Ilya Somin says Palin’s supposed belief in creationism shouldn’t be such a big deal, given that she endorses the teaching of evolution in public schools:
I don’t see why belief in creationism should be a major strike against a candidate for public office any more than are a wide range of other common religious beliefs that are contradicted by modern science. Consider the following widespread religious beliefs:
1. Belief in the virgin birth of Christ.
2. Belief in the resurrection of the dead.
3. The belief that the Red Sea parted, enabling the Israelites to escape from Egypt.
4. The Bible’s claim that God wiped out nearly all life on Earth in a great flood (with only the denizens of Noah’s Ark surviving).
5. Belief in the existence of the Devil (a view held by 71% of Americans).
All of the above are contradicted by science, empirical evidence, or both. Yet few argue that endorsement of any of these beliefs should be a major strike against candidates for high political office, including the presidency. As an apparently believing Protestant, Barack Obama presumably adheres to at least 1 and 2 on the above list. Yet virtually no one claims that he is thereby unfit for the presidency. I don’t see why believing the items on the list above is any less irrational and unscientific than believing in creationism.
I’m agnostic on whether a belief in one particularly ridiculous fairy tale ought to disqualify Palin from the powerless post to which she aspires. Politicians have to give voice to ludicrous beliefs all the time; the idea that we can achieve “energy independence” is approximately as credible as a virgin birth. (Sorry Iowa.) But specifically in the realm of religion, culture war flash points put thinking politicians in a weird position. Belief in an invisible omniscient ruler of the universe and his dark underworld counterpart is a requirement of office. (In this and every other poll, voters are more willing to go for a black or female or thrice-married or gay or elderly candidate than an atheist.) Too emphatic a belief, though, and you’re a trogolodytic right winger who will force-feed America’s children poisonous lies.
I’ve been struck by how readily pundits believe that Palin believes. I had assumed her professed belief system was strategic rather than sincere, but perhaps only male political figures are allowed to operate on more than one level.
[...] that different. All are false, but we focus too much on creationism. Kerry Howley, interestingly, doesn’t care which “fairy tale ought to disqualify Palin” because she “assumed her professed [...]
Why would you assume that Gov. Palin’s religious convictions are cynical? There doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support it.
She strikes me as a pious pragmatist. She believes in a Christian God and the moral code He set down – just not in the austere literal manner of a John Ashcroft.
Male politicians like Regan, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and McCain have all been accused to using faith as a political tool to their advantage it seems to be because their actions have run counter to their professed faith often enough to warrant scrutiny.
She just seem to have a track record long enough to warrant that same suspicion on a political level and her personal life is pretty consistent. I doubt it’s any kind of sexist condescension.
This stems from a common fallacy, the belief of certain atheists that all religious beliefs are equally absurd, when it’s pretty obvious that, say, Buddhism and Scientology are not in the same ballpark. There are religions and then there are sham religions and they’re different things.
Take the list. I believe in 1, 2, I have no opinion on 3 and don’t care, I don’t believe 4 (I think that was a metaphor) and I do believe 5, which makes me a pretty bland Christian.
Believing in creationism, however, would put me as part of a fringe percentage of Christians who adopt views squarely contradicted by widely understood science. In fact, if you’re a Catholic like myself, creationism is pretty much heresy. John Paul II’s “Faith and Reason” opens: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” All mainline Christian denominations have similar beliefs about faith and reason functioning together.
From a purely practical perspective, your comment that “Belief in an invisible omniscient ruler of the universe and his dark underworld counterpart is a requirement of office. … Too emphatic a belief, though, and you’re a trogolodytic right winger who will force-feed America’s children poisonous lies.”, despite the needlessly contemptuous rhetoric, is true. When you’re a politician brandishing Christian faith purely as a vote-getting device, you have to walk a fine line (in the past, some politicians have used their secularism in the same way). But on the actual merits, the case is much more clear cut.