Here’s Mike Huckabee, quoted in The New Yorker:
If somebody asked me, How do I get to Heaven, I would tell them that the only way I personally am aware of is faith in Christ, because I believe the New Testament. That’s the only map I got. Somebody says, Well, I got a different map. O.K.! You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.
Well, that makes sense. If somebody asked me, How do I get to Mount Rushmore, I would tell them that the only way I personally am aware of is Route 90, because I believe in Google Maps. Somebody says, Well, I got a different map. O.K.! You know what, if it works, I’m not going to argue with you. Unless, of course, I actually care whether you make it to Mount Rushmore or not, in which case I might take the trouble to defend my map.
Or maybe I don’t argue because I know Google Maps is sometimes wrong. (Ask me sometime about how it directed me across a field of boulders in Vermont last year.) But the analogue in Huckabee’s case would be knowing that the New Testament is sometimes wrong, and I don’t think he wants to go there. That leaves us to infer that he really doesn’t care whether you get to Heaven or not. That’s certainly his privilege, callous as it may be. But then, a little farther down in the same New Yorker piece, we get this (on why we should subsidize education in poor districts):
To be truly pro-life means that we should be just as much concerned about the child who is eight years old and living under a bridge or in the back seat of a car.
So there we have it. The governor, who surely considers himself truly pro-life, cares passionately about how things turn out for you at age eight (and, we may infer, at eighteen and at eighty) but pretty much not at all about how things turn out for you in the infinitely many years thereafter.
This sounds so implausible that I am forced to conclude he can’t mean a word of what he’s saying. (And as readers of The Big Questions are aware, similar implausiblities convince me that the same is true of very many ostentatiously religious people.)
Is there any way to spin this that makes any sense at all? Let’s do this as a flow chart (click to enlarge):
All paths, it seems to me, end in questions to which the only possible answer is “He doesn’t really mean it.” Is there a path I’m not seeing?
1) He said that “the only way he personally was aware of” was Christianity, but that allows that there might be other ways. On the other hand, this is a weak defense, because even if you think your way has a 100% chance of working and the other guy’s way has a 90% chance of working, it would still behoove you to try and switch the other guy to your way, when so much is at stake.
2) He believes that his way really is the only way, but he also believes (probably accurately) that he’s more likely to persuade people to try out his way, by coming across as happy and content with his life, than by trying to argue his preferences with other people.
of course he doesn’t mean it.
but does the fact he doesn’t mean it mean he does not believe there’s only one way to salvation, heaven, etc. or does it mean he doesn’t want to alienate people as a politician?
I’ve asked believers before if they care about their fellow man and realize many people are at risk of eternal torment, how they can spend any free time doing anything else besides proselytizing?
If you’re a fireman called to a burning daycare, do you get to kick back and enjoy a cold one after you go in once? twice?
never got a satisfactory reply. but of course the most ridiculous conversation is when you get them to admit that had they been born in a different place or time that they would likely believe something very different just as strongly as they believe what they do now. Never gotten them to take the next step from there.
The only way it makes sense to me is that to get to heaven, God requires you to adhere to a religion, but it doesn’t matter which one. He or she has laid down a different set of rules for different people in different times and places. Your job is to stick to one of these sets. It doesn’t make much sense, but at least it is consistent. He moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
I do not think this is a view held by many religious people. I think they are holding on to a delusion, and do not question it too hard.
However, I don’t think it is only the religious that have this sort of contradiction. Many of us carry on with all sorts of constructs and values that don’t make a lot of sense. What is the point of it all? In the long run we are all dead, so there is no ultimate point; no goal to strive for. Our children will be dead. So we try to get on with life as it is, and we attach some value to it, but seldom do we realy question what it is all about. If we push back what we find important, it becomes hard to justify at some point, so we tend to take a few things as “given”, and don’t worry about it too much. The religious are the same, except they have the construct of their religion to provide a surrogate purpose. They don’t really think about it much either.
Opportunity cost?
Didn’t you argue in “The Armchair Economist” that one ought to pick the most important cause and concentrate on that?
Maybe he just wants to close down the conversation on the other points, so he doesn’t waste time and polictical capital, and concentrate on the ones which he thinks are most important.
I’m with Finn–he’s lying. There are probably many quotes from his past to show that he believes Jesus is the only way and that no other “maps” are correct.
Ben: how can anything possibly be more important than the choice between an eternity of torment and an eternity of happiness?
I find it very difficult to imagine how any person who believes in Heaven and Hell can have *any* worldly priorities other than making sure that everyone they care about even the tiniest bit gets to the right one.
Perhaps he doesn’t believe in hell? Not all christians do, and most don’t believe in an eternity of hell in any case, as I understand it, but a limited time.
Maybe he believes you get to heaven by living a good life, and Christianity helps.
Or maybe he thinks that he can’t do much to influence your religiosity.
Or maybe he thinks he should concentrate on his day job, and since he is paid to care about stuff the government controls, his duty is to do so, and not spend his on-the-clock time promoting things the government is not supposed to get involved in?
Cynicism doesn’t have to be your go-to option.
Also, as an elected official, doesn’t he run into first amendment issues if he tries to force his religious beliefs on others?
Huckabee is a fool; what is the point of writing about the idiocy of his views on religion? I suppose he’d say equally foolish things about physics or economics, if asked. Indeed, if memory serves, his advisor on economic matters during his presidential campaign was Chuck Norris. People who don’t approve of Christianity often seem to think that refuting the beliefs of some half-wit refutes Christianity itself. I don’t understand this approach. If you could get Huckabee to talk about physics, he’d probably say dumb things, too; exposing them wouldn’t refute physics.
Alan Gunn: I didn’t (in this post) question the truth of Huckabee’s religion; I questioned the sincerity of his (and others’) belief.
I have no idea what Mike Huckabee believes, so I’ll address take one perspective from the other “ostentatiously religious people” out there.
The piece you’re missing is choice. Being pro-life is about giving someone a chance to be born and make a series of decisions that may or may not lead to their happiness. An 8-yr old has more control over their destiny than someone not born yet, but is far from autonomous. It is reasonable to support their chance to get an education. I would not extrapolate that someone who wants kids to have the choice to get an education also would force kids to complete 12 years of primary ed, 4 years of undergraduate, and a higher degree (even though they feel quite certain that doing those things will give the kid a better chance at career success and an overall happier life).
There is a gradual shift of decision-making freedom/responsibility that happens over the life of an individual. As a citizen, I want infants to survive and kids to be able to go to school. As a Christian, I believe that faith in Jesus Christ and the absolute truth in His gospel is the way to happiness. I want people to be happy, so I tell people about what I believe to be true. I hope they will believe it too and make decisions that will lead to their happiness, just like I hope kids in school will appreciate the benefits of learning and make it part of their lives.
But ultimately it’s not my decision. I don’t want to force people to do what I think will make them happy. Even if I did want to force people to be happy, it wouldn’t work. It’s just not the way the universe works.
What I said above applies to a great many casually religious people. Having actually read the New Yorker article, what I said above does not apply to Huckabee – he clearly has thought about it.
I think it is OK to sort of believe in God, and live your life sort-of accordingly. It is not OK to try to push your arbitrary ideals on everyone else through politics. I find it almost incomprehensible that someone who aspires to be president can think that asking if you believe in evolution is the same as asking if you believe in God. Millions of people believe in both, so Huckabee obviously thinks they believe in a false God. He can’t square this with the idea that other people might have another map that “works”. It clearly shows exactly what God he believes in.
He says “Everything you do and believe in is directed by your answer to the ultimate question: Is there a God? It all comes down to that single issue.” We have seen what sort of God he thinks is the answer to his question. It is not whether there is a creator as such, but whether it is Huckabee’s version of the Biblical God, justified by whatever bits of the Bible he finds agreeable. Presumably all the stoning and smiting is out, but homosexuality is definitely a sin. People with this set of contradictory, nonesensical values should not be allowed anywhere near policy making.
Ben says “Cynicism doesn’t have to be your go-to option”, but in this case it is almost impossible for it not to be. He has clearly shown that he believes there is one way (his way) to god. We can only assume that he is, in fact, sticking to the number 1 priority – that is getting people to do it God’s way. He claims everything he does is directed to the answer to this question, so all his politics must be directed to this. He thinks believing evolution denies the existence of God, which he says is the only issue. He cannot possibly condone the teaching of evolution and remain true to his beliefs.
The clue is in the part “if it works, I’m not going to argue with you”. He believes that any way other will not work, so he is going to argue with you. I think he is trying to obfuscate, and the reader could interpret the phrase “if it works” as meaning if you are happy with it. No, he has an argument with everyone who does not believe the same as him. The flow chart then reads “does Huckabee care if you get to heaven” – Yes. “Does Huckabee trust the New testament?” – Yes. “Then why won’t he take the trouble to correct your course?” – He is doing everything he can to “correct” your course, by going into politics and trying to impose his version of the truth on everyone.
It’s a fine line to walk between being a evangelistic Christian and a politician. Huckabee has to hew enough to the Christian orthodoxy to attract and retain the many Christians in the electorate. At the same time he can’t afford to alienate everyone else, so he has to allow some wiggle room. Stray too far in one direction or the other, and he loses a key constituency.
What would an atheist say in the same situation? “There is no heaven, there is no hell, when you die life just stops. But you go ahead and believe whatever you want to (it’s no skin off of my nose).” I guess that’s a little less contradictory.
What he’s referring to is extremely common among Christians. That is, most believe that, “Good people surely must go to heaven, even if they don’t believe in Christ.” And for many people their faith is more along in line with Pascal’s Wager than with rock solid belief. So your argument is as much at odds with the 50 or 100 million (my wild guess) people in this country that think that way as it is with Huckabee.
You can’t expect the religious to be logically consistent, since Faith itself is the utter and total denial of Reason.
Maybe he believes in Calvinist predestination
“God preordained…a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation. ” John Calvin.
If he believes this it doesn’t matter what map you use. “Don’t worry, be happy (or damned).”
If a person thought proselytizing would jeopardize his own chance of getting into heaven (or make the experience less heavenly), he might rationally keep his religion quiet. After all, if I know of a delightful but quiet restaurant, I might tell family and friends, but keep quiet about it when asked by a stranger.
Since Huckabee is a former preacher, though, this would be a bit like a food critic keeping the best restaurants a secret. “You know, while I am a Christian myself, I think Buddhism is the right belief for you…”
For the first time I enjoyed reading your writings. I am pretty sure it is consistent for a Christian to say that one does not stay a gazillion years in Hell unless one is truly evil.
Your soul can still progress towards Heaven in the afterlife.
T.
TjD: how could you possibly know that?
I don’t even know where to begin.
President Bush has said much the same thing. It is an impossible question for any Christian politician to answer. Obviously, Bush and Huckabee are both very confident that all of us are going to hell because we didn’t listen to their warnings and teachings.
However, if you read the Bible, you will see that Jesus already answered your questions.
Proselytizing can only go so far. The rich man who went to hell just wanted to have someone warn his brother so that his brother wouldn’t share his fate. However, since his brother had all the prophets and teachings and still chose to sin then why would a sinner believe someone like Mike Huckabee.
getting to Steve’s direct question. I do believe that Huckabee is lying because he knows that his way is the only way to heaven. I may think I have another way to heaven but I am wrong since it isn’t Huckabee’s way. However, in Huckabee’s defense, would Steven Landsburg, or anyone reading this, change his actions if Mike Huckabee said “Steve, if you don’t change then you will be damned to Hell.”?
Steve: Is there anything Huckabee could say that would change your chances of getting to heaven???
Is there anything Huckabee could say that would change your chances of getting to heaven???
Since there is no Heaven, then no.
Remember, Huckabee is only NOT going to argue with your map “if it works”. He clearly thinks your map (if different from his) will NOT work. His argument with you remains.
I am baffled by the American Christian. I mean, what part of being a follower of Christ includes hoarding wealth? Contrary to popular Christian thought, there is nothing Christian about the values that built America into the wealthiest nation.
If somebody asked me, How do I prove Fermat’s Last Theorem, I would tell them that the only way I personally am aware of is the elliptic curve modularity conjecture, because I believe Andrew Wiles. That’s the only proof I got. Somebody says, Well, I got a different proof. O.K.! You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.
After the clip of you with Jon Gibson, or the way Rand Paul was skewered without regard to the arguments being offered, it is no surprise that politicians shy away from making arguments that are too abstract or philosophically involved. The truth is that he probably believes that only believers will be saved from hell, but if he said that and offered a philosophical justification, the press would ignore the arguments and create a scandal.
He knows this, and opts for internal inconsistency rather than giving them a salacious sound clip.
Roger Schlafly:
Somebody says, Well, I got a different proof. O.K.! You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.
Sure, as long as nothing is really riding on this. On the other hand, if I think that getting this right is of the utmost importance for both of us, then I’m going to try to understand your proof, figure out if it’s right and until we’re on the same page with this, I’m definitely going to argue with you.
Do I have an obligation to check everyone’s alleged proof of FLT? Huckabee has spent many years as a preacher, and I am sure he has explained his views many times. If you don’t accept them, then you don’t have to.
Here’s another path to consider: He cares whether you get to heaven, but he cares whether he gets (or stays) elected more. Saying “my way is the only way” is unpopular with voters. Hence: lying.
Perhaps he thinks he can get more people to heaven if he’s a successful politician? This would be the most charitable interpretation of this decision line.
you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink.
now apparently i have to stand there arguing with the horse?
I can spin it, although I don’t know what he really believes or what he actually meant.
“Somebody says, Well, I got a different proof. O.K.! You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.”
1) “O.K.” doesn’t mean “your proof is O.K.”, it’s a short hand for “O.K. then, here’s my response”
2) “I’m not going to argue with you” doesn’t mean “you are right”, it means he’s not going to argue.
3) “If it works” can be interpreted two ways:
i) “Your way doesn’t work, but if it did…”
ii) “If you are happy with your way, then there is no point arguing with you” — and by “no point” I mean that it will be ineffective, not that it is unimportant.
‘Course, a lot of the discussion above supposes that there is only one Heaven. The only way into Huckabee’s Heaven is apparently through faith in Jesus, but who is he to argue about how to get into a different Heaven?
If someone believes a proposition P, is it necessarily true that they believe all things which logically follow from P? In practice it is not. People’s world views are internally inconsistent. Some of us try to look for inconsistencies in our world view and eliminate them when we notice them; but most people do not even bother to look, and do not seem to particularly care if an incosistency is pointed out to them.
So a flowchart, like the one presented, might break down because in reality the arrows don’t exist. Each belief is in its own box, and they do not react with each other in any way.
1. In boolean logic, a statement of the form “If X then Y” is always true if X is false.
2. Given that I am (hypothetically) a Christian who believes that the only way to get to Heaven is through Christ, and given that the Good Word is very easily available to all Americans, what is my best strategy:
(i) find people who actively disagree with me and hit them over the head with the New Testament, or
(ii) be Christ-like and engage in good deeds, with the not inconsiderable side-benefit of making my path seem attractive, and then welcoming and teaching anyone who expresses an interest?
3. Noah, there is a difference between Reason and extreme rationalism.
4. I am reminded of my favorite dialogue from Seinfeld.
I can’t find Heaven on my map, but I did find Hell (Michigan).
Heaven
82 reviews
Villiers St
9 The Arches, London WC2N 6NG
020 7930 2020
heavennightclublondon.com
Heaven – Review – 14 Jan 2009
… The grand dame of London’s gay scene, legendary superclub Heaven has been packing out the vaults beneath Charing Cross station for almost …
More from viewlondon.co.uk »
Heaven – User Review – 4 May 2010
I was thoroughly disappointed by Heaven and their discrimination against straight females, after travelling down for 3 hours all the way from …
More from viewlondon.co.uk »
See all 82 reviews »
I might be off the mark, but perhaps it’s not the best thing to take Huckabee literally here. I’m pretty sure Huckabee takes in John 14:6 as a part of his world view, though his comment may suggest otherwise.
The whole “You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.” is a typical Christian response to the forces of pluralization. Almost every true Christian, when backed into a corner, will admit to John 14:6. But until that happens, most of them are sick of arguing (or sick of thinking), and my fellow believers stick to that cowardly response.
Nice post. I wouldn’t be shocked if a politician didn’t mean a word of what he said. But, with these two examples I’m not sure I’d draw that conclusion.
There seems to be a clear distinction in his two quotes: free will. He may care about where you spend your infinite years ahead of you, but chooses not to argue because you’ve made your choice and it’s yours and through experience he has learned that arguing with you about it is not productive.
In the second example, he may view the eight-year-old as not having the free will to determine his or her own educational opportunities so he wants to improve the chances of getting a good education.
The simplest explanation is that he thinks that arguing about salvation is not necessarily the most effective way to express caring, and that politicians in particular have low standing to argue in this area, so he’s expressing respect for his listeners by sticking to subject areas where his opinion is more likely to be sought.
Now isn’t that both simpler and more charitable than your snide article?
The bit you’re missing is to attached % change in election likelihood to each response. Huckabee is aiming for a higher Muslim vote on answer one and more Christians on question 2 and women for question 3.
Steve, it depends where people are coming from. Interstate 90 is not the right way to get to Mt. Rushmore if you are coming from Bridgeport, Nebraska. If you are talking to someone from there and care about whether he gets to Mt. Rushmore, you will let him use his own map.
Maybe Huckabee cares about me, but doesn’t know where I’m coming from. (In fact, given that my religion is different from his, I’m sure of at least the latter.)