Standard Deviations and The Philosophical Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

When people talk they can exist in one of three realms. The 'idea realm', the 'event realm' and the 'people realm.' I am most comfortable in the 'idea realm', less comfortable in the 'event realm' and not at all comfortable in the 'people realm.'
In short, I would rather talk about ideas than people, especially myself. Standard deviations fascinate me. Here's a diagram:

There are many different kind of intelligences, let's wrap them all into one for clarity and argument sake and say the mean represents average intelligence and that 64.2% of the population is of average intelligence. Another 27.2 percent is within two standard deviations of the mean, meaning more than 91% of the population is of average intelligence, or slightly above or slightly below. That's most of us.
When I ask people what percentage of people could read or write in ancient times, they usually don't know. That's because nobody knows. Scholars argue that it was between 5 and 10 percent. The point is that not many people could read or write.
Those that could wrote the books and wrote the laws. Most of the 91 percent group in ancient times were slaves.
Fast forward to the U.S.A. in 2012 and the literacy rate is about 99 percent. Slavery was abolished about 140 years ago. The philosophical question today is the same one in ancient times: what is the attitude of  those who write the laws toward the 91 percent?
The conservative approach is that the majority of people can not think for themselves and need to be told what to do.
The liberal approach is that the majority of people can think for themselves if they are properly educated.
We do not know the answer to this question, which is why it is a philosophical question. But it determines the framework that liberal and conservative ideas operate in. There is evidence to support both conclusions. In the long run, high levels of literacy and abolition of slavery are relatively recent events.
In the short run, we need to understand that our decisions are based upon which model we favor.
During this presidential campaign, while people are talking about Romney and Obama (people realm) and others are talking about events (debates, polls) I find myself wondering about ideas. Mainly, whether democracy (which is a liberal idea) can work in a country that prefers to think people need to be told what to do (which is a conservative idea).

The Birth of a Heretic

My mother enjoyed telling the story of my getting banned from Sunday School when I was five years old.

One Sunday at church, Mom and Dad were met by a teacher who told them that I wasn't allowed in Sunday School because I was disruptive.

Mom asked how I was being disruptive.

The teacher replied that I was asking questions she couldn't answer.

My mother replied "What kind of teacher do you think you are if you can't answer a five-year old's questions?"

This didn't go over well. After a conference with the senior minister, my parents were told I had to sit with them in the main sanctuary.

Like many five-year olds, I understood Santa Claus didn't bring presents, the Tooth Fairy didn't leave money under pillows, storks did not deliver babies and parents either didn't know what they were talking about - or they lied about most things.

I had now learned that adults in positions of authority punished you when you pointed out they weren't making sense.

This lesson is reinforced in elementary school and high school. By the time we reach our twenties, we pretty much don't trust anyone.

When faced with the prospect of becoming adults, and realizing the received information we have been given is either inaccurate, distorted, or wrong, we have to decide what kind of an adult we will be.

Will we become an adult who is 'comfortably numb' in our ignorance or will we become 'truth seekers?'

I decided to become a 'truth seeker.' I had no idea that would lead to being branded a 'heretic.'

When I went to seminary, I was still in 'truth seeking' mode. Surely, seminary would be a place where Truth resided.

The first day in Systematic Theology the professor laid out the concept of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Higher Power. At that point, I remembered the question I had asked as a five-year old.

The professor asked if anyone had questions. Nobody did at first. Everybody seemed to be happy with the concepts. I raised my hand.

An affirmative nod from the professor gave me permission to speak.

"If the Divine is all powerful and all-knowing, and if everything is created by the Divine, and if everything created by the Divine is Good, it follows that the Divine created Evil and the Devil. Further, it requires us to understand Evil and the Devil to be Good, since it was created by the Divine and the Divine can only create that which is Good," I stated.

The professor shifted uncomfortably in her seat. She got up and erased everything she had written on the board. She silently wrote something on the board. The class gasped.

"If we are to follow Mr. Barker's reasoning, then either our concepts are wrong," she paused and pointed to what she wrote on the board, "or that is our reality."

She then erased what she had written on the board.

"As we are Christians, we can't talk discuss that possibility," she concluded.

At the end of the semester, the professor refused to grade the paper I turned in because it did not echo Orthodox Christian doctrines or use Orthodox Christian sources.

Again, the lesson learned in Sunday School was repeated. You will get punished if you do not accept the positions of authority figures.

Next: Mrs. McLaughlin's Big Dictionary, Let the Punishment Fit the Crime