Thanks for the insights on quantum mechanics – interesting.

I agree with most of what you say.

I do have one quibble though. Libertarians don’t believe that their are no consequences. They believe that people should be allowed to suffer any and all consequences good and hard – without help from the government. Of course, their argument falls down because in many (most?) instances, the consequences also bounce to innocents, such as children of the people who are suffering the consequences.

That’s a good reason not to be a libertarian. But you shouldn’t misrepresent their opinion.

I have a point of agreement as well. When I was in college (small state school 25 years ago), I had a friend who was taking a course in philosophy. I was an engineering major and generally spared such punishment.

My friend was taught that “There are no absolutes” as a given fact. They argued about it, but the “teacher wins”, as they say. When test time came, the professor had a question on the test which said “Name an Absolute.”. The only acceptable answer was – “There are none”.

My friend didn’t agree with the professor so he wrote: “I exist.”. For this, my friend maintained his integrity and a lower GPA than he would have otherwise. And my friend wasn’t even a Christian.

According to my friend, the whole justification in the class for the supposition “There are no absolutes” was driven by an understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Nothing is knowable at the atomic level (supposedly), so nothing is knowable at the macro level either. I’m paraphrasing, but I think its pretty close.

It turns out that Quantum Mechanics may not be true though. Quantum Mechanics was invented because physicists couldn’t reconcile certain known behaviours of protons and electrons with Maxwell’s Equations. So they invented Quantum Mechanics to explain electron and proton behaviour.

Now a physicist claims to have found a way to apply Maxwell’s Equations to get consistent predictions with known atomic behaviour. If he’s correct, the floor falls out of Quantum Mechanics, and also falls out of the “There are no Absolutes”. Not that the modern philosophy professor would notice, of course. They will continue to float in space somehow.

You have no time to read this, but here is the link to the book on the disagreement over quantum mechanics from Randell L Mills:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml

James

Perhaps I did beat the fellow up a bit too much, but I was using his comment as a jump-off point to discuss the irrationality of those who deny absolutes. I am not sure if he is from the left or the right, or possibly just from the ozone; while those on the left would probably deny that government should be coercive, they certainly act consistent with that philosophy.

And whether he is from the left, or a libertarian, is somewhat academic: leftists believe there should be no restriction on individual behavior, and government should take care of the consequences; libertarians believe there should be no restriction on individual behavior, and that there are no consequences.

The existence of absolutes of course does not eliminate the problem of coercion. In fact, the combination of belief in religious absolutes and coercion are quite a toxic mix. When our secular friends on the left get a bit hysterical about “theocracy”, they are — legitimately to a point — concerned about the coercive use of religion. This comes in part, I believe, because in their world the use of coercion through heavy-handed government, social harassment through enforced multiculturalism and politically correct strictures on speech, comes as second nature.

There are, I believe, two strains of religious thought. In the first, the deity has established certain absolutes — rules of the universe, if you will — and through threat of punishment or rejection coerces his creation to their enforcement. This may occur directly, but more often through those identified as his proxies: witness Islamic fundamentalism, with its head-chopping, stoning, and hanging of moral miscreants. In fact, most religion operates under what would properly be called law, which is fundamentally a system based on fear of punishment and legal coercion.

The other primary strain of religious thought resides in Christianity, properly understood, and to lesser degree in Judaism, and that is the concept of grace. God sets forth absolute standards which we must follow to be pleasing to him (intended as well to be for our best) — but because of our fallen nature (an inborn rebelliousness), we are unable to come anywhere near this goal. Seeing this moral impotence, God acts in grace through Christ (in Christianity, of course) by making a radical inner transformation in the person who chooses to trust God and submit to Him. This transformation begins a process of change motivated not by fear of punishment, but by a newly implanted desire to do what is right, placed within the heart and spirit of the trusting man. Therefore, rather than trying to achieve goodness (that is, conformity to an absolute good standard) through fear or coercion, we rather begin to transform toward absolute goodness, albeit slowly and erratically, by desiring to do so, acting out of love and gratitude, rather than by fear.

The price to others is not to be considered, since their very existence is relative at best and unprovable at the end.

The result of this logical, demented and evil thought matrix is the sewer known as western secular society.

Pity the savages, and pray for their minds and souls.