tamb

Is Barack Obama Really a Christian?

tamb — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:08:00 -0700

The word “Christian” has many senses. Mormons claim that “Christian” applies to them. So do Jehovah’s Witnesses. So did the Branch Dividians. So this English word, like many others, is infected with ambiguity and vagueness.

I believe that when people hear Barack Obama say that he is a Christian, they understand the word in a particular sense. Namely, Peter the Presbyterian believes that Barack Obama means that he (Obama) is a “Christian” in whatever sense Peter takes himself to be a “Christian.” And Jeff the Jehovah’s Witness believes that Barack Obama is a “Christian” in whatever (very inclusive) sense Jeff takes himself to be a “Christian.”

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re an Evangelical. When you hear Barack Obama say that he is a “Christian,” you probably understand him to be endorsing a certain set of minimal “Christian” doctrines that is compatible with Evangelicalism. Probably you don’t think Obama is a full-blown Evangelical, but you at least take him to be endorsing something like C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity,” which is compatible with Evangelicalism.

Right?

Well, the bad news is that Barack Obama does not believe that he is an Evangelical. When asked that exact question by Cathleen Falsani, Obama’s answer was “I’m not sure.”

The worse news is that Barack Obama does not even subscribe to C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity.” Barack Obama’s beliefs are incompatible with Evangelicalism. They’re also incompatible with Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and indeed all forms of traditional, orthodox Christianity. That makes Obama a heretic, in the most precise sense of the word.

Barack Obama cannot in good conscience endorse the Nicene Creed. Neither does he endorse Biblical inerrancy. And he flat-out denies the reality of hell.

In an interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama denied that anyone will go to hell:

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.

But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.

"I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die," he says.

The last part of the quotation is instructive, since if he doesn’t presume to know what happens after death, then he cannot in good conscience affirm that he “looks for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” But if he can’t affirm that, then he cannot affirm the Nicene Creed, since that is part of the Nicene Creed. Therefore, Barack Obama cannot affirm the Nicene Creed.

It should already be obvious that Barack Obama does not endorse Biblical inerrancy, since he does not believe in Hell and is surely fully aware that there are passages in the Bible that teach the reality of Hell. For example, in Matthew 25:46 when Jesus says that, at the Final Judgment, some “will go away to eternal punishment.”

But there’s no inconsistency in Barack Obama’s beliefs since, in another interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama clearly indicated that he does not endorse Biblical inerrancy:

"There are aspects of Christian tradition that I'm comfortable with and aspects that I'm not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, 'Ya know, I'm not sure about that,'" he said, shrugging and stammering slightly.

Biblical inerrancy is roughly the following doctrine: If the Bible asserts that X is true, then X is true. Barack Obama is aware of certain passages of the Bible that assert that X is true, and yet he does not believe that X is true. Therefore, Barack Obama does not endorse Biblical inerrancy.

Of course, none of this is to say that Barack Obama is wrong. I personally believe that he is wrong about these issues, since I believe in Biblical inerrancy, Hell, and the Nicene Creed. My point is rather that when you hear Obama speak Christianese, when you hear him call himself a “Christian,” you should understand that he is exploiting the ambiguity and vagueness of that English word for his political gain. He is seeking to appear “Christian” in whatever sense you, the hearer, take yourself to be a “Christian.” He is camouflaging himself with vacuous rhetoric, in order that you may like him, project the best possible traits on him, and ultimately vote for him.

But don’t take my word for it. Obama himself is keenly aware of this tendency in politicians:

"Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you," he says. "Oftentimes, that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.”

Jesus warned his followers of people who “come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matt. 7:15). I’m deeply worried that many Christians in America will be misled by Obama’s flowery Christianese rhetoric, and fail to see the man for who he truly is: an unscrupulous, willfully deceptive heretic.

Another One of Obama's Straw Men

tamb — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:07:34 -0700

A couple posts ago, I brought to your attention Barack Obama's tendency to construct straw men during interviews and debates. What's really unusual about Obama is his incredibly reliable habit of preceding such logical fallacies with the phrase "this notion." Here's just one more example:

Speaking of the accusations that he had inappropriately close political relations with 1960s anti-war radical Bill Ayers, Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson:

"I'll repeat again what I've said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points."

But nobody is making those accusations! Nothing following "the notion" is an accurate characterization of what his critics allege. So here again, we have a straw man. Instead of engaging his actual critics, he exaggerates and simplifies their claims, to make them easier to defeat.

If you'd like to hear what his critics are actually saying, you can watch this report from CNN, this autobiographical description of Ayers' terrorist activities, and this report of how Michelle Obama had Ayers speak in 1997.

The criticism, as I understand it, is this:

Barack (and Michelle) Obama knowingly chose to form political alliances with Ayers, a radical and a terrorist. This should lead us to question both Barack's judgment and Barack's political beliefs. At best, Barack is unscrupulously pragmatic, overlooking Ayers' heinous past for political expediency. At worst, Barack is a product of the radical '60s, and actually agrees with Ayers' political philosophy to a disturbing degree.

That's the objection. I wish Barack would actually address that, instead of wasting time building and destroying straw men.

Dear Sarah, Congratulations and Thank You.

tamb — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:13:28 -0700

Dear Sarah,

Congratulations and Thank You. It was nice to see you again -- it feels like forever since the Republican National Convention! I'm not sure who that person was that sat down for interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, but I'm sure glad you showed up last night.

When chosen as VP, Biden was billed as Obama's "attack dog." Last night, he was extremely docile and quiet, to the point of seeming drowsy and exhausted. (Did you slip him something in his drink? It's OK, you can tell me.) I think you successfully neutralized Biden's infamous bark and bite.

Just one small suggestion, though. You don't need to remind me that you're an "average Joe-six-pack, doggone it," from "Main Street Wasilla donchaknow." If I thought I were qualified to be Vice President of the United States, I would run. But I don't think I'm qualified, and I prefer to vote for people who are. So it's best not to demote yourself like that. It's not the end of the world, though.

Joe Biden was striking the same awkward populist pose -- though less convincingly -- with all his talk about Scranton, Wilmington, and his kitchen table.

Thanks most of all for being winsome and relatively informed. I was ready to crawl under my couch if you gave the sort of halting, awkward, superficial, and canned answers that the other lady (your evil twin?) gave to Gibson and Couric. But your answers were by and large direct, informed, and relatively specific. I've therefore been led to doubt whether the main stream media really practices objectivity with their pop-quiz questions and in their editing rooms. I think many other people now have the same doubts about the media, given your much better-than-expected performance last night.

Were the last few weeks just a plot to lower expectations, so that last night would knock our socks off? I wish I could believe that were true.

Anyway, thanks again, and congratulations on a stellar performance. (You got your email account fixed, right? I'd hate for this to appear all over those nasty left-wing blogs.)

Barack Obama's Frequent Logical Fallacy

tamb — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:41:25 -0700

The logical fallacy of the straw man occurs when the arguer misrepresents, exaggerates, or simplifies her opponent’s position, and then attacks this weaker position. This fallacy often involves turning the opponent’s position into an extreme generalization using “always” or “never” or “only.” It's called the fallacy of the "straw man" because by misconstruing your opponent's argument, you've failed to attack your opponent and are instead attacking a frail misrepresentation of him or her, a "straw man."

(I suppose in the modern climate of political correctness, we should really change the name of the fallacy to "straw person.")

In any event, I've noticed a definite trend in Barack Obama's debate tactics: he routinely builds and attacks straw men (or straw people). That's not unusual in politics, unfortunately. What is unusual is that Obama has a consistent verbal indicator. Nearly every time that he builds and attacks a straw man, he begins the misrepresentation of his opponent's view by calling it "this notion." Here are three examples:

The first example is from his interview on 60 Minutes on 9/21/08. When asked about the success of the surge in Iraq, Obama said:

“So we all welcome the reduction in violence, but the notion that somehow this was the only way for us to solve the problem, and that the problem has been solved, I completely disagree with.”

Here he tries to differentiate himself from McCain by implying that those who disagree with him, including McCain, subscribe to this crazy idea. Nobody with half a brain would say that the surge was the "only" way for us to solve the problem, or that the problem "has been solved." Nope, only a straw man would say that. At most, Obama's flesh and blood critics would say the surge has exceeded our expectations, is putting us on the road to victory, and has succeeded in reducing violence and increasing security. Notice most of all Obama's use of the phrase "the notion..." It's a common theme, as my next examples show.

The second example comes from the debate last night. Obama said:

Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.
…It is not a good deal for the American people. But it's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be.

Again, not even the most ardent capitalist would say that the market can "always" solve "everything," or that less regulation is necessarily a good thing. No, any free market capitalist with half a brain will say that these are generalities, admitting of exceptions. However, that more nuanced, qualified view is much harder to refute. And so Obama prefers to tear down this straw man and call it a day. Notice again the use of "this notion." It happened later last night as well, which is my third example.

Later in the debate, Obama said this:

When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.
And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn't worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he's spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

Again, nobody is accusing Obama of wanting to sit silently with people like Ahmadinejad. Nope. People are accusing Obama of wanting to meet with such leaders without preconditions. Many people think that is a dangerous and counterproductive strategy, legitimizing petty, ignorant, and dangerous supporters of terrorism like Ahmadinejad. Yet again, Obama is attacking a straw man. The real accusation is difficult to refute, and so Obama prefers to engage this ridiculous, extreme, and weak objection to his view.

Now that I've pointed this out to you, you'll find it very difficult to miss. Whenever Obama says "this notion," you can be fairly confident that he's about to cart out a straw man.

McCain-Obama Debate

tamb — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:01:30 -0700

In case you missed it, here is the full debate from C-SPAN.

And the full transcript, if you prefer reading.

Debunking a Classic Objection to Dualism

tamb — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:25:33 -0700

If you've ever taken a Philosophy 101 course and talked about philosophy of mind, you've heard this classic objection to dualism. Dualism is the view that minds are not brains or bodies, but rather immaterial souls. According to dualism, you can exist apart from your body. According to physicalism, you cannot exist apart from your body, since you just are your body. Clearly Christians have a stake in this debate, since we weekly profess our belief in life after the death and destruction of our bodies.

Physicalists tend to think you are some part of your body, namely your brain. While you could exist without your arms or legs or lungs or most other parts of your body, you could not exist without your brain, they say. The brain is the "seat of consciousness." In support of this, physicalists very often point to mind-brain correlations. They say "Look, whenever you experience pain, this part of your brain lights up. And if we disable this part of your brain, you can no longer feel pain. Therefore, feeling pain just is identical with being in this brain state."

Jaegwon Kim, in his introductory book on the philosophy of mind, explains why people are attracted to physicalism:

[W]hy are we inclined to think that the brain is "the seat of our mental life," as Descartes might have put it? The answer seems clear: there are pervasive and systematic psychoneural correlations, that is, correlations between mental phenomena and brain processes.

As I said, this is a classic argument given in nearly every introductory text and class. However, it seems upon reflection to be a very bad argument. The argument is roughly this:

(1) For any x, if x is correlated with some brain event B, and if inhibiting B inhibits x, then x is identical with B.

(2) Feeling pain is correlated with some brain event B, and inhibiting B inhibits feeling pain.

And of course they think the same goes not just with mental states like feeling pain, but with all mental states (e.g. tasting banana, thinking about hockey, etc.)

The sad fact, however, is that (1) is false. There are many counterexamples to (1), and therefore it can't be true. Here is one counterexample:

Walking to the store is correlated with some brain event B. And inhibiting B inhibits my walking to the store. (If you were to knock me unconscious, for example, I wouldn't be able to walk to the store.) And yet we wouldn't think for a second that walking to the store just is identical with that brain event. No, walking to the store involves much more than that brain event: it involves my legs, my eyes, my arms, etc.

And so we have a counterexample to (1). In the case I described, the "IF" parts of (1) were satisifed, and yet the "THEN" part did not follow. But (1) says that whenever the "IF" parts are satisfied, the "THEN" part must follow. And so (1) is false.

And so this classic objection to dualism shouldn't concern us at all.

Closer to Truth

tamb — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:16:16 -0700

I'd like to direct your attention to what looks to be a very interesting television series called "Closer to Truth." Here's a description from its website:

Public fascination with questions of Cosmos, Consciousness and particularly of God has grown substantially in recent years. Public debate has been intense, often heated. Closer To Truth presents to mass audiences these leading-edge ideas in an approachable, rational and balanced manner, and introduces the human personalities behind these ideas. By meeting these change-making characters close-up, the thinkers behind the thoughts, visiting them in their homes, offices, labs, gardens, churches and temples, Closer To Truth humanizes riveting ideas and makes them more accessible and more relevant.

It is the mission of Closer To Truth to become the most publicly prominent venue for heightened understanding and thoughtful discussion of Cosmos, Consciousness and God for broad television audiences.

The initial slate of 39 Closer To Truth episodes interweaves 13 each on Cosmos, Consciousness, God. Each 30-minute episode features four to seven of the world’s foremost thinkers. The series as a whole features 128 such authorities, each taped in detailed conversations (between two and eight hours), in what we believe to be the most comprehensive and definitive treatment of these topics ever presented in visual or electronic media.

They've just started producing the series, and they already have some good stuff. I'd especially encourage you to watch all of Alvin Plantinga's videos, available at the bottom of this page.

There are many other scheduled participants who have not yet been interviewed. I'm looking forward to the segments on WL Craig, JP Moreland, Robin Collins, Greg Boyd, David Chalmers, Ned Block, Thomas Flint, Brian Leftow, Richard Swinburne, Bas van Fraassen, Peter van Inwagen, and Dean Zimmerman.

Biden's Position on Abortion

tamb — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:47:29 -0700

After Obama got the chance to lay out his position on abortion at Rick Warren's event, and Nancy Pelosi got her chance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden finally took his turn on Meet the Press yesterday. Tom Brokaw asked Biden what he would tell Obama, if Obama were to ask him when a fetus becomes a human being. This was Biden's answer:

I'd say, look, I know when it begins for me. It's a personal and private issue. For me as a Roman Catholic I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you, there are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths -- protestants, jews, muslims, and others -- who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do, they're intensely religious as I am religious. they believe in their faith and they believe in human life. And they have differing views as to when... I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Tom Brokaw noticed a bit of a tension here, and asked Biden how he reconciles the belief that life begins at conception with a support for keeping abortion legal. Why has Biden voted to keep abortion legal, if he thinks it is murder? Biden responded:

I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view. That it's a moment of conception... How am I going to go out and tell you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith.

I'd like to pose a series of dilemmas for Biden. If I could interview him, I would first ask him how he feels about outlawing infanticide, i.e. the killing of infants. He's either for it or against it. If he says he's against it, then he's obviously nuts. If he says he's for it, then I would ask him why he insists on "imposing his judgment on everyone else."

If he says, "Actually, you're right. It's not OK for me to impose this judgment on everyone else, here just as in the abortion case," then he's clearly nuts. So probably he would say "It's OK to impose this sort of judgment on everyone else, since it's a matter of murder, and that it is murder is not a matter of faith."

I would then ask him why the claim that infanticide is murder is not a matter of faith, while the claim that abortion is murder is a matter of faith. He might cite the prevalence of disagreement on the question of abortion, but this won't fly since the moral status of infanticide has varied considerably both historically and across cultures. Many people have thought and still think that infanticide is OK. So if we can't outlaw abortion because many people disagree about whether it's murder, then we shouldn't be able to outlaw infanticide, since many people disagree and have disagreed about whether it's murder.

So the question stands: Why is the claim that infanticide is murder not a matter of faith, while the claim that abortion is murder is a matter of faith? Does he think that it has something to do with scientific data? Which data, specifically? And what criteria of personhood are we using? Do we think that consciousness is necessary for personhood, and that infants have it while fetuses don't? First, it's not clear that advanced fetuses are not conscious. Second, there are many unconscious persons: people in comas, you last night at 4am, etc. So consciousness isn't necessary for personhood.

So what's the deal with Biden's position? Why is he willing to outlaw infanticide, but not abortion? If he really does believe that abortion is murder as he claims, why on Earth would he vote to keep it legal? It's as though a politician in Ancient Rome (where infanticide was common and accepted) had said "Sure, I think that infanticide is murder. But many people disagree. And who am I to say that they're wrong?" That would be a morally irresponsible position. If it's clear to you that infanticide is murder, the fact that people disagree shouldn't stop you from outlawing it. But then the same goes with abortion. If it really is clear to Biden that abortion is murder, the fact that people disagree with him shouldn't stop him from outlawing it. So I think Biden's position has serious problems, and doesn't make sense.

And just to be fair and clear, Biden is not pro-abortion. He says he'd like to reduce the number of abortions:

What we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care the assistance, and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

He's not pro-abortion, but he is pro-choice. And I think that's inconsistent with his belief that life begins at conception, i.e. his belief that abortion is murder.

More Media Bias against Palin

tamb — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:59:00 -0700

I've been disturbed by the mainstream media's condescending sexism towards Palin. We've all heard about the media's fretting over whether Palin can responsibly have a career in politics given her family obligations, and yet similar questions are never asked of male candidates. A more subtle instance of such sexist bias has appeared in the wake of Palin's fantastically successful speech at the Republican National Convention.

I noticed that, in article after article, journalists took the time to remind us that Palin worked with a speechwriter. To prove this, just do a google news search for the name of Palin's speechwriter ("Matthew Scully"), together with her last name. You'll find the results HERE. There are 294 results from Aug 29, 2008 to today. Go ahead and read through some of them. Notice the subtle way in which the speechwriter is mentioned in order to discredit Palin's accomplishment.

Now do the same thing with Obama. The name of his chief speechwriter (among Obama's TEAM of speechwriters!) is Jon Favreau. If you do a google news search of that name together with "Obama," you'll find far fewer results. HERE. There are 58 results from Aug 6, 2008 (!!!) to today. Searching with "Adam Frankel," another of Obama's speechwriters, returns four results, with just two of them in English. "Ben Rhodes," yet another speechwriter, turns up only 6 results, with none since August 29th.

So what's the deal? Why is it that the media cannot mention Palin's fantastic speech without reminding us in the same breath that she was aided by a speechwriter? And why are Obama's speechwriters rarely mentioned?

Is it because she's a woman, and sexist journalists feel that we need some explanation of how she could be so successful? Is it because she's a conservative, and the nervous liberal media are trying to take some of the wind out of her sails? Is it both?

In any event, I don't like the power wielded in such a sneaky way by our fourth branch of government. This sort of crafty persuasion by off-hand remarks is not at all respectable.

Also, just to brighten your Friday: here's a video of Sarah Palin doing a little rifle training during a recent trip to Kuwait. You can hear an impressed instructor say "You're hitting pretty close to dead center." Let's see Obama do that.

WOW.

tamb — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:14:21 -0700

Here's the transcript of Sarah Palin's remarkable speech last night. In my opinion, it was an absolute homerun. That it was a homerun is evidenced by this hurried and defensive press release from the Obama campaign. I don't think anyone so far as succeeded in dissecting Obama like Palin has. Her jabs were so quick that she didn't come off as mean or aggressive, but they were so precise and forceful that she'll certainly persuade millions of the 30 million people who watched her.

My favorite lines were these:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Zing!

My second favorite lines were these:

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

Wow. What an incisive shot at Obama's cult of personality.

In that press release, the Obama campaign says this:

But worst of all -- and this deserves to be noted -- they insulted the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.

Talk about being way off the mark. Palin's speech repeatedly hit populist notes, and often emphasized the fact that she and her family are ordinary people. Here's one example:

I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Later:

I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

And I think that's exactly how she came across: as an ordinary person who is easy to relate to. So I don't think this response from Obama will suffice.

Overall, Palin's speech was meant to establish two main things: McCain is a man of tremendous character, and has a proven record of reform. Obama is all style and no substance, with no substantial record of reform. I think she established those points very well for such a short speech. And she did it with surprising poise, given the pressure she must have been under.

In a word: Wow. Where do I sign?