Rubio & Obama on the Theological-Political Problem

Don't miss Daniel Engber at Slate. He has an excellent piece that exposes both the theological-political problem, as we readers of Spinoza like to call it, and the double standard under which Republicans labor. In an interview with GQ Magazine, Senator Marco Rubio fielded a deep question.

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

As Engber points Rubio was subject to some scathing comments for his answer, at Slate itself and at the New York Times. Not so the politician who said much the same thing in 2008.

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

Engber parses and compares the two passages to reach the obvious conclusion:

To call Rubio a liar or a fool would be to call our nation's president the same, along with every other politician who might like to occupy the Oval Office. If a reporter asks a candidate to name the age of Earth, there's only one acceptable response: Well, you know, that's a complicated issue … and who am I to say?

As any reader of this blog knows, I believe in evolution and in Darwin's theory of natural selection. I have no doubt that the earth is billions of years old, though to state that it is precisely 4.54 billion years old as a fact, as Juliet Lapidos does at the Times, confuses data with scientific models.

I don't think Engber is right to say that there is only one [politically] acceptable response. Either Rubio or Obama might have said that the earth is billions of years old because that is settled science. While a large percentage of Americans do seem to hold a literalist view of creation (at least according to Gallup) there is no reason to think that they care very much whether their representatives hold the same view.

The responses of Rubio and Obama are nonetheless proper for a minor and a major reason. The minor one is that was no good reason in the contexts to offend the theological beliefs of large blocks of voters. The major one is that elected officials have no authority to pronounce the truth on such matters as this. Rubio is dead spot on to point out that this has nothing to do with any question that he has to be concerned with as a Senator.

I would go further than Engber to say that their responses were more philosophically defensible than the musings of Rubio's critics. Modern science makes certain fundamental assumptions about the Kosmos: that it is coherent and intelligible, that sensory data is a reliable indication of what is real, etc. These assumptions are perfectly reasonable and appropriate. Without them, science is impossible. They are hardly unquestionable.

Consider the following question: is it conceivable that God created the entire universe six days ago? All the stars in the heavens, along with my memory of my childhood, dinosaur fossils, and Susan Rice, have been in existence for just six twenty-four hour days. The answer is yes, it is conceivable. Science has no means of evaluating that possibility, given the assumption of an omnipotent (if somewhat mischievous) God. Anyone who genuine loves science, as I do, has to recognize the limits of its scope.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Rubio exercised a caution that is intellectually respectable, wise beyond their pay grade. As Engber shows, only the Republican suffers for it.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

The questions posed to Rubio and Obama are different, which means you can criticize the answers of one without that criticism bleeding into the other. The question to Rubio was: "How old do you think the Earth is?" The question to Obama was: "Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?"

Rubio's question calls for a simple answer. You don't have to be exact, but if you answer billions of years old or six days old, people get the idea that you have some understanding of both the science and various interpretations of theology and that you give the edge to one or the other. Is Rubio's answer just a fudge? Is he being careful to sidestep the issue, or is he giving an honest answer?

Obama's hypothetical question assumes a theological approach from the beginning, so the issue of what science says plays no part in the answer. And he answer with a concrete example of what he actually said to his young daughters about this, which he then expands into a theological, rather than a scientific discussion. What he might say to an adult daughter might be different. It might add in some science, which his daughters at that time may not have had.

Two different questions, KB. I think you can criticize either one without necessarily criticizing the other.

[Bill Fleming]

To be sure, the ultimate answer is "I don't know." But KB, I'm sure you would agree that some guesses are probably better (i.e. more likely to be true) than others.

[Mark Anderson]

Donald Pay is correct on this, perhaps you should just look at David A. Graham in the Atlantic on this. The article is entitled "Let's Not Pretend that Obama and Rubio have the same view on the earth's Age".

[Ken Blanchard]

Yes, Mark. When Republicans produce a map with targeted seats marked by what looks like bulls-eye, that is an indication of violent intent (Krugman); when Democrats produce an identical image, that isn't news. When Bush wins by two percent of the popular vote, that is no mandate; but when Obama wins by three, that is a sure as shootin' mandate for his policies (E.J. Dionne).

So when Rubio says he doesn't know if "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras", that is a scandal. When Obama says "God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it", that is a reasonable response. Never mind that both of them said the same damn thing.

Believe me, I get it.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I am a man of science. I think it clear that science gives the most reliable accounts of the age and nature of the knowable kosmos. I also know that science gets precision and clarity within its frame of reference in exchange for epistemological uncertainty regarding that frame of reference. A genuinely scientific perspective must include an awareness of this, and one benefit that non-scientific perspectives give to science and philosophy is to remind us of this.

[Julie Gross (NE)]

You're 100% on track, Ken.

When Obama changes his position on gay marriage between 2008 and 2012, his thinking has "evolved".

When Romney moves to the middle in 2012, he's a man that Obama doesn't recognize in debates!

You get it! I get it!

The INCREDIBLE lengths that folks like Pay will go to excuse their president never cease to amaze. I'm beginning to atribute their Obama blindness to racism.