Quantum Confession

I have recently finished reading this book by Stephen Oram, and it is a very good read, a good story, a challenging book to read and make you think. If you haven't read it, this post may contain spoilers.

There are some aspects of it that I struggled with, which are not problems with the story as such, merely the characterisation of the two sides - the libertarians and the absolutionists. In one sense, this is simply because they are both characterised in emphatic terms, as extremes. What is more, because of the conflict between them, their positions tend to become more extreme. The problem is that I wanted to see which side I would be on, given a division of this nature, and I am not sure.

The faith communities are generally on the absolutionist side, because they stand for absolute truths, even though they differ greatly in what these truths are. They are united solely in opposition to the libertarians, by the fact that they all hold to some form of absolute truth. The problem I have with this is that I, and others who would be broadly on the side of the faith communities would not subscribe to this absolutionist position. I do not believe that there is an "absolute truth" that we are seeking to understand and learn. I believe that we are called to seek truth in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places. If you want, truth is like food and drink - I want and need to keep eating and drinking, some of which will be great, some will not, but I just need to have more and different. There is never a time when I would say "I have had the best meal possible, so I don;t need any more". My faith is about seeking for, searching out truth wherever it is, not to find some "absolute truth" that exists somewhere, any more than I eat in the hope of finding "the perfect meal".

So would I sit on the other side, the libertarians? Well not as they are portrayed, because there is one situation where a doctor refuses to suggest a treatment, because it is not his job to tell the relatives what to do. They are expected to research into the various treatments and identify what they would like the doctor to do. But this is not libertarianism, this is something else - this is a doctor failing to use his skills and expertise to help guide relatives. Actually, I am all for doctors not proscribing treatment, and to be honest, they don't for this sort of serious condition tell relatives what to do. They do outline options, give pros and cons, outline any particular issues that treatments might have, and suggest what they consider, in their professional opinion to be the best route to take. That is what I expect of professionals (medical or otherwise).

So I would not be on the side of those who refuse to offer advice when they have appropriate knowledge. Of course, I also wouldn't be on the side of professionals who dictate rather than discuss. The problem with most of those on the libertarian side is that they are not supporting freedom of thought, they are eroding trust. They erode trust in medical professionals who refuse to use their knowledge. They erode trust in friends and families, because they break the bonds of respect (however loose they are) - both ways, where parents deny any responsibilities they might be considered to have, and children refuse to accept their parents conditions. This breakdown in trust, rather than a rejection of absolute truth, causes people to breakdown.

I have a real problem with the equating of "removing trust" with "rejecting absolute truth", because they are different. In fact, because I don't accept a universal truth, I need to trust people - not with everything, but with being honest and open with me. It is more important to me that we can discuss and explore with openness, and not with some hidden purpose behind it. What is more, if you remove trust, people will move towards a breakdown, because you remove hope, you remove any sense of purpose. You do not recover from this by giving them absolute truth - you recover from this by caring for people.

None of this actually takes away from a good read, but it does give a challenge to the more absolutionist approaches of churches (in particular, but not exclusively). The choice is not between an absolute truth and any truth goes. The choice is, as the book tries to show, who you allow to define truth for you. Do you accept someone telling you "this is truth, accept or or not", or someone saying "believe whatever you want", or do you accept someone saying "find truth wherever"?