Sunday, April 22, 2007
Mowing
It is appropriate that I again return to the topic of mowing. One never finishes that task short of living in an apartment surrounded by concrete. Not for me. As much as I might protest, as hot as I'll get later in the year, it's still a satisfying task.
Today, I listened to Dr. Phil Plait, the fellow behind the Bad Astronomy web site, discuss science education, evolution, and the value of public investments in space science on the Point of Inquiry podcast. I listened to the Naked Scientist podcast where they made "electric slime," and on the Nature podcast about whales (as the mammal record holder for longest migration), stem cells for targeted cancer drugs, DNA repair, viscous deformation of mid-crustal material, and others. In other words, while tooling around in the sunshine, I fulfilled the behavior many have come to expect of me.
Speaking of which, I wore a programmable, scrolling LCD name tag to the KGS annual meeting (just so "me", you know).
Anyway, now it's time for a quiet Sunday afternoon.
Labels: chores, outdoors, podcast, spring
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Musings on Morality and Ethics
This spring season is not particularly favorable for outdoor work and so I have turned to contemplation (OK, there's no live football on TV on the weekends either). I have been pondering the origin of our sense of morality and ethics for several reasons not the least of which is the continuing effort by conservative religious groups (read fundamentalist) to require the Ten Commandments be posted in our government buildings. I will leave the constitutional question aside saying only that while the First Amendment to the Constitution certainly grants freedom of speech (the basis of most of the requests), it also establishes the separation of Church and State. What do the Ten Commandments suggest concerning the origin of morality and ethics? My claim is that while they provide a framework for behavior, our sense of morality and ethics is derived elsewhere.
What are the "Ten Commandments"? I'll take an orthodox Christian interpretation that does, in fact, wind up at ten statements.
Commandments 1 to 4 are essentially admonitions against heresy. The penalty for violating these is clear: death and destruction (see EX 31:15, DEUT 7:1-4, NUM 15:32-36, among others). In fact, throughout the Old Testament, God seems to be ordering death and destruction with the enthusiasm of the Queen of Hearts ("Off with their heads!"). You are commanded to kill: persons who don't listen to priests (DEUT 17:12), witches (EX 22:18), gays (LEV 20:13), fortunetellers (LEV 20:27), and many more. Some of these are pretty strange as in LEV 21:9 which singles out the daughters of priests. Apparently prostitution must have been a lucrative profession for these young women to the extent that God had to set up a specific penalty to keep his priests from being dishonored. Whole tribes and cities are to be wiped out (curiously often, the young virgin girls are to be spared, NUM 31:15-18). The penalty for violating 5 is also death: EX 21:15, EX 21:17.
This litany of death stands in stark contrast to the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."
Apologists and redactors claim that the message of the New Testament given by Jesus brings with it a forgiving, kinder, gentler God. Nope, Jesus affirmed the inerrancy of the scripture (John 10:35, Mat 5:18, Mat 15:3); those laws must be obeyed as set forth.
It is in the resolution of this conflict that I rest the evidence of my claim. It is impossible to obey conflicting commands: to kill and not to kill. Such commands are both unreasonable and illogical. So, based on something other than Biblical guidance, we—humanity—have decided that there are higher guiding principles on which to base morality and ethics. We may not admit this to ourselves, but nonetheless, our actions push this fact to the forefront of our behavior. Otherwise, evangelists would be at the head of avenging armies, raping young virgins, pillaging, and dispatching the Godless sinners to their deaths as commanded while atheists and secular humanists would be reveling in the anarchy and dancing on Sunday in hedonistic abandon. Fortunately, neither group behaves that way. Although, as a twist to the punch line of the old joke, I'm beginning to wonder about the evangelicals (meaning I don't see staunch atheists, like Richard Dawkins, getting caught red-handed in the immoral and unethical behaviors of many religious public figures).
PS (17-Apr-2007)
In doing more research and reading, I came across an interesting passage: Gen 18:17-33. It is the famous story of God and Abraham discussing the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. At first, God wonders whether he should let Abraham in on what is about to happen. When Abraham comes before God and God explains things, Abraham directly questions whether it is just to kill the righteous along with the wicked? Then follows an auction in which the well-being of the just is bartered. Directly questioning God's judgment isn't as bizarre as the story of Lot that is related in Gen 19. Rather than give two visitors—angels—to the men of Sodom, Lot gives the crowd his virgin daughters (Gen 19:8) for whatever they want to do (presumably a lot of "knowing" in the Biblical sense). I find it hard to see the moral or ethical sense in these actions.
What are the "Ten Commandments"? I'll take an orthodox Christian interpretation that does, in fact, wind up at ten statements.
- The prohibition against other gods: EX 20:2-3, EX 34:14, DEUT 5:6-7
- The prohibition against idols: EX 20:4-6, EX 34:15-17, DEUT 5:8-10
- The prohibition against blasphemy: EX 20:7, DEUT 5:11
- Keep the Sabbath: EX 20:8-11 , EX 34:21 , DEUT 5:12-15 (whether it is Saturday or Sunday apparently doesn't matter, just observe it)
- Honor your father and mother: EX 20:12, DEUT 5:16
- Don't kill: EX 20:13, DEUT 5:17
- Don't commit adultery: EX 20:14, DEUT 5:18
- Don't steal: EX 20:15, DEUT 5:19
- Don't lie: EX 20:16, DEUT 5:20
- Don't covet: EX 20:17, DEUT 5:21
Commandments 1 to 4 are essentially admonitions against heresy. The penalty for violating these is clear: death and destruction (see EX 31:15, DEUT 7:1-4, NUM 15:32-36, among others). In fact, throughout the Old Testament, God seems to be ordering death and destruction with the enthusiasm of the Queen of Hearts ("Off with their heads!"). You are commanded to kill: persons who don't listen to priests (DEUT 17:12), witches (EX 22:18), gays (LEV 20:13), fortunetellers (LEV 20:27), and many more. Some of these are pretty strange as in LEV 21:9 which singles out the daughters of priests. Apparently prostitution must have been a lucrative profession for these young women to the extent that God had to set up a specific penalty to keep his priests from being dishonored. Whole tribes and cities are to be wiped out (curiously often, the young virgin girls are to be spared, NUM 31:15-18). The penalty for violating 5 is also death: EX 21:15, EX 21:17.
This litany of death stands in stark contrast to the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."
Apologists and redactors claim that the message of the New Testament given by Jesus brings with it a forgiving, kinder, gentler God. Nope, Jesus affirmed the inerrancy of the scripture (John 10:35, Mat 5:18, Mat 15:3); those laws must be obeyed as set forth.
It is in the resolution of this conflict that I rest the evidence of my claim. It is impossible to obey conflicting commands: to kill and not to kill. Such commands are both unreasonable and illogical. So, based on something other than Biblical guidance, we—humanity—have decided that there are higher guiding principles on which to base morality and ethics. We may not admit this to ourselves, but nonetheless, our actions push this fact to the forefront of our behavior. Otherwise, evangelists would be at the head of avenging armies, raping young virgins, pillaging, and dispatching the Godless sinners to their deaths as commanded while atheists and secular humanists would be reveling in the anarchy and dancing on Sunday in hedonistic abandon. Fortunately, neither group behaves that way. Although, as a twist to the punch line of the old joke, I'm beginning to wonder about the evangelicals (meaning I don't see staunch atheists, like Richard Dawkins, getting caught red-handed in the immoral and unethical behaviors of many religious public figures).
PS (17-Apr-2007)
In doing more research and reading, I came across an interesting passage: Gen 18:17-33. It is the famous story of God and Abraham discussing the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. At first, God wonders whether he should let Abraham in on what is about to happen. When Abraham comes before God and God explains things, Abraham directly questions whether it is just to kill the righteous along with the wicked? Then follows an auction in which the well-being of the just is bartered. Directly questioning God's judgment isn't as bizarre as the story of Lot that is related in Gen 19. Rather than give two visitors—angels—to the men of Sodom, Lot gives the crowd his virgin daughters (Gen 19:8) for whatever they want to do (presumably a lot of "knowing" in the Biblical sense). I find it hard to see the moral or ethical sense in these actions.
Labels: ethics, faith, morality, morals, reason
