I found a pretty articulate rendition of the case for relativism in Scott Adam’s “Dilbert Blog“. (Caution: He uses dirty words.) Scott feels strongly that free will is a myth and talks about it often. In this post, he (perhaps unintentionally) ties his crusade to defeat the free will myth to his Liberal relativism.

If you think about it, wars are generally fought because of a false sense of certainty. Usually some leader thinks he is a God, or talks to God, or descended from the Gods, or thinks God gave his people some particular piece of real estate. The leader’s opinion is the most certain in the land. People flock to certainty and adopt the certainty as their own. The next thing you know, stuff is blowing up.

That’s certainly true, and I don’t deny it. (Liberals are not stupid. I just don’t agree with their solution to the obvious problem.)

You can take any major problem in the world and identify a key culprit who has more certainty than he or she should. For example, Osama Bin Laden is certain that Allah exists, and he’s certain that humans can know what an omnipotent being wants us to do. That hasn’t worked out well for anyone.

How about the problem of discrimination? The root cause is a bigot’s certainty that ethnicity is more important than individual differences. He shouldn’t be so certain. You don’t need to completely change a bigot’s mind to cure discrimination; it would be a huge step to make him doubt he can accurately judge people by their ethnicity.

Ooh! He even used the bigotry concept from my big Liberalism post. He’s putting himself neatly into the Liberal mold.

Again, I agree that making disparaging assumptions about a person because of how they look is a dangerous thing. But I believe even Mr. Adams would agree that, when used intelligently (with discrimination) that sometimes you can, in all correctness, call a spade a spade.

There aren’t many ideas that have the potential to change the world. But the idea that we have no free will has to be on the short list. Once you accept free will as an illusion, it necessarily makes you wonder how certain you are about the rest of your reality. When you lose your own irrational sense of certainty, you are less likely to discriminate, to judge, and to believe a lunatic leader who tells you he’s certain.

Did you catch that? “Your own irrational sense of certainty.” So anyone who is certain about anything is irrational? Even when you are certain that there is no free will? See, he starts off in the right direction (i.e. question authority, question your own assumptions, question your faith), but then he suddenly makes a sharp left turn and assumes that any “certainty” (in other words, any absolute truth) is irrational.

I know, I’m reading into it and putting words into his mouth, straw man, blah blah blah. But the foundation is there. The basic, flawed reasoning underpins nearly everything Adams writes. I love his comic strip. I enjoy his blog. But I disagree with his underlying belief. I agree with the observations, but I disagree with the hypothesis.

The reason Bin Laden is bad is not because he his certain of his beliefs. It’s because his beliefs are wrong. Dogma is not in and of itself evil. You have to look at what the dogma is based on. You have to investigate. A Liberal would say that faith in anything is irrational. I say that blind faith is irrational, but faith is necessary.

You must be willing to inspect your faith. Be willing to test it. The Bible teaches us to be sure of what we believe. That is, don’t just believe. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The Bible says there will be false teachers and because of that, you have to question the authority of any teacher. On this point, Adams and I come a bit closer to agreement.

You can introduce some doubt into your life and still keep your religious faith, morality, and all of the social and psychological benefits you always enjoyed. Faith would be meaningless without a pinch of doubt to give it context. In particular, it would be helpful to doubt that your religious leaders know the mind of God. A little bit of doubt can be a healthy thing.

For a relativist, it is unconscionable to tell someone else, especially someone from a different culture, that they are wrong. Therefore, “multiculturalism” is rampant in Europe, where relativism is god.

Multiculturalism is a sad attempt to treat people delicately and not offend their cultural beliefs. (As long as those beliefs are not Christian. Nobody cares about offending them.) So German courts render verdicts differently for Muslims than for … Infidels?

Rather than jail a man for beating his wife, the German court won’t even grant her a divorce “[b]ecause the woman, as a Muslim, should have ‘expected’ it, the judge explained.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is relativism.

Sinfully stolen from Randy.

Compete article.

I like simple. Simple is good. I like to take complex things and make them simple. I like analogies and metaphors that make complex ideas easy to understand. Most of all, I like to take complex arguments and wash off all the mud and blood and discover the simple, basic, easy-to-understand foundation behind the argument.

That’s what this post is about. Forget about tax strategies. Forget about the war in Iraq. Forget about evolution or abortion or global warming. Let’s get simple. What is the simple foundation of modern liberalism (or Liberalism with a big L)?

I strongly recommend that everyone should watch this video, no matter what your political alignment or religious affiliation (or lack thereof). It’s long (about 30 minutes if you skip the Q&A session at the end) and, because it’s on YouTube, it will take a while to load (I recommend you open it, hit pause, and minimize the window for about 10 minutes before you try to watch it.) but I think it is something everyone should see.

You may not agree with the guy. In fact, you may get pretty angry the longer it goes on, but what he says should at least make you think about (simply) what it means to be liberal and, more importantly, why you are or are not liberal.

Clicky: “How Modern Liberals Think”

Now, if you’re busy like me, I’ll break it down for you, but I still recommend watching the video when you have time.

Liberalism (with a big L) is founded on one simple thesis: Nondiscrimination.

For me to discriminate, I am employing my past knowledge, my up-bringing, my environment, etc. to discern what is “right” and what is “wrong”. This, at its foundation, is bigotry. No one can establish what is “right” because the only way you know what is right is to base it on your personal experience, your personal bigotry. I’ve always called this relativism, but we’ll stick with his terms.

Here’s the extrapolation of this idea that makes it appeal to so many intelligent people:
The attempt to be “right” is the core cause of all that is wrong.
If you don’t insist on being “right” there’s nothing to disagree about.
If you don’t disagree, you don’t fight.
If you don’t fight, there’s no war.
If there’s no war, there’s no poverty.
If there’s no poverty, there’s no crime.
If there’s no crime, there’s no injustice.
Thus any absolute (moral or otherwise) must be to blame for all the hate, war, poverty, crime and injustice in the world.

If you insist that there can be no absolutes (absolutely) then you require me to consciously ignore what I know to be true (because there is no truth). I must allow myself to believe that an 80 year old, white woman is equally likely to blow up an airplane as are six Imams who are shouting, “Allah Akbar” as they hand in their boarding passes. By questioning the Imam, I am discriminating (by definition, making a choice based on some absolute).

The next pitfall in the Liberalism thesis is the assumption that if “right” causes wrong, then wrong must be caused by “right”. Remember that absolutes lead to injustice, therefore any injustice must have been caused by an absolute. If A is rich and B is poor (injustice) then A must have done something evil at B’s expense to become rich. B is poor because B is a victim of A’s evil wealth hoarding. This ignores the fact that A worked hard for ten years to succeed and B spent ten years living on welfare and doing nothing. You must ignore those “facts” because facts imply discrimination. The only solution is to take A’s money and give it to B; equalize; level the field. A rational mind quickly sees that this is actually punishing hard work and rewarding laziness. But again, “rational” means discriminatory.

That was an awfully long post considering I started out talking about being simple, and I didn’t do nearly as good a job as the speaker in the video. I’m sorry. You’re right, which means I’m wrong. And if you think I’m wrong, I’m okay with that because at least in implies that you believe in right and wrong, so your not a relativist.

…why I’m not a big fan of RINO Giuliani, aside from the fact that he’s in favor of gun control, he’s also pro-abortion and supports tax-funded abortion.

Clicky clicky.

I’m puzzled why so many conservatives like Rudy so much. 9-11 made him a rock star, but it didn’t change his politics. I still don’t have a favorite candidate, but I’m very interested in learning more about Fred Thompson.

The U.S. Supreme court ruled today that the ban against “partial birth abortion” passed by congress in 2003 is constitutional and the law stands. This is only the first step on the long road to saving millions of lives thrown away in this country.

Less that 10% of the abortions performed will be effected by the law. “Partial birth” is only used in late term abortions (when many of the babies could survive outside the womb, if given the chance).

There have been over a million abortions a year performed in the U.S. for the last thirty years or so. Over thirty million lives tossed out with yesterday’s paper because they were an inconvenience. We have a long way to go to stomp out legalized infanticide, but today, we made a step in the right direction.

Please send all hate-mail to my email address (darkmanwork@hotmail.com) where it will be conveniently filtered and thrown away before I see it… kind of like an unwanted child.

I was just thinking about all the reasons I don’t want to see Rudy Giuliani as the next president, and I had an epiphany.

Gun control stops gun crime the same way speed limits stop high-speed police chases.

On a related note, I got this delicious quote from a link of a link (It’s a good read if you’ve got time.):

[Al Gore] got C’s in Yale in political science — a type of science — and is angry at the world not submitting unquestioningly to his wisdom [on the “science” of global warming].

I like George W. Bush. Hate me if you want. I don’t care. That’s the very reason I like him. I like a guy who makes a stand and sticks to it, even when people start throwing tomatoes at him because of it.

It’s called integrity and conviction. I believe what I believe, I know why I believe it, and unless you can show me overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I’m not moving from my position. I live my life that way, and so does Gee Dub.

As a stark counter-point, I offer the good Senator John McCain, captain of the U.S.S. Rino (Republicans In Name Only). Yes, he was a POW in ‘Nam. Kudos and all due respect. But that doesn’t excuse limp-wristed, liberal-minded kowtowing. (See also John Kerry, et al.)

McCain made his big announcement (He’s running for president… duh.) on David Letterman. (Seriously? That’s your target audience, John?) While there, bowing to Dave’s liberal slant, McCain said that the lives lost in Iraq were a waste. That’s a big no-no. And the Dems called him on it. So, less than 24 hours later, he apologized for the comment. See what I mean? I want a president who says what he means and means what he says (even if he has to invent a few words to do it). Strategery!!

In the service of bloggers everywhere, I am coining a new phrase to describe the comment-apology method used by so many politicians to placate both sides of an argument. The term is “Donkey Dance”. The next time you see someone passionately apologizing for their previous passionate statements, just mentally dub in the sound of an ass baying. “Heehaw heehaw!”

What’s most humorous about McCain’s donkey dance is that it was in direct response to the Democrats who’s only reason for inviting him to the dance was that Obama was forced to do the donkey dance for a similar comment. Are you kidding me?!

“We think Sen. McCain should apologize immediately,” said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee. “Sen. Obama apologized. He immediately saw his error,” she said.

So not only did McCain join the dance, the primary reason for it was to appease the democrats who *love* to do the donkey dance, but don’t like to dance alone. Give me a break.

I’d nearly forgotten about my new poll feature! So, let me know how you really feel.

Let me be the first to wish you all a satisfactory non-denominational, capitalist, winter-time, gift-giving season.

Once again, there is a lot of hubbub over whether or not retailers use “Christmas” in their marketing. Last year the pendulum seemed to hit the far left and was pushed back to the right. “Holiday Trees”? Seriously, that’s just dumb. But a few Christian organizations continue to push this year. Is it really necessary?

You guys know that I’m pretty far out on the “Religious Right” end of spectrum, but I like to think that I can still use my head and be reasonable. I’m on the mailing list of the American Family Association. They’re about as for right as you can get and sometimes, they go farther than I am willing to follow. Today the AFA invited me to vote in a poll, “Would you be willing to boycott stores which refuse to allow the word “Christmas” to be displayed?” I voted “No.”

I am willing to boycott companies, but there has to be a very solid reason and I need to see evidence from more than one source. I prefer to avoid Wal-Mart because I believe that their business practices are damaging to the economy and empowering China. I will not buy any Ford products because Ford is currently spending millions to further the homosexual agenda. (Yes, I own a Ford that I bought used, ten years ago. But Ford makes no money off of me. I buy after-market parts and never go to a Ford mechanic.)

But what about “Holiday” retailers? Well, honestly, this is the holiday season. Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years are all part of the holiday shopping season. Yes, most of our money goes toward Christmas gifts, but what about Hanukah (or Hanukkah, or Chanukah, or Ckhanukhkhahh or how ever you spell it.) It’s a valid, gift-giving, religious holiday. What about Ramadan? What about the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe? What about Eat A Red Apple Day or Ice Cream and Violins Day or National Chocolate Covered Anything Day? (Seriously.)

I’m not trying to belittle Christmas. But if a corporation does not market itself as a Christian organization, then why would you expect it to single out a Christian holiday?

Some would say that these companies make a fortune off of Christmas gift sales. True. And if you don’t like that, then quit spending so much on Christmas gifts! Tell your kids they’re not getting Molest-Me Elmo or the Nintendo PeePee for Christmas. Instead they’re going to spend Christmas serving food at a homeless shelter or playing dominos at a nursing home. That’ll show those anti-Christmas, capitalist jerks.

As for me, I love Christmas and I enjoy being a capitalist. But I’m still not buying a Nintendo PeePee.

As we prepare for “tax time”, I offer you a parable on economics.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth pays $1.
The sixth pays $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day, and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being “paid” to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. “But he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

According to Snopes, this parable has been told and retold so many times, no one knows who the original author is. So as of now, I’m taking credit for it! And if you want to copy it, just send me $1000. *evil grin*