The New Alignment

There is a certain urgency about the Trump Presidency that has forced many a denizen of the West to question the direction that the civilization has been moving. As a classical liberal I have entertained these thoughts for some time.

While I celebrated the collapse of Soviet style Marxist-Leninism in the early 1990s I was not convinced that the finality of the great struggle between the powers as envisioned in Francis Fukuyama’s work The End of History and the Last Man (1992), was about to dawn . Samuel Huntington’s  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1993) made more of an impression then and I believe that it looms even larger now.

Now Huntington himself was not a Republican.  During the Carter Administration he served in a coordinating capacity at the National Security Council and for more than half a century he played an integral role on the Harvard Faculty where he headed the Center for International Affairs. At one time he was a speech writer for Adlai Stevenson.

 His understanding of foreign affairs has almost a prophetic feel to it. Huntington argued that the pivotal clash defining the near future would be a series of confrontations between specific civilizations. These civilizations share very powerful cultural values, historical connections and in group similarities that set them apart from each other thereby transcending both economics and political constraints (and in many cases superficialities).

Huntington delineated several civilizations that he aptly named the West, Orthodoxy, Buddhist, Confucian, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Muslim and Hindu. He also identified some cleft countries that were split between various civilizations such as Nigeria and Sri Lanka, as well as ‘standalones’ like Japan.  Most civilizations gravitate toward a nexus of power - China in the case of Confucian, Russia with respect to Orthodoxy and India in the Hindu context.

In defining the West Huntington grouped together the United States, Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia and Oceania. While most of the nation states draw somewhat from a Christian (Catholic-Protestant) moral core they have incorporated within their  framework a universalism (certainly evident in the elite) that at its root sees a world that would be all the better if others adopted enlightenment driven western values.

Standing in opposition to the West is the Muslim world of the Middle East, Northern/Western Africa, Albania, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Maldives, Comoros, Brunei and Malaysia (as defined by Huntington). Many of these states are gripped by an Islamic resurgence that is hostile to Western Civilization and sees itself as a viable alternative worldview.

Strife and conflict would be inevitable and indeed in the post 911 world Huntington’s view carries some weight. However this is not the only fault line as we have seen with Russia and China reinvigorating themselves globally and India likely to follow suit making the Hindu claim at least on an economic level. In a further analysis Huntington even identified a civilization clash point in the United States with the inflow of Latin American immigrants into the nation (his solution a slow down followed by assimilation).

Huntington was invariably challenged on his model. Both the far left and free trade liberals criticized him for downgrading the role of economics (for different reasons of course) and playing to the vestiges of a worldview that had been swept aside by the ideological struggle of the Cold War. Others accused him of minimizing the nationalist (and religious) splits within the civilizations that he outlined. His view certainly stood in contrast to Fukuyama’s belief in a triumphant Western liberalism, let alone Karl Marx’s stance of a Hegelian march towards Communism. Huntington though was resolute in defending his paradigm and constantly warned optimists about the folly of believing that the path of history was fixed along their specific ‘utopic’ trajectory.

Reflecting on Huntington I see him in a slightly different light that makes him ever more relevant today. He articulated the reality that Particularlism would not be discarded and indeed would live to define a future that was already in the making (at the time of his writing the Balkan conflict was in full swing). International universalism could not celebrate and would have to put the champagne on hold for a while. From a Western perspective this would come to haunt our civilization as it had the most to lose from a resetting of a world order.  Demographic imbalance would speed up this transition.

Civilization Theory to some extent is what drives Trumpism. It is a reinvention of the defencse of Western Civilization (albeit more American focused) against the other. It is a reaction to the failed Internationalism of the Bush presidencies, the Clinton Administration and its obvious fall from grace under Obama. What drives Trumpism is a need to reverse decline.  On one level it represents the Huntington view reasserting itself against the consensus of the Fukuyama outlook. All the key tropes of Trump – The Wall, Trade Protection, Non-Intervention, ‘Make America Great’ are consistent with such a philosophy that has identified the threat and is acting with deliberate intent. Protecting the civilization is key.

Brexit and other Anti-EU sentiments sweeping across the European continent are a further illustration of the Civilization impulse rejecting the perceived false messiah of Internationalism. It carries with it a defense of culture that sees survival in a return to republic and away from the promises of an amorphous empire centered on platitudes.

In a sense it has replaced once ossified left versus right divide with a dichotomy of Civilization opposing Internationalism that seems to cut across class lines and will in all likelihood emerge in the forefront of policy across the West. The change may appear to have been sudden but the potential was always there. What was needed was time and the right combination of events to catalyze the realignment. It appears to have already happened.

Are neoconservatism and neoliberalism the same thing?

Neoliberalism is more of an economic philosophy driven by laissez-faire economics, deregulation, free trade and a reduction in government spending.

Neoconservativism often include neoliberal principles in its worldview but is more focused on an foreign relations, promotion of democratic ideals and necessary action to spread such ideals. Some of the basic ideas of Neoconservatism are outlined in this list of statement from the Henry Jackson society.

The Society Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.

1. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means—to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.
2. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing.
3. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernization and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO
4. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, among many others.
5. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.
6. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.
7. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack.

Quora Questions #2

Can Democrats overcome Electoral College outcomes by a policy of relocating liberals to non-liberal states?

I think Sarah Silverman tried to do this with a tongue-in-cheek invitation to Jewish grandparents to head to Florida. Could it work on as broader level? Unlikely. The amount of organization needed would be daunting and Republicans could counter with a population transfer move of their own. However what concerns me is that you appear to be looking at human beings as cattle - various dictators have tried such approaches - but would you really want to live in a country governed by a Party who sees such a hideous approach as a way of maintaining and winning power?

Will new discoveries make humanity have to rewrite the science model?

If phenomena occur that do exhaust all reasonable explanations then by necessity our paradigms would have to shift. However at present there is no evidence (or reason) to indicate why they should.

Why many people in the world are set believe in political liberation instead of economic liberation?

Political Liberation has a romantic appeal than economic liberation doesn’t have. Also Political Liberation is also viewed by some as the overriding vehicle through which economic liberation will happen anyway - hence the appeal of Dialectic Materialism

Are we witnessing the death of the EU and European cooperation?

No but there may be a need to reorganize how the EU is managed and what the function of the Brussels elite is. The grouping may need to decentralize and and allow the individual countries to have a greater say on specific trade deals, immigration and regulation.

Is conservatism rising in Europe?

Right wing populism is on the rise and much of it may becoming at the expense of traditional conservatism and center left liberalism. Most of this is a reaction to the apparent weakness of globalization, the rise of Islamism and the inability of the political center to provide a vision that can navigate past the obvious decline in the continent’s international standing.

I know many liberals are asked to reexamine their politics to be more understanding of conservatives, do conservatives attempt to understand liberals?

Yes we do. Speaking of myself of course. I have changed my position on gay marriage for one as well as public education after a more thorough look at the issues that included an assessment of the liberal viewpoint. However I still find the general liberal positions on some of the bigger issues (civilization decline, foreign policy, race relations, economics) to be unsubstantial despite immersing myself daily with an equal feeding of source material from both sides of the political equation.

Changing positions

I often wonder about people who hold the identical political beliefs at fifty as they did at seventeen.Did they figure it all out at the young age or are they simply immune from self-reflection? There are other explanations but it seems as though the flow of history would necessitate shifts from certain positions (even if they are somewhat ossified). The shifts need not be major. Then again I may be underestimating the strength of inertia

Religion v Cults

Its still not easy to draw the fine line between some religious denominations and cults other than numbers, historical acceptance and longevity. However there seems as though there should be more than this - How about an obsession with converts, the intimidation of those who have left the cult/religion and the irrationality of the worldview? While all three adjuncts need not be met it does appear that if all the boxes are easily ticked off one ought to be concerned.

Quora Questions #1

Is it possible that there are physics that we will never discover because our limited biological senses?

Answer - Not so much biological senses as we can build better equipment to increase the range but there are likely order of magnitude restrictions as we approach the extremes of the micro and macro world - Planck Time and Planck Length for example. We are already aware of the various innate limitations associated with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

Why did earlier scientists not guess about the gravitational force?

Many of them knew about it they just talked about it in different terms - such as a natural attractor. Newton’s greatest breakthrough in this area was not so much gravity itself but the universal notion of gravity, or his realization that the same force responsible for the terrestrial phenomena acts as well in the celestial sphere and is key to our understanding of planetary/lunar motion.

If the Philosophers' Football Match from Monty Python actually took place, would the Greeks beat the Germans?

No because the Germans cheated and included Beckenbauer in their line up.

The Alt Right

The banter around the political grouping Alt-Right seems to be trending lately largely as a result of its association with Trumpism and more recently Hillary Clinton’s reference to this linkage. But what exactly is the Alt-Right?

I first became aware of the phrase Alt-Right about a year and a half ago and have since learnt much about the streams of ideas that surface in the political sphere that it dominates. What follows is a combination of my observations, realizations and opinions regarding this movement.

1. The Term ‘Alternative Right’ was first coined by the Paleo-Conservative thinker Paul Gottfried about a decade ago. However the derivative Alt-Right is more commonly used on the net. The term Dark Enlightenment is often employed synonymously with the Alt Right (read the work of Nick Land) but many Alt-Righters are not fond of the sinister implications of this designation.
2. Alt-Righters tend to be unified in their opposition to both illegal and in many cases legal immigration (which sets them apart from most conservatives). Many are hostile to liberal democracy in its current form, champion isolationism, oppose free trade and as a whole are guided by a philosophy of a rigidly defined Race Realism that is opposed to miscegenation.
3. Many Alt-Righters are White Nationalists and believe in a shared European identity that needs to be cultivated through education, political activism and ultimately the physical separation of race groups. Ingroup preference, it is argued, is followed by all ‘races’ therefore it should not be wrong if whites act accordingly.
4. The movement is very much driven by the philosophy of decline (as are some Conservatives) but their race based ‘solution’ to this realization sets them apart from mainstream conservative support. For Alt-Righters the rot has set in and Western Civilization as it stands is heading toward an abyss driven by incompetent politicians, feminist shrills (SJWs), political correctness and toxic liberalism.
5. Alt-Righters largely detest mainstream conservatives who they see as sell outs to a liberal establishment and thereby worthy of the crude epitaph cuckservative (a derivative of cuckold and conservative).
6. Leading voices in the Alt-Right include Jared Taylor (of American Renaissance and Richard Spencer (a promoter of the Identitarian Movement) however Alt-Righters are largely decentralized and exert most of their footprint through the internet which has proved to be fertile ground for many of its ‘techsavy’ ground troops.
7. It is incorrect to label Alt-Righters as Neo-Nazis, while some certainly align with this mindset the framework is broad enough that it includes Libertarians, traditionalists, paleo-conservatives and a host of other peripheral positions. It is not a Christian specific grouping and seems from what I have observed to contain many atheists, agnostic theists and European pagans. The commonality being an affection for European Civilization rather than a metaphysical belief system. Oddly enough many Alt-Righters are fairly liberal on social issues such as gay rights and abortion.
8. Alt Righters are very much opposed to Islam however many are not fans of Judaism and in particular the Jewish impact on Western Civilization either. In the mind of many Alt Righters the Jewish elites have supported a policy of liberalism in order to water down establishment based anti-Semitism (a thesis advanced by the controversial academic Kevin MacDonald). The Jew is seen as the internationalist whose ultimate impact on European Civilization is negative (borrowing from Henry Ford). This opinion however is not shared by all Alt-Righters.
9. Since it exists on the periphery the Alt-Right (just like the leftist radicalisms) has attracted more than its fair share of wackos, conspiracy nuts, hatemongers and marginal voices however it has several reflective thinkers who are well versed in philosophy, critical thinking and reasoned argument. Taylor comes across as such an individual as does the rising blogger star Millennial Woes.
10. Alt-Righters tend to support Trump although some have probably come to their positions from various source backgrounds (not necessarily Republican). Most are Millennials or Gen Xers but don’t necessarily hold to the same positions of nostalgia that defines Paleo-Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan.
11. While News Outlet Breitbart does at times articulate the Alt-Right position on some issues - particularly illegal immigration and Islamism - it is not seen as an Alt-Right publication by adherents to the movement.
12. Genetics plays a key role in Alt Right philosophy which views almost all issues through the prism of race as a hereditary construct.
13. While some Alt-Righters are white supremacists many are not preferring to couch their white Nationalism in the same veneer as any other type of nationalism viz. Asian, Black, Italian, Thai etc - That is the focus should be more about the in-group than the other.
14. Many Alt-Righters are anti-capitalist and most are opposed to free trade. In this respect they again differ from Conservatives. In fact on economic issues some of the anti-capitalism drivers are not too distinct from that of the Radical Left.
15. The Alt-Right is not (yet) a significant force in and of itself and would probably vanish into the political ether if it were not for the pro-Dem media and indeed the Clinton’s campaign to exaggerate their association with Trump.

As a Classic Liberal (Modern Day Conservative) I myself take issue with the Alt Right. Their fascination with race is wrong-headed, destructive and ultimately corrosive to Western Civilization. In a sense they are advocating a modern version of Fascism that is utopic in structure and at odds with the fundamental tenets of Burkean Conservatism. I am not convinced that the Alt-Right is even a philosophy of the right but more a mutation of identity politics, pseudo-science and a national socialism. However they do raise some valid points about the collapse of traditional structure within the nation state, top down social engineering and the challenges to our value system brought about by ill-conceived government policy. While I wouldn’t give the movement more credit than they deserve a free and open discussion of some of these ideas (however harsh they are) should be part of our own self-reflection, not necessarily for acceptance but to increase our propensity for informed decision.

On Diversity

Why is it when so many people talk about diversity its almost always diversity of skin colour or sexual preference? More important than that in my opinion is diversity of class or socioeconomic status. However what supersedes them all, and what is very rarely mentioned, is diversity of thought.

JFK on Economics

JFK's greatest success economically was championing a policy of lowering tax rates on average earners. This unfortunately was only realized after his death with the passing of the bipartisan Revenue Act of 1964. His approach was neither that of a strict Keynesian nor that of a supply-sider but hogged the midpoint with the intent of increasing demand via disposable income. It worked. The mid 60's was a Golden Era in US Economic history. Unemployment sat at a low of 3.8 % in 1966. GDP growth was in the 5% range. You are correct Nixon's record is poor but it wasn't all of his doing. The ongoing Vietnam War impacted the Federal budget. It also didn't help that he introduced wage and price controls to curb the inflation that resulted from Johnson's Great Society spending Initiatives.

Logic and Sense Knowledge

I think that logic can be viewed as a type of gradualism that is water tight and invaluable in moving us toward a genuine source of knowledge or truth. However it does appear that there are other mechanisms which use a more punctuated approach, that while not as stringent in its application, and indeed not as gradual, use value judgement acting on sensory information to reach a similar conclusion. Is the latter a type of reason? I too would argue yes. Can it be reduced? Possibly. But perhaps something is lost in doing so. Maybe it functions on a level that bypasses the need for mini-steps, chunking information in bigger bytes to reach its endpoint with a greater efficiency.

On Philosophy

I started my own personal study of philosophy by making sure that I had a strong general overview of the key thinkers before going into any great detail about any one individual specifically. Philosophy is best understood by acquainting oneself with the history of the discipline as many ideas put forward essentially arise out of a critique of an earlier philosophy and build on each other. Hegel's March to Reasons sums up this idea but is not the overriding factor. Avenues of thought can splinter in many directions and these can be difficult to predict. I think that the key point in philosophy is to work with, and in a way, celebrate the idea. Examine thoughts from different angles and avoid the temptation to expect eureka moments at every turn.

The West - A Wake up Call

The West in its present state is weak. Leadership is poor, priorities are wrong and more than anything else most Westerners can't even articulate what our civilization stands for. Jihadism will not bring down the West but the inability to champion our exceptionality and defend the essence of what we have on all fronts will most certainly do. We no longer believe in ourselves and this is tragic.

The Post-Modernist leaderships that dominate most Western Government are partly to blame for fostering such a malaise but so has the culture of guilt and self-flagellation that has worked its way from academia into mainstream society.

While the US –the epicenter of the West - is still ten or fifteen years behind a moribund Europe in this regard but its path has been accelerated by an abysmal Presidency that has to be routinely prodded to recognize evil for what it is and continues advocating for an appeasement of such malignancies. However the opposition has not been much better. While it talks with an air of authority from the other side of the aisle, when in office, it too often succumbs to the lure of a ‘Realpolitik’ that short-changes our values for the sake of political expediency.

It is most obvious that the West is in a demographic death spiral (certainly with respect to birth rates). Entitlement is rampant, education standards are falling, illegal immigration is out of control, and our manufacturing sectors have been gutted by a free trade mania and crony capitalism has shifted power away from the vital middle class to a worthless financial elite that has no loyalty to anyone other than themselves. A fixation with identity politics – both race and gender – has further poisoned the water and encouraged an odious narrative that has proved to be extremely divisive.

Add to this a growing national debt load (19.1 trillion dollars in the US for example and increasing) and the future does not bode well for the next generations. Partisan Hacks will point to declining unemployment numbers when convenient, but these rarely tell the full story and conveniently leave out the growing number of people who have dropped out of the labour market altogether and no longer factor in such statistics. With a weak manufacturing sector and the hypnotic appeal of open border economics this troublesome pattern seems likely to continue.

While we still have the luxury of the circus shows that engulf the lives of so many of us we need to move against apathy and indifference. What is needed is a broad movement centered on the engine of the middle class that cuts across ossified party lines and places at its core the Western values of free speech, rule of law, rationalism, an emphasis on necessary tradition, earned respect, and ultimately self-sufficiency built on a strong work ethic. The People can still take back the nations of the West. In fact not only can they, it is becoming increasingly important that they must.

Obama Doctrine - My take.

There is considerable buzz on the air waves and data world about Jeffrey Goldberg's overview article in The Atlantic concerning the Obama Doctrine (whose exact nature is proving as elusive as the Higgs-Boson particle once was to determine). Goldberg looks at the history of Obama's actions in office and outlines some key points that shed light on the POTUS' way of thinking. Here are a few:


1. Obama has a great affection for Brent Scowcroft - National Security Adviser under George HW Bush - he likes the concept of limit engagement ;

2.He has clashed with Hillary Clinton, Chuck Hagel and John Kerry repeatedly on the use of force in Syria - Kerry prefers a tougher approach;

3. Does not view the Middle East as a significant region in general;

4. Is obsessed with avoiding the same pitfalls that impacted the Presidency of George W. Bush;

5. Believes that any extended involvement in the Middle East by the US is likely to be problematic and cost lives with limited likelihood of success;

6.Sees the US as an internationalist force that should be more concerned with existentialist threats such as Climate Change;

7. Although he chose Samantha Power to be the American Ambassador to the UN he is not sold entirely on the 'Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect' that is the mainstay of her political ethos;

8. The pullback from the Red Line decision in Syria (2013) was largely motivated by a fear of pushing the US into a protracted war that would cost more lives.

9. He champions the idea of Drone Strikes (as do Republicans such as John Bolton) which in a way reflect the limited engagement philosophy;


Missing from the whole Goldberg analysis (perhaps conveniently) was the Libyan invasion affair that may have bearing on several of these points.


As someone who takes issue with Obama's position on Iran, his handling of Arab-Israeli issues and his relativistic posturing regarding the identification of the Islamist threat domestically, I find myself in unusual agreement with the President on Syria. I think he is correct to avoid a deeper involvement in this troubled country especially in a Civil War that has the potential to cost so many American lives. There is no positive force here and the optimum approach would be for the US to keep funding the Free Syrian Army as the lesser of the evils.On one level this seems harsh but in the context of the greater good of the US makes much complete sense.


However, what Obama needed to do (and may still have time) was communicate this resolve more efficiently. The populace need to be allayed of the fear that the US is in decline. The Pentagon has the ability to act with great efficacy and can as the Drone Strikes have shown eliminate its enemies with a fair degree of success. The electorate must be reminded of this.


The US must act with strategic intent that places the Nation's interest first, The Doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect' makes sense in a Rwanda-like situation but cannot be applied universally. Neo-Conservative forays are fraught with a deadly blow back and although America has the military might to potentially serve as a Global Police Force it should avoid this responsibility unless driven to do so by calculated reason. This could be the legacy of the Obama Doctrine although I suspect that it may be lost to the great deal of jitter that has come along for the turbulent ride.

Twenty five things that I have learnt from facebook

1. People are more limited in their sense of humor than they let on.
2. Half the people love Donald Trump the other half absolutely loathe him.
3. You can say anything ridiculous if you prefix it with a quote from a famous person
4. Conspiracy theories are alive and well.,,,unfortunately
5. Those in disagreement with said person on any post, are either ignorant or evil.
6. Most Americans (but not all) cannot talk politics without slipping into the partisan two party dichotomy.
7. Mark Zuckerberg has his head up his ass half the time but its okay as he is a billionaire and we use his product (oops I may get banned over that one).
8. Nothing gets more likes than a dog licking his balls. Yes I know I am jealous.
9. With enough assumptions you can make anything sound feasible
10. The biggest threat to humanity is Gluten.
11. Stupidity spreads faster than the Rage Virus.
12. Feminists are just not funny (although I didn't need fb for that one).
13. Very few people understand how science works including Bill Nye on occasion.
14. I am always open to seeing more pictures of Melania Trump.
15. Egoism is alive and well.
16. Once in a while you need to purge your friends list. I expect that I may be at the brunt of this for some who read my post.
17. There is no bias like a Confirmation bias.
18. For many, a Rant counts as a logical argument.
19. Never argue (as a friend of mine put it) with a skunk.
20. Everyone has their sacred cows that too often defended by generous use of the ad hominem.
21. SJWs are idiots.
22. There are still very intelligent people out there, who should know better, but who still can't see the problem with Islamism
23. I am sick of seeing posts with French Flags. You would think that only one country has experienced terrorism.
24. Star Wars is a movie it shouldn't be a life philosophy.
25. Never grant friendship status to your mother. Sorry mom I couldn't resist

ON SETI...

I am a huge proponent of SETI and a great fan of Science Fiction. About ten years ago I wrote a book the HISTORY OF THE FUTURE detailing a world where contact with alien species is made and our species is forced by necessity to enter into a new geopolitical reality. Odds are that if we are to be immersed in a world where we are less sophisticated than the extra terrestrials than it will not work out well for us. However there is an unpredictability with all encounters that may prove refreshing. Lately though I have become somewhat disillusioned, not so much in the way contact will play out, but whether contact will occur at all. Based on scientific assessment the odds of another humanoid type species evolving ( or even some type of facsimile) to make contact with us appear to be close to zero. A subtle interventionist deity could rig the odds but that seems to be wishful thinking. One can take solace in the Drake Equation but there are so many unknown variables in that equation that it seems to be practically meaningless. My heart wishes that this weren't so but looking just at the probability game and the levels of fine tuning that are necessary it may just be the case that we are simply alone.

Thoughts on Deism IV - Some Quick Ones.

Einstein himself was not a fan of cultural relativism and I believe detested the way his theory was applied to other areas outside physics. Much the same way that Darwin was not in favour of the way his ideas of selection were used by those advocating Eugenics.

On Absolute Truth....The Laws of Thermodynamics viz. Conservation of Energy, Increasing Entropy of the Universe plus Absolute Zero are probably as absolute as one can get. Gravity has been reworked with General Relativity to better understand Newton's Inverse Square Law however it has some problems at the quantum level. The jury is still out with respect to the fundamental Graviton particle (although odds are that we will likely find it).  Chemical Reactions are largely manifestations of the electromagnetic force so I agree that the theory here is very solid. Absorption and Emission of Light can be described by Quantum Mechanics which at present seems to be well supported empirically. I would add to this list laws regarding both linear and angular momentum as well as certain symmetries that are consistent with conservation laws.

Special Relativity....Einstein's special theory broke the notion of absolute space and time. It also showed the energy and momentum require relativistic analysis. However in many ways its most perplexing outcome was the death blow for Simultaneity. Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be simultaneous in another. What does this mean? Observer 1 concludes that event A happened before event B. Observer 2 in another frame of reference concludes that the events were simultaneous (happened at the same time). Which one is correct? The answer - Both of them. This can influence, although I would urge much caution, our perception of events at least on a theoretical level for now.

Thoughts on Deism III

Deism should theoretically emerge as a viable middle ground between atheism and theism but it still seems as though it is lagging behind the other two systems in terms of absolute numbers. It may be that many of those who would normally fall under either of the two categories are in all actuality Deists however I am not convinced that this explains the full picture. Classical deism lost its appeal some time ago (possibly due to the imprisonment of the creator) but why have the more 'warmer' types of deism not taken hold? Intellectually it stands on no less a solid ground than any counter ideology yet in terms of clout it is analogous to the Libertarian party in a battle between the Dems and the GOP. What is it missing? Could it be a lack of adequate spokespeople?

Deistic thoughts I am working on.

1. A belief that there is a God who transcends space and time. (I call it God for want of a name although I personally prefer the Kabbalistic term Ein Sof).
2. That it is impossible to know the nature of God. It cannot be truly defined.
3. That the universe operates according to the Laws of Physics. Life evolved through a combination of natural selection, genetic drift and other selection pressures acting on a genome whose variation arose as a consequence of mutation.
4. That God can intervene but such intervention is undetectable and does not contravene the laws of physics. God is a subtle actor who presents no evidence of understandable design.
5. That there is no personal God.
6. That revealed religion are merely man made attempts at trying to understand God and although some carry the wisdom of earlier thought they are all inherently flawed.
7. That humans need to develop their own moral code based on reason, logic and the collective thinking of what has worked in the past.
8. That some religious customs may serve a purpose with respect to group cohesion but they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
9. That God is a minimalist in action but not necessarily a disinterested party.
10. That the afterlife is unknowable.
11. That skepticism and the scientific method are the best tools we have in understanding the world.

Thoughts on Deism II

I don't believe that these differences (gender diversity with respect to God) are a function of intelligence. Nor do I see it as a consequence of education (although this probably can cause a slight shift towards one direction or another). I think that it is more a reflection of the way that the two sexes see the world in general.It may be a consequence of hunter-gatherer past. I don't know. However the difference on the broader level seems apparent. On a deeper level it's a positive development as it allows for alternative approaches to problems that impact all of us. I am a bit skeptical of the Myers-Briggs testing (which has its foundation in the work of Carl Jung) but it has some relevance along the extrovert/introvert corridor and the thinking/feeling paradigm. It is in the latter that this difference expresses itself.

Thoughts on Deism I

I am very interested in the obvious gender differences that personify the way that men and women perceive, experience and appreciate God. While these are obviously group differences and cannot be reduced to the specific individual it does seem (at least on what I have read and personally experienced) that women seem inherently more spiritual as a whole and that their spiritual belief is rooted in a stronger sense of feeling and emotion. This seems to translate into a richer connection with God (although I am sure others would beg to differ). Deism seems more of a male orientated philosophy as it places at its center reason and cold logic which many men seem to gravitate towards. I realize that this is somewhat of a generalization but I do believe that it has merit for discussion.