes (or rather even believes) that God will smite McCain" assume that he unironically believes everything he says, which would be a first in the history of politics.

Why is it that when anything slightly religious/Christian comes up, you take everything at face value and attribute no depth at all to people? The world instantly goes from being complex and nuanced to a pseudo-morality play between the rational, important people vs. the silly, hypocritical snake charmers.

Also, Isn't is obvious that Huckabee and his followers don't care that they aren't going to win the nomination? Maybe running and getting out there and establishing is image are more important? Isn't that, like, duh?

Posted by John | February 11, 2008 4:48 PM

Huckabee is the best communicator in a long time and people don't see the exceptional talent here. How blind can you be.

Posted by coloredopinions | February 11, 2008 5:32 PM

Matt, I didn't think you were that Aspergery of a philosophy major. Huckabee's making a joke, and it's probably the best joke any candidate has made this year. It may turn out to be the one line people remember from his campaign.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 11, 2008 5:43 PM

Huckabee's making a joke

And he's not the only one.

Posted by Glazo | February 11, 2008 6:18 PM

I think Huckabee wants to play the stupid card as well as Bush. The stupid card meaning that you pander to anti-intellectual America, and meanwhile (try to) avoid taking responsibility for anything you say.

Here, of course, you can't really say anything because it's just a joke and ``obviously" doesn't represent his actual beliefs, but Huckabee did manage to play the stupid card a little bit. I'd like to think that America won't fall for the stupid card any more, but I can still imagine someone in the vague mold of Huckabee/Bush doing well if the Republican tent is resurrected.

Posted by Mike | February 11, 2008 6:43 PM

I seem to recall Obi Wan saying something like, "Who's the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Here we could say, "Who's the more stupid - or at least humorous? Huckabee - or Matt?"

Since Matt's philosophy knowledge probably approaches Huckabee's religious beliefs in level of both incomprehensibility and relation to reality, I'd say it's a toss up.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 6:58 PM

Huckabee reflects the rather simplistic, anti-science and anti-intellectual strain of southern white Christian conservativism.

All faith--defined as beliefs about what is true unsupported by evidence--is simplistic, anti-science and anti-intellectual. Yes, I know a lot of faith-heads say their religious beliefs do not conflict with science or reason because they accept evolution, but the real conflict is much deeper than that.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 7:08 PM

You know what, I actually thought about it, as opposed to whatever I was doing earlier, and my 4:13 is wrong. The rules of the contest define a certain logical space, and within that space under current conditions (regarded as premises) it is conceptually impossible for H to get enough delegates, etc.

Nobody cares, I know. This is why I don't get paid to blog.

Posted by flo | February 11, 2008 7:14 PM

Huckabee isn't out of his mind. The delegate math says he cannot win a majority of delegates, but a miracle CONSISTENT with the delegate math says that he CAN win enough delegates to prevent John McCain from having a delegate majority. This could lead to a brokered convention in which Huckabee is nominated.

Similarly, I don't know what the individual rules are for pledged delegates from various states, but what's to say that a divine revelation doesn't change the votes of pledged delegates at the last minute, leading to a majority of delegates voting for Huckabee at the convention.

Needless to say, these scenarios are IMPROBABLE. They are however, POSSIBLE (and mathematically speaking, not acknowledging them would be a rather unrigorous accounting of the set of possible outcomes). Huckabee simply has the audacity of hope for them.

Si, se puede.

Posted by Alex | February 11, 2008 7:32 PM

Actually, it is very possible for Huckabee to win the nomination. All he has to do is deny McCain the needed votes. Since the majority of the upcoming states are red states, and McCain so far has won in blue states, Huckabee can deny McCain his needed majority, take it to the convention and win there.

Posted by john | February 11, 2008 7:37 PM

Descartes (e.g., in Conversation with Burman) claims that God could change the laws of mathematics if he wished. Leibniz, among others, vehemently disagreed.

Posted by Jennifer S | February 11, 2008 7:47 PM

"Descartes (e.g., in Conversation with Burman) claims that God could change the laws of mathematics if he wished."

More generally, Descartes thought that without an ontological guarantor, a demon or some other supernatural being could wreck epistemological havoc on all forms of human inquiry.

Posted by Fred | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM

My theology may be a little off, but isn't there a strong trend in a least some Protestant thinking to regard Reason (including Math) as having been included in the Fall, and hence as corrupt as any earthly thing must be? Hence, God could create a five-sided square if he chose; the fault is in our logic, not his omnipotence.

Didn't Martin Luther say "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore"?

Posted by MikeN | February 11, 2008 8:19 PM

MikeN,

If logic is faulty, then so is your conclusion that God could create a five-sided square, because it relies on logic.

In order to make a rational argument for any proposition you must accept the premise that reason is reliable. Without reason, you can't get anywhere.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 8:37 PM

"Didn't Martin Luther say 'Reason is the Devil's greatest whore'?"

Actually I think that was Matt who said that - or believes it, based on many of his posts.

And it's hilarious to hear Mixner talking about reason, since it's been absent from every single post he's made here - except this last one paragraph.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 9:37 PM

Come on folks this was humor, not a rejection of addition.

Also, didn't good math tell us a few months ago that the obvious nominees would be Guiliani and Clinton? Sometimes "political math" is not quite right. I am frustrated that people want to short circuit the political process regardless of how slim the odds are. No one is asking Ron Paul to bow out and the math is really against him!

Posted by Rob | February 11, 2008 9:49 PM

It's a tossed off laugh line. Jesus, lighten up.

Posted by Gus | February 11, 2008 11:26 PM

this was humor, not a rejection of addition

Considering we know he rejects evolution, what makes you so sure?

Posted by hum | February 11, 2008 11:46 PM

Huckabee is no cafeteria Biblicist

Okay, so maybe the new Testament doesn't have a lot of examples of God smiting the unrighteous. For one thing, the Christian tradition sure hasn't let that stand in the way of not just praying for God to smite the ungodly, but to be pro-active in that regard, in terms of burning the ungodly at the stake, for example. But most importantly, the New Testament is not the only place in Scripture to turn to for convenient rationalization. The Old Testament is big on smitings. In fact, from an Old Testament, as told to Mike Huckabee, perspective, I would say that a big divine-smiting bull's-eye is rapidly forming over the senior Senator from Arizona. We're expecting some rough weather here in VA tomorrow. Perhaps McCain would be wise to forego any personal appearances in the area, or at least be sure that a lightning rod is always close by.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 11, 2008 11:52 PM

Are there literally not enough delegates out there for Huckabee to win if he got every single one? If there are, then God would only have to give him every remaining delegate, not alter the math. If there aren't, God could keep McCain from getting enough delegates to cinch it, then influence the convention Huckabee's way.

Posted by aleks | February 12, 2008 4:03 AM

Perhaps Huckabee was joking? He uses self parody alot.

Posted by Peter | February 12, 2008 10:45 AM

This basic tension between God and math

Arguably a second Minutemen reference in as many days.

Posted by kth | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM