Posted By Elgin Hushbeck
There is a lot of silliness on the part of McCain supporters when it comes to why conservatives are having such trouble with McCain. It is because they are don’t’ control him, or because they don’t like his style, or because he isn’t pure enough, implying that he has only minor deviations from core conservative principles and conservatives just need to get over themselves and support him.
Such arguments are at best counterproductive. One of the worst things you can do when trying to win over someone is to misrepresent or distort their grievances, as this only leads at minimum to a renewed effort to be understood, and more likely a hardening of the divisions.
While I by no means speak for all conservatives, I do think my views are fairly common among conservatives. Long before McCain’s political resurrection to capture the GOP nomination, I believed there were six main issues of importance in the upcoming election. The War on Terrorism, the Economy, the Courts, Health Care, Global Warming, and Immigration.
McCain is said to have solid credentials on war, and for the most part this is true. Yet he has also been a pretty consistent critic at the same time, particularly over water boarding and other tough interrogation methods, arguing if we do these, then others might use these methods on our soldiers. Not only do I disagree with such reasoning, I find it very troubling. Does McCain really believe that when He, Hillary or Obama gets in the White House next year and announces that we will no longer use such practices, that suddenly Al Qaeda will start treading any soldiers they capture by the Geneva Convention? If not, then why use this argument?
As for the broader war effort, McCain has spent so much time taking credit for the surge, that I don’t really know where he stand on the broader war on terror, but my assumption is that he is probably ok, but I would like him to speak a bit more on issues such as Iran.
But this goes to another key problem with McCain. He is not a conservative, is a politician who has largely voted conservative, thought less so in recent years. Frankly I never know where he will come down on a given issue.
In short, McCain on the war is Ok, but there are several key question marks. This is also my concern with the courts. He has made some good comments, and has been reported to have made some troubling ones. But when it comes to judges, will the Conservative McCain pick them, or will the McCain who reaches across the aisle pick them? I don’t know.
When it comes to the economy, McCain has admitted he does not know very much, as was demonstrated by voting against the Bush Tax cuts. He now says he wants them extended, but it is very hard not to see this as driven by the campaign. It would not at all surprise me should he become President, to see him taking a page from Bill Clinton and claiming “I tried as hard as I could but…”
He seems to be getting some good advisors, but what troubles me the most is that given his lack of understanding he does not realize the effect of some of his other proposals will have. Given some of his other proposals, and his past history, I would not at all be surprised to see a net tax increase under a McCain administration. Thus for me this is a slight negative.
On Health care, McCain’s propensity to reach across the aisle combined with his lack of understanding of how economies work cause me to be very concerned. The current strategy of the Liberals is to incrementally move towards single payer, Government run health care. Will McCain take a strong stance for individual freedom and control over their own health care, pushing for a solution based on market forces, or will he link up with a Senator Clinton to reach a bi-partisan (read liberal) solution? Again his history is hardly comforting in this area. His comments about the drug companies are very troubling and make this a negative.
When it comes to the last two items Global Warming and Immigration, McCain is clearly and solidly on the other side. I consider both to be very important issues. Global Warming represents a massive shift of power away from individual people to have control over their lives, giving it to the Government. This is yet another indication of why McCain so troubling. He claims to be a low tax, small government conservative, yet he supports Global warming initiates that will greatly increase the tax burden, along with the size and scope of Government. This is a big negative.
As for Immigration, while he claims to have “listened and learned” he clearly hasn’t. The biggest message from last years’ failure of the immigration bill was, build the fence, enforce the laws, and after this is done, then we will talk about those who are still here. Yet, a recently campaign commercial here in Wisconsin sounded like it could have been said by McCain during last year’s debate, except that he has added the phrase “listened and learned.” Another big negative.
So on the six issues that are most important to me, on none does he get my unqualified endorsement. One is at best a big question mark, one is a slight negative, one is a negative and two are very large negatives.
So when McCain supporters claim that conservative opposition is simply about style, purity, or control, they are just showing me that they really don’t have a clue, or they do and are just lying. It has been a very unusual year and perhaps McCain will be the first President elected without the support of the base of his party. For me, my current plan is to vote for McCain in November, and I will detail my reasons why in a future post.
Posted By Elgin Hushbeck
Listen to the MP3
In chapter 7 of his book, “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins, turn the issue of morality and the Bible. Dawkins lays down his goal pretty clearly in the opening paragraph when he says that the Bible, “encourages a system of morals which any civilized modern person whether religious or not, would find – I can put it no more gently – obnoxious.” As for the millions of people who do get their morality from the Bible and yet somehow seem to be civilized and modern, Dawkins claims that “they either do not read it, or do not understand it.”
As a Christian friend of mine is fond of saying when confronted with such statements, “And yet here I stand.” The simple fact is that there are many people who do read and understand the Bible, probably a lot more than Dawkins, who reach vastly different conclusion.
It is true that on the one hand there are the extreme fundamentalists who insist that any deviation from how they read the Bible is heresy. In fact, in some cases they even argue that if you don’t read the same translation they do, you must be a heretic. Yet on the other hand there are the skeptics like Dawkins who, if you deviate from how they read the Bible you are picking “which bits of scripture to believe” (pg 238). Other than the conclusions they reach, I find very little difference between the two groups, as they both have a very superficial view of scripture, and dogmatically reject any deviation from their view.
Again Dawkins is not completely at fault here for he relies on the work of liberal scholars who are also critical of the scripture, such as Bishop Shelby Spong. But as I detail in my book, Evidence for the Bible, Liberal scholars are often little better than these other two groups. For example a while back I heard Bishop Spong being interviewed on the radio and he said that the Gospel of John that was anti-Semitic, and he knew of no scholars who would argue differently. This means that he was completely unaware of those scholars, for they certainly do exist. D. A Carson for example, in his Commentary on John’s Gospel, lists other possible understandings and argues quite convincingly from the text that anti-Semitism simply does not fit.
Dawkins’ analysis of the Bible starts out by listing the acts of God he considers immoral such as Noah and the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah. There are two main problem Dawkins faces with these arguments. The first, as discussed in earlier installments of this review, is on what basis of morality are we to make such criticism?
A bigger problem however, is that to really judge the morality of an action, we need to have all the relevant information the person had at the time. Without that information, an act that seems immoral could in fact have been moral in light of the addition information. For example, if all you knew was that John cut Mary with a knife, that might seem immoral until you find out that John was a doctor removing a cancerous growth.
The simple fact is that we can never hope of have all the relevant information available to God so as to be in a position to pass judgment on God. Nor does this really matter, in terms of our morality, as even in the Bible these are special cases, and not models for us to follow today.
Another problem in Dawkins critique is that he at times fails to distinguish between the Bible describing what happened, and the Bible telling us how we should act. For example, he cites the instance in Judges where a priest cut up his concubine into 12 pieces (Judges 19). But as the book of Judges says about the period, “in those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” (Judge 21:25) One of the unique aspects of the Bible is that it does not present the main figures as perfect and noble, but as flawed. We are not so much to follow their actions, but frequently to learn from their mistakes. But Dawkins often is too busy ridiculing to notice such distinctions.
One of the stranger side trips Dawkins takes, is when he condemns “America’s Ten Commandment tablet-toters” arguing that they should be praising the Taliban for their destruction of Buddhist statues. He says “I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shew Dagon, the temples of Kyoto, or of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” (pg 249) Apparently Dawkins is unaware that much of the controversy in the U.S. is over the removal of Christian religious symbols such as crosses and the Ten Commands. In short, those in the U.S. acting like the Taliban in their intolerant seeking to remove religious symbols they disagree with are not Christians, but atheists.
Finally Dawkins fail to consider the historical context of the time. For example, he asked if a whole range of offenses should have the death penalty, starting with cursing your parents. This was nothing new to the age, in fact even today; in some cultures parent have the right and even the duty to kill their children that dishonor them. What was new in the Bible’s command was that parents had to “bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.” The change the teaching of the Bible brought about was that the power to kill was removed from the parents. But like in so much of his analysis, Dawkins missed the point of the passage.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Posted By Elgin Hushbeck
Liberals and conservatives differ in many ways but three of most significant and the easiest to see differences are in how they view themselves, how they view each other and how they see freedom and equality. Conservatives for the most part see themselves as conservatives. They are one part of a spectrum of ideas all of which are competing for power. They see those who differ as being wrong. They believe liberal ideas however well intentioned should be rejected because either they do not work, or world lead to greater problems. Since liberal solutions to problems normally involve a larger government, they are in addition a threat to freedom, for as government grows freedom must correspondingly be restricted. For conservatives freedom is more important than equality.
Liberals, on the other hand, for the most part do not see themselves as liberal. In fact, they frequently reject all such labels as meaningless, or even worst divisive. Rather they see themselves as independent thinkers, not tied to any ideology, but willing to go where the facts and their hearts lead them. Those who differ are either putting their ideology ahead of the facts, or worst, are heartless or have some other moral deficiency. Since liberal are only seeking to do what is right and good, those who oppose them must therefore be seeking to do what is wrong and evil. Finally, for liberals, while freedom is important, equality is more important.
These differences are at the heart of the reason why conservatives do so well on talk-radio, while liberals haven’t. Conservatives, since they see themselves as one part of spectrum of ideas all competing for dominance, tend to think in terms of battling ideas; of reasons and intellectual arguments supporting a position vs. reasons and counter-arguments opposed to a position. They listen to the arguments used against them; find their flaws and weakness so as to make counter arguments. They are prepared to not only compete in the marketplace of ideas, they are prepared to win.
Liberals don’t see that they need to compete. After all, what good is an intellectually argument, when someone is ignoring the facts and following their ideology? What good is an intellectual argument when someone is heartless and has no compassion, or is greedy and seeks wealth and/or power? As for the arguments conservatives use against them, they are normally simply ignored without any real consideration. After all, from the liberal view these arguments are grounded in either ideology, or heartlessness and therefore don’t deserve any serious consideration.
This difference can be seen in the debate over health care. Many liberal seek a single payer health care system that would guarantee that everyone has equal access to medical care. They see the opposition as greedy corporations such as the drug companies who seek to profit off the suffering of others. After all such systems are working in Canada, and most of Western Europe, so why can’t it work here? Conservatives oppose a single payer health system because, while they provide equal access to all, such systems have been show to deliver a greatly reduced level of health care than is currently available in the United States, and at a much greater cost. Those countries that current have them are struggling to pay for them. In short they do not work very well. Since they involve a large Government they corresponding restrict freedom.
Conservatives deal with the arguments of liberals by analyzing them and pointing out their weaknesses. The US drug companies by far lead the world in discovering medicine that not only prolongs people’s lives, but give people a much better quality of life in the process. It is a system, that whatever its flaws, has produced a tremendous and direct benefit to people. Why would we want to change from a system that has produced such clear benefits to a system that, as can be seen in countries with single player systems, does not work as well? Liberal, on the other hand, normally write-off these arguments as inspired by the drug companies and since they are greedy, their arguments cannot be trusted.
Much the same can be seen in the debate over man-made global warming. Liberals put forth their evidence from scientist who supports the theory of man-made global warming, Conservatives counter with evidence from scientists who reject or question the theory of man-made global warming. Liberal normally write-off this evidence as inspired by the oil companies and since they are greedy, their arguments cannot be trusted.
This is also why it is so difficult to have discussion and debate between liberals and conservatives. While liberal frequently see themselves as open minded and tolerant, their way of viewing the world actually leads them to be closed minded and intolerant, at least when it comes to conservatives. Their tendency to see conservatives as greedy, heartless, etc, also insulates them and effectively closes their minds. In addition, because they value equality more than freedom, and equality is viewed as a right, they tend to see their position as supporting rights, and those who challenge them as infringing on rights. As a result they feel justified in suppressing the opposition against them, after all they are not so much suppressing opposition, but merely defending basic human rights.
As a result, conservatives, on the rare occasions that they do get a chance to speak at those most liberal of all institutions, Universities, frequently require body guards, have their speeches disrupted by protestors, or are even attacked on the stage by those who claim to be open minded and tolerant.
Posted By Elgin Hushbeck
Listen to the MP3
In this part of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I will continue my look at Dawkins’ speculations on the roots of morality. Dawkins rejection of God and acceptance of evolution forces him to find an evolutionary basis of morality. He admits that “On the face of it, the Darwinian idea that evolution is driven by natural selection seems ill-suited to explain such goodness as we possess, or our feelings of morality, decency, empathy, and pity… Isn’t goodness incompatible with the theory of the ‘selfish gene’?” (pg 214-5)
Dawkins’ goes on to argue that the idea that it is, is a misunderstanding and the evolution is not incompatible with goodness. There are two main problems with Dawkins argument. The first is that it is really very selective and theoretical and amounts to little more than special pleading. The second is that while Dawkins’ see evolution’s ability to account for goodness as a strength, and yet another reason we do not need religion, the special pleading nature of the argument is in reality an indication of a much deeper problem: that as put forward by those like Dawkins it is a tautology .
In logic a tautology is an argument that is always valid. While this sounds like a good thing, the problem with tautologies can been seen in the following example; it will either rain or not rain tomorrow. Now this statement will always be valid, regardless of location or weather. But while always valid, it tells us nothing about whether or not we will need an umbrella. In short it really tells us nothing at all.
What Dawkins explanation really reveals is that evolution is a huge complex tautology. It can explain anything the evolutionist needs it to explain. Soon after Darwin, the theory began to be applied to societies to justify why some people were better off than others, in Social Darwinism. It then became the basis of Eugenics, which effectively argued for selective breeding of people, to produce better people, much the way we selectively breed animals. This culminated in Hitler’s belief in a master race, and the elimination of impure bloodlines.
Following WWII, this was all rejected, and rightly so, as immoral. While we continued to selectively breed animals, people were off limits. Yet Dawkins now argues that he can explain an almost opposite morality also based on evolution. What this means is that evolution can explain either view. Just like the statement it will either rain or not rain tells us nothing about the weather, evolution tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about the ability to speculate to a particular goal on the part of the scientist.
The problem with the particular answer Dawkins gives is that he cites a number of “good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous, or ‘moral’ towards each other.” (pg 219) Yet those pushing Social Darwinism, or Eugenics in the 1920s and 30s also had many good Darwinian reasons as well. So a clear question become why Dawkins’ Darwinian reasons should be preferred to these other Darwinian reasons. For most people this is pretty easy to determine as history has shown that the Darwinian reasons for Eugenics leads to some pretty immoral things. But since Dawkins is arguing for the basis for morality, he cannot use morality to make such a choice without falling victim to circular reasoning. Which leaves him with special pleading; his reasons are better than the reasons that led to eugenics because they give him the answer he is seeking.
Yet even if Dawkins were correct, and our sense of morality is what it is because of evolutionary pressures to survive, it still would not follow that this is what morality should be in the twenty-first century. Dawkins acknowledges this when he says that “those rules still influence us today, even where circumstances make them inappropriate to their original function.” (p 222) In short, even if Dawkins’ is correct concerning his view of the evolutionary basis for morality, that says nothing about what morality should be today. In fact the only thing Dawkins would have succeeded in doing it arguing that morality is at best a residue of the evolutionary process, and there is no reason it should hold any automatic power over our actions.
In fact the only principle left would really be “might makes right.” Whoever has the power, would determine right and wrong. Of course the problem here is that had Dawkins view been accepted earlier, for example before much of the progress in civil and human rights over the last couple of hundred years, there would have been no reason to make those changes, and they very likely would never have happened.
The belief in human rights is grounded in the belief that we are all created in the image of God, and what God has given, no one can arbitrarily take away, not even the king. The anti-slavery movement was not grounded in Darwinian reasons, but in religious belief, in particular in the belief that slaves were men with rights. Luckily those views became well entrenched before Darwin put forth his theory, as I am not at all sure that had the ideas of evolution become entrenched first, whether an anti-slavery movement could have ever taken root.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Posted By Elgin Hushbeck
Listen to the MP3
We live in an age of emotion. Society is always in flux, changing, moving, and it is the same with emotion, and its counterpart reason. The last few hundred years have been called the age of reason as until very recently, reason was the dominate of the two. But over the last several decades reason has retreated back, and emotion has come to the forefront.
Where it use to be very common when seeking someone’s opinion to ask them what they think on a given subject, now it is far more common to ask how they feel. Asking how we feel about something is not the same as asking what we think, as the two can be, and even at times should be, different.
For example, consider for the moment that a favorite pet of many years is suddenly sick and suffering with no hope of a cure. While our reason tells us that the humane thing to do is to have the pet put to sleep, our feelings will almost certainly be telling us the opposite.
Parents also know this conflict. Their emotions simply want to make a child happy. But their thinking tells them that always giving a child what they want is not in the child’s best interest. One of the signs that we are in an age an age of emotion is the large number of mothers and fathers who interact with their children more as friends than as parents.
The new dominance of emotion is everywhere. While the Spock of the 1960s TV show Star Trek was completely logical, the Spock of later movies was a more emotional Spock, a Spock more in touch with his feelings. Whereas the hero of movies used to be the strong silent type, now they frequency struggle with family problem, death of a loved one or some other emotional issue.
To be clear, this is not an attack on emotions. God created us with both a heart and a mind. With feelings and intellect, and both are important. As with so many things in life, the question is not one of either-or, but of finding the right balance. While too strong an emphasis on the intellect can lead to cruel and heartless actions, so can too much emphasis on emotions. The right balance can be difficult if not impossible, to find. In fact if you think you have the right balance, it is probably a good indication that you don’t.
One good indicator of where society is can be seen in the actions of politicians campaigning for office. Whatever you think or feel about politicians, in an election they have one overriding goal: to win; and to do this they have to appeal to people to vote for them. While those in safe districts where their election is assured don’t have to worry about this, those who might lose have to pay very close attention to what people are thinking or how they are feeling as the case may been.
While there are frequent complaints about all the negative campaigning and calls to stick to the issues, the simple fact is that for the most part politicians only do what works. If people really were turned off by negative ads, there would be very few negative ads. If people really wanted discussions about the issues, that’s what politicians would do. In fact they do frequently give such issue oriented speeches when before groups that want them.
Politicians long ago figured out the emotional age we are in, and have adapted their campaign accordingly. Thus candidates make a point of not wearing suits all the time less people get the feeling that they are not one of us. Their appeals are laced with words and phrase that will bring about positive feelings about them and negative feeling about their opponent.
The Church is not immune for these cultural shifts. The shift between reason and emotion can most clearly be seen in the struggle between the Praise and/or worship part of the service, and the sermon. Not too long ago, the sermon dominated, preceded by a song or two. In many churches the praise and worship now dominates, and even the sermon is, like the politician’s campaign pitch, aimed more at making you feel good.
Josh McDowell has documented some of the results in his book, “The Last Christian Generation.” McDowell reports a marked increase in the percentage of young people who also leave the church when they leave home. (pg 13) In fact, many young people see church as just a series of events with little impact on their spiritual life. (pg 59 – 61)
Even when they stay connected to a church, they may not be that much better off. A Barna survey in 2005 found that only 8% of Protestants actually had a Biblical worldview, Evangelicals did better but still half did not have a biblical world view.
Part of this is the emotional emphasis of many services, services aimed more at getting an emotional reaction rather than intellectual respond. Both are good and both are important. But an emotional reaction is temporary and disappears quickly once the source is gone. In short it may not last much beyond the parking lot of the church. An intellectual response however, is much more lasting, for it changes how a person thinks, and thus how they live.
So how is your Church doing? Does it have the right balance? Think about it.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
« Previous Page —
Next Page »
