Now, imagine that it’s time for me to go buy a new vehicle, and me being the type of guy that I am, would eventually find myself at the nearest car lot, looking for a truck of some sort.
What exactly would be the “best” kind of truck to buy?
Well, supposing I had my girlfriend with me, she may point to the bright, shiny red truck in the corner, and exclaim, “That is the best one!” (I’d certainly be inclined to agree with her, since any women I date would undoubtedly be perfect, especially in her aesthetic appreciation of the color red.)
But, my dad would possibly chime in at that point. “No son, that truck is way too expensive. The best one to get is that little gray one over in the other corner.” Obviously I’d probably disagree with him initially, and only realize months later the error of any contrary choice I may make.
That’s when my buddy joins the conversation. “Hey, you need to get that BIG one there in the middle with the GMC Twin six V12 engine, pulling 630 ft lbs of torque!”Alright, now, I know what you’re thinking…..
What is his girlfriend wearing? (Am I right? Am I right?)
If your mind wasn’t in the gutter, and you’re one of the more discerning individuals reading this, then you may be wondering, how we might come to some sort of an agreement about the definition of “best” in the above illustration.
Or maybe, if you weren’t thinking either of those two things, perhaps you’re wondering what ANY of this has to do with Ron Paul?
I would love to answer the question, as well as resolve the apparent dilemma in the above illustration, but there is just one little problem. Given the relativistic view of reality that many in this country have today, I cannot be sure which question it would be “best” to answer!
Uh Oh!
Now, the four of us, my father, my girlfriend, my buddy, and myself, would no doubt, end up fighting among ourselves as to which truck was the “best” truck, knowing all the while, that we are seeking to come to a conclusion. We are trying to decide which truck I “ought” to buy!
Notice that the phrase, “He ought to buy THAT truck,” is a truth claim.
It is either true, or false, that I should buy THAT particular truck, (whichever truck we end up deciding on.)
But, consider now, the relativism of this country that is so popular at the moment. Since the definition of “best” would, to the relativist, be considered a completely arbitrary notion on the part of the individual doing the defining, then, so to is the result of that definition; the truth claim, “He ought to buy THAT truck” completely dependant on the arbitrary whim of the individual.
Given the above, we can see how, far from being an innocent theory, metaphysical relativism is a nasty little worldview, which says, “truth is dependant on the arbitrary whim of the individual!” If that is true, and reality is dependant on the individual, then, truth itself varies from person to person.
If truth is different from person to person, then the relativist cannot SAY that reality is relative to the individual, without making a truth claim that would apply to ALL individuals, but, you see, then, he would refute his own relativism!
So this idea of relativism cannot work, since the only way you can hold to an idea of relativistic truth is by contradicting the idea of relativistic truth!
Well shucks. Where does that leave the relativist? If you, like me, are a Christian, then you will most likely predict that the relativist will suppress the truth of God with a lie, (Romans 1:18) and try to make his relativism work, contradictions and all!
Suppose in the above illustration, my girlfriend, my dad, and my buddy, all decide (in one way or another) on a proper definition of the term “best” but it turns out to be a definition that I do not agree with! Now, since I’m mooching off my parents, my dad has a vested financial interest in my choice and wants to make sure I only buy the truck that HE says is the best, (with the agreement of the others.)
What would a group of three relativist do in that situation? Well, the three of them, obviously should overpower me, tie me up, and throw me in the back of whatever truck they decided was “best” and haul my butt back home!
You see, given the truth of relativism, the only valid appeal of your particular truth is an appeal to force.
This entire analogy can easily translate to the modern secularist view of a democratic state. Tyranny remains tyranny whether it be administered by a man, or by a majority of men!
The (inconsistent) solution to this problem suggested by the more freedom loving relativists, is to posit some form of standard that is able to be agreed upon by most, if not all of society, and then stick to this standard! They realize that without this standard, then a democratic society will be buffeted around by the fickle whims of an ever changing majority, and individual freedom will ultimately suffer for it!
Well, don’t that beat all? It seems that, the relativist realizes on the one hand that his relativism is contrary to the objective truth posited by the Christian worldview, but, on the other hand realizes that some sort of objective truth is necessary for freedom! 2 Corinthians 3:17 anyone?
It just so happens that our constitution provides the relativist with such an objective standard!
There also happens to be a candidate who has a philosophical agreement that, for freedom to exist, we must necessarily hold to some higher standard than the whim of the autonomous majority! His standard? The Constitution, (a system of government founded on a Christian ethical worldview, and hence claims objectivity in its moral precepts.) His desire? To reject the idea of rule by majority, and accept the idea of rule by objective authority. His name? Ron Paul!Conservative candidates believe, that if they can win the majority, then they can utilize their conservative principals to save America from her problems. The Liberal candidates believe the same thing, (only with higher taxes and an endorsement from the Dave Matthews Band.) Both parties believe that it is their own principals which should be adhered to in order to best serve the nation. In that respect, both parties have the exact same philosophical outlook towards ethics, and this is, that their own personal standards are the arbitrators of truth, and should be enacted by force of a majority.
Thank God for Dr. Ron Paul who realizes the tyranny that such philosophies will lead to. He’s someone both freedom loving Christians, and, (all be it inconsistently) freedom loving relativists can really “get behind.”
So, pull out your “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, waive them high, and if you’re a relativist, procl.. “Even though it is illogical for me to support you Dr. Paul, I still, despite my relativism, and the noetic effects of sin on my reasoning process, realize the tyrannical results of a subjective ethical system, and desire to hold to the objective standard of morality articulated by the founding fathers of this nation!”
If you’re a Christian, just say: Amen!
(Oh, and ladies, in case you’re wondering, that was a hypothetical girlfriend in my illustration, I’m really single. Wink wink… nod nod…)
