I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
May 05, 2006
Madman theory: Bush and god
Recently trial balloons have been floated by the administration that they are seeking to carry out an attack on Iran, even to the extent of using nuclear 'bunker buster' bombs. Seymour Hersh reports in The New Yorker that: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."
This revelation naturally prompts the question "Are they insane?" And that prompts the further question "Does the administration want people to think that Bush is insane as a means of achieving some goals?" Now it is true that the Pentagon develops contingency plans for all kinds of bizarre scenarios (even involving invading Canada) but Hersh's article seems to indicate that these contingency plans are operational which implies a greater likelihood of being actually implemented.
Faking insanity, or at least recklessness, to achieve certain ends has a long history, both in fact and fiction. Hamlet did it. President Nixon, frustrated by the indomitable attitude of the Vietnamese forces opposing the US tried the same tactic, hoping that it would cause the North Vietnamese to negotiate terms more palatable to the US because of fears that he would do something stupid and extreme, such as use a nuclear weapon. (See here for a review of the use of 'madman theory' to achieve political ends.) Nixon also liked to talk about his religion but in his case it was to refer to his own Quaker background, to exploit that religious groups' reputation for strong ethical behavior, at a time when his own ethics were under severe scrutiny.
Bush does have one advantage over Nixon in making his madman theory more plausible in that he has put the word out earlier that god had chosen him to be president. In 2003, a news report says that "Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day." Bush's claims to close links with god have been reported periodically.
More recently, it was revealed that god is so chummy with Bush that he even calls him by his first name. (I mean that god calls Bush by his first name, of course, not the other way around. Bush has probably given god a nickname like he gives everyone else.) During these chats god tells him what to do. In a BBC program, Nabil Shaath who met with Bush as part of a delegation is quoted as saying:
President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. . ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'
What are we to make of something that reads like Tuesdays with God? Those of us who are atheists would say that Bush is either lying about his tete-a-tetes with the almighty to pander to his extremist religious base or suffers from the same kind of delusions that cause some people to see the Virgin Mary in a slice of toast, neither of which is reassuring for those of us who seek a more down-to-earth basis for actions by political leaders, especially those who have the power to cause tremendous damage.
Of course, all of our actions are influenced by our beliefs and values, and for religious people their religious beliefs are bound to be influential in the principles that guide their decision making. That is not the question here. The question is whether even religious people are reassured when Bush says that he took some concrete action because god specifically directed him to do so.
Somehow, even if I were still religious, I would still be uneasy about political leaders claiming to be acting under direct instructions from god because we know that schizophrenics also sometimes think they hear such voices. People who claim to have their actions explicitly directed by god are usually considered to be delusional and at worst insane.
But I am curious as to what religious people think of Bush's claims to have this kind of hotline to god. Are they pleased? Or, despite their own religious beliefs, are they uneasy? It would be interesting to survey religious people with this question: "If Bush says god told him to attack Iran, would that be sufficient justification for you to support such an action?"
The basic question for religious people, even if they do not think Bush is lying, is how they judge whether the voices Bush claims to hear are really from the deity or due to some chemical imbalance in his brain.
Comments
I am religious (Eastern Orthodox Christian) and I think Bush is delusional or at least a master at self-deception. I doubt that he's consciously lying; he'd be less consistent.
Our view is that God does speak directly to people sometimes, but it tends to be people who have prepared themselves to listen through much prayer, fasting, silence, and above all, repentance. And even they then seek counsel from *spiritual directors*, not politicos, before acting. He might work a miracle or two for someone's benefit, like St. Mary of Egypt, but the miracle leads in the direction of that prayer, fasting, repentance, etc. Not splashy political power.
God doesn't talk directly to me, I'll admit! (ha ha). I would think it would be...uncomfortable...anyway. ;)
BTW, Mano, I have only recently begun to read your blog and I appreciate it very much. You address many issues that my husband, who is also a physicist, and I, go around and around about. You express his views, more or less, and because you are a "stranger," I find it easier to calm down and listen. So, I thank you!
Hi, Victoria,
Isn't it interesting that we can sometime "hear" things from strangers (especially on subjects to which we have strong emotional reactions) that we find hard to take from those close to us. I have noticed it myself. I am not sure what to make of it.
I would agree with Victoria on everything but the use of the word 'delusional'. It just seems a little strong. Might he be imagining/making it up? Certainly, but I doubt it.
You must remember that although God rarely talks to anyone using a big booming voice from the sky (or in our heads), Christians will often use words and phrases like 'God spoke to me' simply because they are the easiest (and for some, the only) way to convey what really happened. Many find that they could write poems or even whole novels about a single 'conversation' with God and yet never adequately describe it with the limited vocabularies we have available to us.
I describe what God tells me as Him giving me peace. Say I have two choices. Both may be a little frightening or difficult and I don't know which way to turn, so I ask God for guidance. He has never (yet) responded via a voice in my head or any of the stereotypical methods through which many people think God 'talks' to Christians. Instead, he answers the prayer(s) by giving a peace about the choice I should make: Choice A & B both seem scary, but after talking to God He may give me a a peace about Choice B that allows me to do what needs to be done.
Yet, if someone were to ask why I made my choice, I may find it easiest to simply say, "God told me which choice to make." The statement doesn't come close to describing what really happened. But there is no language I can speak, no paint brush I can wield and no clay I can shape that will describe it better. I for one don't wish to be dismissed as delusional simply because I cannot find a more satisfactory means of communicating what really happens when I talk to God.
Mike, you point out my extreme language. :) Sorry. I should not have said that Bush was delusional because I really have no idea; it was imprecise (and rude) of me. I do think that he is following his own wishes and using God's will as an excuse.
I want to make a better response to this, but that physicist husband is coming to pick me up in a minute, so...
I made my interpretation based on the language Mano reported Bush to use. "I'm driven with a mission from God. God told me to go and fight the terrorists in Afghanistan." That does not sound like the still, small whisper after the storm of wind. That sounds like the storm, in which God was not.
Mike,
I completely understand what your sense of god "speaking" to you means. People say that kind of thing all the time in that manner and no one is going to think that they are nuts.
The difference in this case is the way he says god says "George this..." and "George that..." I never hear religious people say things like that concerning god. When people speak like that they are usually name-dropping, implying that some important person knows them so well that they call them by their first name.
Of course, he could merely have nick-named Cheney "God" and then we'd be back to the ~2001 puppet president theory.
It would be interesting to survey religious people with this question: "If Bush says god told him to attack Iran, would that be sufficient justification for you to support such an action?"
Mano, I really think it would be best not to do the above. I'm really terrified of the responses.
Mano & Victoria,
I still think this sounds more like a colloquial response to a question than a statement of "this is what God told me, word for word."
Catherine,
As a religious person, I am more than willing to answer your question. No, someone telling me that God had told them to do something would NOT by itself be enough justification to support their actions. God tells us that he will never ask us to do something that conflicts with His word (the Bible). This is our standard for living and if someone does something that defies God's word it's wrong, regardless of who they attribute it to. (I speak for Christians specifically here, but you can extrapolate to other religions.)
However, I must say that I would be equally worried (and in some cases more so) if an atheist/agnostic said they were or weren't going to do a thing simply because they felt it was right or because it lined up with social norms. The reason is that these things change over time. At least with religion there is text(s) that anyone, even the non-religious, can use to judge our and others' actions. Without such a fixed datum, we too easily go astray, defining and redefining right and wrong based on what's easiest for us.
This opens all sorts of theological worms that are quite easy to get back in the can, provided we all had time and bandwidth to discuss them. I for one do not, so I'll have to leave it at that.
Mike, what do you make of the story of Abraham and the near-sacrifice of Isaac? It seems clear to me that the reader is meant to believe that the experience was real, ruling out delusions. And if we believe in the story it's also clear to me that God fully intended Abraham to believe in his murderous order, up until the point where he revealed his true intent. Had Abraham not displayed a willingness to obey, I think the inference we're supposed to draw is that God would have punished him, or at least not rewarded him. So we have at least one instance where God asked someone to do something that conflicted with an earlier order. If we are to take the Bible seriously, I think that is a big problem for your theory of how to distinguish the schizophrenic and the egomaniacal from real prophets.
I agree with you about the problem of atheists and agnostics vis a vis making moral decisions. As an agnostic myself, I believe that there is no solution to this problem. We can approximate a solution, as modern societies do, through a written code of law; but I think it's healthy to remember that law is and should be distinct from morality. Whether or not one thinks that an absolute, coherent code of morality is possible or desirable depends on what one thinks morality is for; my own answer to both questions is no.
I have always had serious problems with the Abraham-Isaac story. Even in my religious days, it was very troubling to me and frankly, gave me the creeps. There seemed to be no way of interpreting that story that made either Abraham or god come out very well. It was always portrayed as a supreme act of obedience to god but I just could not buy the notion that Abraham's willingness to kill his son was supposed to be a noble act.
I think the harder-to-accept parts of religion are what makes it interesting. I heard a priest do a sermon on just that topic a few months ago. She was talking about the parts of the Bible that say that Christianity is the ONLY way to reach heaven, and how they upset her because everyone in her family is atheist. She concluded that if everything in faith was easy to accept, people wouldn't stay interested and they wouldn't be able to grow. An interesting spin.
I wrote the article below in August 2004. If you Google "Bush and Crappy Christian" it is first!
I've long been perplexed by the ability of certain "Christians" to give Bush a pass for so many unChristlike actions.
His version of Christianity is bizarre and extreme.
It draws more from the Old Testament than the new.
Bush presided over 150 executions - Christian?
If you want to go to "They were guilty" route and say they deserved to die, then how about the thousands of innocents that have died in the war Bush started?
I'm not talking about dead terrorists, I'm talking about the Iraq children, the "collateral damage". You know, those terrorist babies that died in bombing campaigns because of his failed war plans.
Think of the people tortured under the Christian Bush. NOT President Bush. CHRISTIAN Bush. (Hey I wonder if Gonzales, Yoo and Bybee who wrote and approved the torture memos are Christians?)
Think of the actions that you expect from a follower of the words of Jesus Christ.
Now think of the actions of George W. Bush.
Mesh or no Mesh?
I'm not saying that Bush couldn't carry out those actions as a GOVERNER or President. Those are things that legally he might have decided to do. And legally was authorized to do.
But in that case he is putting his role PRESIDENT or Governor first and rejecting the teaching of Jesus Christ as determined by the vast majority of Christians. Yet he plays a game when convenient "I'm a good Christian" And then by claiming that it is GOD that is talking to him he kicks Jesus out of the picture. The question we have to raise is "WHICH GOD IS TALKING TO HIM?" The God that Jesus Christ talks about or some other guy that is hot to get us to Rapture City?
It makes a difference. But Christians that let him slide on his war mongering and pre-empetive strike ways just because he is on their side on the Abortion issue have been sold a bill of goods. And it pisses me off.
Here is what I wrote about Bush and Christianity 2004
George W. Bush: Crappy Christian
How can Christians support George W. Bush?
What Christ like thing has he done?
When he talks about god, it is an Old Testament god he invokes. Not the New Testament God of love and understanding. The God who loves us like a father loves his children. The God Jesus talks about doesn't seek revenge, lie, kill, and steal from the poor to give to the rich.
I'd like to hear Christians support what George Bush does without evoking the Old Testament. I'd like them to pull quotes from the bible that were not put there by the early church trying to win converts. No fair using Paul quotes either. Where do we see George Bush as a Christian in the story of the Good Samaritan? The prodigal son? The Sermon on the Mount?
That Christians support him shows me just how far off the Christian faith has come from what Jesus teaches. Frankly, I can not see how Bush could ever call for the death of a single human and still call himself a real Christian.
He is a Christian in only the hollowest way, never really following the teaching of Christ, just using accepting Christ as his personal savior as his Get out of Hell free card. A gift with no obligations, like all the other gifts he has received all his life.
Christ asked his followers to do radical stuff. And those acts don't involve killing innocents, or even killing your enemy. How dare he call himself a Christian! He is the blood-thirsty Roman Emperor calling for the death of his enemy simply to please his court and satisfy his feeling of weakness.
http://s88172659.onlinehome.us/2004/08/george-w-bush-crappy-christian.html
Erin,
I'm not sure why you think that God would have punished or not rewarded Abraham had he not obeyed. In the text He does not say, "Do this or else," nor does he say, "If you do this I'll..." True, God did reward Abraham for obeying Him, but Abraham did not know that prior to the event. At no point does God threaten or promise anything and frankly it sounds like Abraham could have just said no and slept late. Had he done so and God punished him for it, then yes, we would have a seemingly contradictory God.
But it should be noted that God did not even require Abraham to complete the task. God's command was seemingly contradictary - except that He stayed Abraham's hand; the willingness to do so was the whole point. In fact, we read in the text that Abraham himself seemed to believe that, even though God had told him to do this difficult thing, God would still allow his son to survive.
So the short answer to your query is that it is easy for us all to want a God who is not much more than a mentor, answering prayers and providing comfort when needed, but otherwise staying out of our way. But in truth, God does expect things from us. He is not the hip-to-the-jive, cynical or disinterested god that we are presented in movies of the week and He may at times require things of us that we are afraid or unwilling to give. But if we are willing to do so and put aside our fears, as Abraham did, we may find that God has a plan for us far better than our own.
Which brings us to the long, more complete and much more interesting answer: that this is not just a story of a faith tested. The story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the Bible's first heraldings of a savior, an innocent sacrifice made for us all. One way to read this story is to say to ourselves, "If it were difficult for Abraham to sacrifice His own child, how difficult was it for God to sacrifice his own Son, Jesus, when he didn't have to? How great therefore was the sacrifice that He made but did not require from Abraham?" The death of Jesus was a difficult, frightening, terrible thing for God to have to do. But it was part of His plan for us, and He made that sacrifice so that we didn't have to.
A more complete response can be found here: http://www.bibletoday.co.uk/gen22.htm
spocko,
I'm afraid I don't have time to respond point for point, though I wish to very much. In these times it is quite difficult to have a true debate about this war or this presidency, which is why I stay out of them. I don't wish to accuse you of not being open minded, but too many discussions that begin like this tend to end in vitriol and invective. I do wish to make one point though...
I remember seeing protesters of the war holding signs saying, "Who would Jesus bomb?" The implication being that Jesus was a pacifist who would never raise His hand in anger much less start a war.
There's just one problem with this: Jesus was not a pacifist, at least not the kind we think of.
Take a look sometime at John 2:14-16. This is a story of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple. Note that He did not petition His representative; He did not go door to door to get signatures on a petition; He did not organize a protest; He did not take opinion polls. He _drove_ them out. This is an old school way of saying He knocked some heads (does anyone think the money changers simply got up and left?).
The fact is that Jesus, and by extension God, will not sit back and watch while evil has its way in our lives. And God expects the same from us. This does _not_ mean that any war (or any other act for that matter) in the name of God is just. But neither does it mean that God wants us to sit back and do nothing just because doing something means fighting and dying.
Mike, I'm afraid that your interpretation misses something crucial, and that is the fact that knowledge unfolds through time. You have stated that one crucial test of whether a person is a madman or a prophet is this: does his report of God's words conflict with God's other commands? Say I'm living with Abraham at time t and I hear (somehow) that God has told him to kill Isaac. I do not know that God will stay his hand at time t+e, and neither does Abraham. Does this mean that I should assume that Abraham is either crazy or lying? And what should Abraham think? If he were using your rubric to judge himself, he'd have to tell "God" to shove off and then ask his healer for some old-school antipsychotics or at least a stiff drink. And yet it is clear from the text that God was pleased when Abraham was willing to ignore the old rules in favor of the (false) new ones, so it appears to me that unless God believes us all to be clairvoyant and able to predict things like the staying of the hand, he actually prefers that we not use the rubric that you suggest. Because when we're judging madmen and prophets now, we don't get to know whether God's eventually going to tell them, "Psych! I was just playin'!"