“. . . AND GULLIVER RETURNS”
--In Search of Utopia--
BOOK 4--SMASHWORDS EDITION
A LOOK AT OUR HUMAN VALUES
by
Lemuel Gulliver XVI as told to Jacqueline Slow
© 2008 ISBN978-0-9823076-0-1
Dear friends—Obviously I wrote this series to be read from Book 1 to the end, but silly me! Readers often begin with what sounds interesting to them. This may leave them unaware of the characters, my friends and I. So let me introduce us. We were boyhood friends, as wild and as close as geese heading south for the winter. But our university educations split us philosophically like a drop of quicksilver hitting the floor. But like those balls of mercury, when brought together, they again become one.As have we.
Ray
became a Catholic priest and moved far to the right of where our
teenage liberalism had bound us. Ray calls himself a
neo-conservative. We think he is a reactionary.
Lee
slid to the left of our adolescent leanings, and somewhere along the
line became an atheist. Lee is a lawyer.
Concannon, Con for
short, retired from his very successful business. I guess his
business experience moved him a bit to the right, to conservatism—a
conservative just to the right of the middle.
Then
there’s me. I think I’m pretty much a middle of the roader—except
for my passion to save our planet by reducing our population before
global warming, massive poverty and far-reaching famines decimate our
humanity. Hope this introduction makes our discussions make a bit
more sense. LG
IN THE HOTEL
Dr. Wang allowed her guests to sleep late and arranged to meet Commander Gulliver at one o’clock. She knew his jet lag was slowing him up, he was still lagging somewhere west of Tahiti. She found him in the hotel lobby but without his South Sea pareo.
--“Good
morning Commander. Did you have a restful night?”
---“I
slept well, Dr. Wang. I’m still getting used to these earthly beds.
When you’re weightless in space you sleep anywhere and you don’t
have to worry about the weight of your body on a mattress. I had
trouble sleeping on my bed in California, but these air flotation
mattresses at the hotel are like being weightless. I sure would like
to bring one back with me.”
---“I’m
sure that can be arranged. I’ll talk to the president about it. Did
you enjoy the breakfast buffet?”
--“Thanks,
but I’m sure she has more important things to do than attend to my
insomnia! And yes, I love the food here, I don’t think I’ve ever
had a more tasty or a healthier breakfast. Seaweed salad with curry,
Swedish sennaps sild, soy cakes, rice bran cereal, half the time I
didn’t know what I was eating, but it was all delicious. No wonder
you people don’t get fat. You can eat for hours and take in so few
calories—all the gourmet gusto but no resulting flabby abs.”
--“And
you know it significantly reduces our heart disease and cancer rates”
--“I’ve
sure learned something about living more healthily these last few
days. But let’s get on with why I came to Kino—to meet and talk
with you. Your work on human values really fascinates me. The most
important discussions in this world are about values of one sort or
another. My friends and I once shared common values, but as we gained
our educations and matured many of our values have evolved in
different directions. Here they come now. Men I’d like you to meet
Dr. Wang. As you know she’s a professor of philosophy at the
University Kino. Dr. Wang these are my dearest friends, Con . . .Ray
. . .and Lee. You can’t tell from his Hawaiian shirt but Ray is a
priest. He’s in disguise, but he thinks after he’s dead he’ll
be in ‘da skies’ while the rest of us will be resting deep
below---on the other side of the grass! But at least he says he’s
praying for us.”
--“Wreck,
I’m just hoping for heaven. I’m not there yet. But if you believe
in the hereafter, then da sky’s the limit.”
--“Touche’
And Con is a retired businessman. He finds your country fascinating
and wants to list it on the New York Stock Exchange. Lee isn’t so
sure he likes Kino. There’s nobody to sue and no reasons to.”
--Nice
to meet you all. I’ve arranged for us to have our chat over lunch.
Here at the Golden Dragon they make the finest of Chinese food and do
unusual French and Italian dishes. They even make a Texas chili, but
it’s too tame for those of us who like Szechwan and Thai.”
--“My taste buds have been
destroyed by jalapenos and habaneras so I’ll go for your hottest
recommendation. What do you recommend Dr. Wang?”
--“Please
call me Wanda, Con. But let’s let the waiter take care of your fire
starved pallet. Yes Ray?”
--“Con’s
just getting ready for his next life. Lucifer already has his lariat
around him.”
--“Ray,
let he who has not sinned eat the hottest chili.”
--“I
pray for you every day Con, I pray that we won’t end up in the same
post-mortem place!”
--“Come on Ray, you know that
afterlife wouldn’t be the same without me. It wouldn’t be heaven
if we didn’t have a football to toss around. You think St. Peter
can toss you a post-corner or a hook-and-go like I can?”
--“Enough
chopping Con, so pick up your chop sticks and eat ‘chop chop!’”
--“Wreck,
you think that just because you took one little cruise through space
you can tell us what to do.Remember I’m still the quarterback, so
I’ll call the signals. And as I remember we were here to pick Dr.
Wang’s, I mean Wanda’s, brain. Where should we start Wanda?”
LOOKING FOR HAPPINESS
---:”Well,
seeking happiness has been a universal goal of humans, so let’s
start there. The one thing we know is that money doesn’t buy
happiness.”
---“But
if you have money you can at least suffer in comfort.”
--“True Lee. But to realize
happiness we must aim beyond and seek more important goals, then we
will find that happiness is a by-product of our life quest. Your
famous historian Arnold Toynbee said that ‘It is a paradoxical but
a profoundly true and important principle of life that the most
likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal itself
but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.’ Yes, Con.”
--“I
remember taking a graduate class in economics from Dr. Easterlin
at USC. He had been researching happiness related to income. I
remember that he said
there’s evidence that happiness is positively related to the
frequency of sex.”
—“I
heard somewhere that increasing sex from once a month to once a week
gave the same life satisfaction as earning another $50,000 a year.
—“In
our country people tend to work instead of vacationing so they have
extra money to add a room to their house or to buy a bigger car. In
Europe they will nearly always opt for a vacation when they could
otherwise work. People in the States still believe that money buys
happiness. But when people are surveyed, things like job security,
feeling safe, lower crime rates, better medical care and more time
with a happy family rate high.
“Some countries are beginning to
study what people value—what are their beliefs and what really
makes them happy.”
“The research shows that generally children make us less happy. So does losing one’s job. Sex makes us happier, as does enjoying one’s job. The Americans, who spend much more time working are much higher on the happiness list than are the French, who vacation a lot.
“Money only makes us happier up to a point, I heard that it was about $75,000 a year, beyond that point it’s not very important. Obviously a utopia should have happy citizens. Several countries now are developing criteria and measurements for societal happiness but it is a difficult job to make a subjective feeling objective enough to analyze effectively. If married people are happier, is it because marriage makes them happier or that happy positive people are the most like to find partners and marry. What part do our genes play? How important is good weather?
Gulliver was absorbed in Con’s ideas, but wondered about the sources and the limits of paths to happiness. Was it money, God, philanthropy, fame, family, self realization or any of the other human goals and endeavors?He turned to Con and asked:
-----------------------
---“What if we start with
Buddha’s ideas? Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha, taught that we
should desire nothing, then, because if we had nothing, we should be
perfectly happy. You’re one of the few multi-millionaires I know.
Are you happy?”
----“I
certainly have the physical comforts I need—a couple of houses, a
fast car, incredible vacations. But when I think back, there are
other things that made me happier when I was younger. Being on the
winning side in a tough football game, especially when we played
together in high school. Playing with my daughter when she was a
child. Watching a Grecian or Hawaiian sunset. Watching Aida in the
Roman stadium in Verona. And there were so many times with Arline,
just holding hands, walking in the woods, listening to a concert in
the Hollywood Bowl. Gosh I miss her. Her death from breast cancer was
the low point in my life. After ten years I’m still not over it. I
just buried myself in work to try to forget. But all those great
memories cost nothing or next to nothing. What do you say about that
Wanda?”
--“I’m
so sorry to hear about your wife. You are very lucky to have had such
a great love. Very few are so fortunate.But to get back to the
subject, you are expressing what you value. Your values seem to be
related to what you have experienced and how they have affected your
psyche. As I understand, you will be talking to Dr. Chan in
Singaling. He’s a psychologist. As you know, my field is more in
ethical values. We all value different things, some motivate us
psychologically, through our needs and drives, and some motivate us
because of our values.”
---“As
I understand it from reading your books, your interests are in how we
arrive at our ethical or moral values, like what do we think about
abortion or capital punishment or euthanasia while Chan’s work is
more in the areas that motivate us psychologically, like power or
love or meaning.”
---“That’s
right. We are all motivated to action by how strong our psychological
or ethical life values push us. And Con, the joys you mentioned
seemed be satisfying the psychological motivations of power, love and
meaning. But the commander’s major motivations seem to be society
based values, to reduce population and to increase the odds that
children will have parents capable of loving them and helping them be
the best they can be. But I’m sure he has strong psychological
motivations. In fact his concern with overpopulation and better
parenting indicates that he has a strong motivation for humanitarian
love. When you were all in high school it seems that power was your
major motivator. And Con, the fact that you worked to develop a major
company indicates that you had a strong power drive. And Father Ray,
I would assume that your motivations are dominated by ethical
concerns.”
--“And
I hope a lot of love, Dr. Wang.”
--“And
maybe some power too, Father. Knowing that you are right gives you a
real feeling of power, doesn’t it?”
---“Well,
maybe so. But Dr. Wang, don’t you feel some power from your
notoriety?”
--“I
hate to say it but I do. Being invited to speak around the world and
teaching in major universities makes me feel that I am important to
some people. But let’s get on with what the commander wanted to
talk about—values. When I talk of values or morals or mores you
must understand what I mean. These terms are often interchangeable
but not always. ‘Mores’ are the traditions of a society. They may
include merely manners and customs but usually they include ethical
or moral attitudes. But within groups in the same society these
customs may differ somewhat, for example from Catholics to Jews or
from businessmen to government workers. Values are concepts that we
hold in high esteem. Do you like classical or rock music, more money
or more free time? Or it might be the principles by which we guide
our lives. It is this latter meaning that I want to discuss.
“‘Morals’ usually refers to the goodness or badness of an action, our own or that of others. Often the general public thinks it’s only about sexual conduct or life and death issues. And while it is often used in a religious sense, such as that God has commanded it, I will use it more in terms of actions that people believe in and act on. So I will narrow the general meaning of ‘values’ and broaden the general meaning of ‘morals’ so that they will be nearly identical. So when I speak of ‘morals’ or ‘values’ I may be speaking in terms of a person’s beliefs and actions whether they are based on what the person selfishly thinks are good for him, what he thinks that God commands or what he thinks is best for the society he wants to live in.So, for example, a Muslim suicide bomber might do it for a self-centered reason—to go to heaven or as revenge for the death of a friend or family member. He might do it because he believes that God wants to kill the infidels. Or he might do it because he wants to live in a religious society governed by the religious laws of Sharia.
“It would be nice if each of us thought our way into intelligent behavior, but most of the time we are guided by our psychological propensities or our familial and societal traditions. So we generally don’t think, even though we think we are thinking. We are generally just reacting. So to think critically, like our homo sapiens species is supposed to do, we had better know how, then start to practice it. Otherwise we had better rename our species from ‘thinking humans’ to ‘reacting humans.’ We have to understand how our thinking starts with assumptions then how we build on those assumptions with evidence of varying levels of verifiability. Some people think quite effectively, but others mistake their feelings for thinking. But we are all are convinced that our perceptions of truth are the most eternal of verities.
“What you have learned at home, in your neighborhood or in school is the truth, divine truth. Americans eat with their forks in their right hands, Europeans with the fork in the left. Indians may eat with their right hands, Chinese with chop sticks. No need for tolerance, each is wrong in the other’s eyes. My habits are right, my beliefs regarding socialism or free enterprise, appropriate dress, how to raise children, or what type of god to believe in. But I’ll defend to the death my right to my beliefs—no matter how unscientific or parochial. Everything I believe in is true.”
Dr. Wang pushed back in her chair and looked at Lee who seemed eager to offer his philosophical insight.
---
“Ethics is often the word used to indicate what we have been doing
lately. It’s not ethical to clone humans because we’ve never done
it before. It’s not ethical to license parents because we’ve
never done it before. It’s not ethical to recognize homosexual
partnerships because we haven’t done it before. Atomic bombs are OK
for one nation, not for others. Capital punishment switches from
acceptable to unacceptable depending on who is sitting on the high
court. Gassing people in prisons is OK in one society but not in
another. Torture, too, is valuable or not valuable at different times
and in different places. Bribery in one situation is OK, in another
it is not.
“People talk about “ethical standards” but they are talking about their own ethics. There are few universal ethical or legal standards. Treason against one’s country is one. Murder of a person in your own society is also very commonly not allowed. Stealing from someone in your own society also violates a common ethical rule, as is lying.
“Murder is unethical, capital punishment is ethical; rape is unethical, rape to avenge a social wrong is ethical. War is unethical, but this war is ethical. Abortion is unethical, denying a women’s freedom to control her own body and her own pregnancy is similarly unethical. Lying is unethical, lying to protect oneself in a life threatening situation is ethical. What has value to us, or what we hold as moral, varies with time, place and situation. Should it vary? Should every rule be universal—never changing through history? The Ten Commandments are such a universal moral code. What if Hitler were your father, should he have been honored as the commandment requires? Are most Christians dishonoring the code by keeping Sunday rather than Saturday, the Sabbath, as their day of worship? Will all people who say ‘God damn you’ go to hell for taking the Lord’s name in vain? Would it be moral for the police to ‘bear false witness’ against a serial killer who would murder again if released? Which commandment should have the higher priority?
“Our values generally are relative to the situation, to the time and place in which we live. And quite frequently they shift from being based on our self-centered interests, to being based on what we think God wants, or often they shift to what we think will produce the best society for us to live in.”
--“You
are talking about moral relativism, that our morals depend on what we
want. As a priest I certainly agree with Pope Benedict XVI. He has
come down hard on moral relativism, particularly against
self-centered values and the hedonism that often propels them. He is
against gay marriage, divorce, stem cell research and abortion. His
ideas as to what actions are ethical are quite the opposite of
Spain’s prime minister who has social policies favoring gay
marriage, easier divorce, more stem cell research and legalized
abortion. But I believe that if you don’t stand for something,
you’ll fall for anything.”
--
“Yes Father Ray, but Spain was merely following the rest of Europe
in passing laws that favor the individual’s free choice and the
advancement of the welfare state. So thinking people will often
disagree on what is moral and what is not.
“When we read that a bioethicist or a medical ethics specialist has said that something is unethical they seldom look at all of the ethical possibilities and explain them in their decisions. A medical ethicist at a Catholic hospital will often have a quite different decision on what is ethical for a patient than an ethicist from a Lutheran hospital or from a county medical center. When we cannot agree on truth, such as whether the universe was created by a supernatural designer or it just happened, or whether evolution is or is not a valid and reliable explanation of how the biological world developed—how can we get a universal agreement on how to behave?
“We all see the world through our own eyes—our own points of view. Whether based on our religion, the tradition of our society, our independent thinking or our self-centered desires—our thinking is clouded by what we think we know. And you remember what Shakespeare said, ‘ There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. ‘
“Our values affect many areas of our lives. For example in a medical setting we see a mental illness, such as depression that affects people in most populations, in the West drugs and therapy are usually the preferred treatment, in the underdeveloped areas, shamans are more likely to be given the task of healing the afflicted. In our modern world we look to science for probabilities, such as which potential cure is more likely to succeed, then we look to our values to see whether or not we should use it. Our values often trump what science indicates. Commander?”
--
“That’s certainly true Wanda.We always think we are right—and
will defend a meaningless position, such as a change in values,
because it is traditional. Of course our tradition was given to us by
the Almighty, or by Emily Post.
It reminds me of a Norwegian professor who did some undergraduate work at Stanford University. She was taken into a sorority. All the ladies ate their meals together. She was appalled by the poor manners of the American students. Her mother had taught her good table manners at home, rules like don’t put your knife or fork down once you start eating., and cut one bite at a time with your fork in your left hand and your knife in your right).But the Americans had very poor manners. They cut all their food first then put the knife down and ate with the fork in the right hand. The Norwegian assumed that after a few weeks the ignorant Americans would follow her lead of good manners. After two weeks she was called in to the sorority president’s office and told that her manners embarrassed the others. She was then taught how to eat properly—as the Americans did. Any sensible person would realize that the European way of eating makes much more sense. But the American eating habits are so ingrained in us that we think people who eat differently are barbarians. It is the same in the area of values, when we encounter new concepts we often criticize them because they are, or might be, unethical.”
“It also reminds me that George Orwell said, that ‘Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.’”
--
“How true. Now let’s move on a bit. A major question in ethics is
whether the intention or the result is primary in judging an action
as ethical or unethical. For example, if a person leaves an important
business meeting and is rushing to the hospital to be by his wife’s
side for the birth of their child that would be ethical for most
people because his intention was noble. But what if his car goes out
of control and he kills a family in another car. That is a bad
outcome. So was his action ethical?
“Or what if a suicide bomber wants to kill hundreds in a marketplace. Many would consider this to be unethical. But what if he inadvertently blows himself up while strapping his bomb on his back. Many would say that the outcome was good.
“The Commander has said that he wants to work to reduce the world’s population. Many would see that as a noble intention. What if a governmental ruler sets off nuclear bombs or sprayed the world with toxic gas that killed 90% of the world’s population so that he couldeasily control those people who were left. Would that be ethical because of the outcome that he reduced population, or unethical because of the means used? Should the end justify the means? What about that Commander?”
—“Whoa!
That’s not in my plans. I want it done peacefully. But I see what
you mean. I would have to consider it immoral. But I am certainly
apprehensive about people voluntarily reducing the population. And I
don’t want to play God. But as I think about it, the kind of person
who would do such a thing would not be one I would want running the
world.”
--“But
what if this ruler was a concerned and loving person and saw it as
the only way to save the planet and that by wiping out 90% of the
people now, more people would eventually be born to the world and
live happier lives because she saved the planet?”
---“That
adds some new evidence. I still couldn’t go for it because of my
traditional beliefs against killing. But if more people would
eventually enjoy our world before it passed on to the planets’
paradise, or wherever good planets go when they die, it certainly has
some strong reasons for doing it. But I’m still casting my vote for
a peaceful population downturn. But you certainly make me think
doctor. Obviously our values sometimes are in conflict with each
other.We have conflicts within our own value systems and between what
we value and what others value.
“On my voyage I wrestled with a great many questions relating to values and morals. It seemed that it should be so easy to have all people accept the same value system. But as I pondered the questions it became obvious that we will never all agree because there are too many elements which are variable. What we can understand, however, is that we each start our value thinking from one of three bases—what is good for me, what God wants me to do, and what is best for my society or the world society.
“When I was a child we believed in God. God gave us the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Koran. Our values were simple to understand. Don’t steal, honor your parents, don’t murder, and don’t lie. These made good sense. As I progressed through high school and college I came to understand the Constitution and many of the laws of our state. They also said don’t steal, honor your parents, don’t murder, and don’t lie. But I saw that many people do steal and kill.”
”They
also lie on the witness stand when they got to court.They had what
they thought were good reasons to kill and steal. Their fathers were
drunks. They were poor. Their parents had beaten them. Someone else
had a different color skin, followed a different religion, was a
homosexual, or wore a different identifying gang color—all adequate
reasons to hate. Then, of course, some people kill for the money. But
there’s always a reason—or a rationalization.”
“On my voyage I was accompanied
by CDs containing the great books of the East and the West. I read
the Bible and the Koran several times. I read Aristotle and Plato,
Shakespeare and Tolstoy, the Upanishads and the Sutras, Freud and
Marx. I certainly didn’t understand all that these masters had to
say but I did increase my knowledge a bit. And while I gazed from my
window into the abyss of space, my mind did play with thoughts on how
the illnesses of the human situation could be relieved or rectified.
Certainly understanding the values that motivate us earthlings is the
essential starting point.What are the values that people hold? Are
those values good? Should they be changed? How can they be changed?
Are these values legitimately based or are they merely opinions and
wishes which we would like to have sanctified by our God or our
government?”
--“Welcome to the club,
commander. You are probably aware that only 15% of Americans support
abortion for any reason during the second trimester.Half of Americans
think that abortion is murder.Yet Americans have one of the highest
abortion rates in the world at 51 per 1,000 women of child bearing
age. Why are they saying one thing while doing something different?
Why don’t more American males wear condoms if they are going to
have sex. The point is that people determinethat actions are moral or
immoral if they are in tune with their opinions of the moment. This
is even true of the experts, such as the bioethicists.
“Look at the rising number of Catholics in Latin America who say they are warning Pope Benedict XVI: that unless the Church changes course, it may commit suicide. There is a growing gulf between many churchgoers who are joined by their grass-roots priests, and the ruling cardinals and the pope. Similarly, the values of the people and those of their religious or political leaders often vary.”
---“Wanda,
one of my parishioners told me that she could better judge her
contraceptive needs than some elderly cardinals in Rome. It is true
that many Catholics are soured by Vatican dogma but in my parish I
hold strongly to the official rules of the Church. I wouldn’t doubt
that some of my parishioners use contraception and maybe some have
had abortions. We are an upper to middle class parish. But I
understand there are more problems in the poorer areas of the States
and in Latin America where people know that contraception and
abortion are available but they are told not to use them. Then their
large families keep them in poverty. I don’t know how true it is
but I’ve read in the popular press that 70% of Brazilian women use
artificial contraception.”
--“Father, I was
lecturing in Sao Paolo a few years ago and I was told that Latin
America accounts for about 40% of the world’s Catholics, but the
number of evangelicals is surging. Some Brazilians warn that Brazil
could eventually become a Protestant country. Some conservatives note
that the evangelical sects are more morally demanding, not less. But
the more common view is that your church has squandered its authority
with positions parishioners see as backward, on divorce, birth
control and the role of women. Either the church finds a compromise
with the values that people seem to be living by or it will find
itself outside the society.
---“I
understand that many local priests back their parishioners’
concerns but the Vatican’s rules put the official church at odds
with the people’s more basic economic needs. I was told of a priest
who was running shelters for AIDS orphans, he was disciplined by the
Church’s authorities for advocating the use of condoms to stop HIV
transference. Brazilians, like so many other Catholics want to see
the Church change its ideas on women priests, marriage for priests,
homosexuality, contraception and other issues that the rank and file
think of as important.Then there was the archbishop who was
excommunicated by the Pope because he had ordained some married men
and had done some other dastardly acts.”
---But
the way I see it as a priest, the most informed approach to morality
comes from the Bible, the learned church scholars and the considered
opinions of the pope. I believe that the Church is taking the right
approach. If you are right, God is on your side.Martin Luther tried
to reform the Church and was excommunicated, and we have done well
without him.”
WE MUST THINK MORE DEEPLY—AND UNDERSTAND OUR THINKING
--“As
you know gentlemen, most of us wander through life accepting what the
rest of our society believes. If it is a Christian society we believe
in the New Testament. If it is a Muslim society we believe in the
Qur’an. If it is a Hindu society we believe in the Upanishads and
the Gita. If it is a truly democratic country we believe in certain
humanistic principles. If it is a more totalitarian system we may
appreciate the order that it gives. We seldom stray from our
traditions.
People are generally surprised when they begin to face their beliefs by thinking deeply about them.
“Few Jews, Christians, Hindus or Muslims change their religions. Few democrats want a totalitarian dictatorship. And while totalitarianism isn’t usually popular among its citizens it is certainly not universally abhorred. For many years after the fall of the USSR there were people who were worse off and who longed for the return of the socialistic dictatorship.
“So tradition is generally the basis for what we call thinking. Those who think they are thinking generally spend their efforts in ‘proving’ what they already believe, but beliefs that they often find troubling. And if they find that their newly discovered truth is different from tradition they will probably be ostracized. Just look at Socrates, Jesus, Galileo and Marx. The only rewards they can claim are that they were using their intelligence and courage, and those are the most profound and exalted of human abilities.But discovering a new truth is painful. Intellectual inertia is comfortable and acquiring new knowledge or adopting new values upsets us. Who in his right mind could believe that idiot Copernicus when he said that the earth circles the sun. What madman would insist that the earth is not flat? Why should I believe that disease is caused by germs and not by the devil? Global warming is an alarmist misreading of a natural blip in the history of climate. There is no overpopulation problem—there is plenty room to build new housing. It is not so strange that when a new idea, that is similar to our beliefs appears, we may quickly accept it without scrutiny. But when a highly probable idea comes to us in contradiction to our beliefs, we generally reject it.
“We, as individuals or as countries, usually justify our behavior, but that justification may not be in accord with what is the truth. It was abominable for the Nazis to kill innocent Jews, but it is acceptable for the Israelis to kill innocent Palestinians or Lebanese. Hitler rationalized that the Jews were a danger to the Third Reich. The Israelis, before Balfour, said that they needed to take back their homeland through guerrilla warfare. After all, the Arabs were only caretaking Israel until the Jews returned. Since Balfour the Israelis say that the best way to protect their state is to attack their enemies and people who live near those enemies to show that you don’t mess with Israel—rather than the Biblical permission for revenge of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ The Israelis’ motto seems to be ‘an arm for a tooth.’
“Whether George Bush’s real reasons for attacking Iraq were for its oil or to establish an American-like republic in the country, the reasons he gave to the world were that it was to stop terrorism and to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. But it hugely increased terrorism and there were no weapons of mass destruction.
“People’s beliefs are seldom totally congruent. George Bush’s approach to capital punishment, as governor of Texas, was that he trusted what the courts had found through their complete review of the facts and values of the case. He did this in the 152 death cases that he affirmed as governor of Texas. But when the courts found that Terry Schiavo was brain-dead he was not willing to follow the courts and the best medical minds involved. When he said that it is better to ‘err on the side of life.’ In the Schiavo case was he considering the poor people who need organ transplants or other medical services but cannot get them because he had cut their Medicaid budgets?Was the President merely as illogical as most of us are, most of the time?
“Most humans say they place their religious beliefs primary in their thinking. Religion is an emotional decision based on faith, science is an intellectual decision based on empirical evidence. In either belief we may be asking it to do more than it is capable of doing.
“The simplest thing is that when you have a ready made ‘truth’ just accept it and direct your intellectual efforts in other directions—like into video games, television, or murder mystery books. Why learn the multiplication tables or how to add when you have a calculator? Why consider alternative theories of the origin of the universe when we have the Bible?Why consider us to be animals when we then may be forced to drop the idea of an afterlife? We think we know it all. And there is always somebody in authority who loudly emphasizes the same beliefs that we have. But celebrity status does not make a person all-knowing! A loud voice is no assurance that truth is being spoken. Nor is an army of parrots proclaiming their beliefs a guarantee of objective reality. The reality of the universe, the universality of values, and the value of objective truth, have not yet been discovered by our race.
---
“But don’t tell a person he’s stupid or you’ll lose your
head! I don’t know if we can arrive at truth by debating the
issues, but we have a better chance to get closer to it. And as we
approach it, its ring should be louder”
--
“But the voices of the ignorant may drown it out! We have to
continually be aware that truth does not depend on an air of
confidence or a posture of certainty. Throughout history progress has
been stymied because ignorant people have been in leadership
positions.”
--“Well
gentlemen, here comes our lunch. The president ordered it. Just a
twenty-seven course snack while we talk.”
Wreck looked over the pile of platters with unknown delicacies and thought of his experience of a few nights earlier when he had done his gourmet gorging. He was going to take it much slower this time. His buddies were hungry for lunch, but seemingly hungrier for conversation. Con asked:
--“If
we really believe in a heaven, why do we cling so hard to life? Why
save the AIDS doomed child for a life of poverty in rural Africa when
the child would be immediately accepted into Heaven upon death? Why
fight the death penalty when the imprisoned will get his just deserts
sooner—heaven if he has made his peace with God, or hell if he
hasn’t. Why stop a physician assisted suicide when the patient is
not being “murdered” because she wants to die?”
--“Well
Con, remember when we read Through the Looking Glass in the eighth
grade? The White Queen said to Alice ‘believing in impossible
things is simply a matter of practice’”(1) It seems that we all
want to believe in impossible things.”
--
“Exactly Commander. Let’s look at some of the impossible beliefs
that are the bases of our ethical thinking. The ultimate question of
any thinking person is ‘Does a supreme creating being exist?’ If
that is answered in the affirmative the next question is ‘Is that
being involved in the moral operation of the world?’ The next of
the enduring questions is ‘Is there an afterlife, and if so how
does one assure oneself of a pleasurable place in the hereafter? Yes
Con.”
--“Wanda,
in my country we are becoming less and less literate. Illiteracy is a
problem for thinking because the less information a person has, the
less likely it is that he or she will make an informed decision. In
the U.S. a study by the Department of Education showed that 5% of
Americans are not literate. Of Hispanic immigrants the percentage was
44%, compared to 35% ten years earlier. Even among those with
graduate degrees from college, only 41% were deemed to be proficient
in comprehending abstract reading and in analyzing information
effectively. These abilities were 20% higher for graduates ten years
earlier. Could such inabilities be partly responsible for America’s
voting preferences for national offices?
“Is this the reason that President George W. Bush, as an evangelical Christian, didn’t believe in evolution or in global warming? Was it a lack of intelligence, a lack of knowledge, or just the fervent hope that they weren’t true, in spite of the evidence?
“Is it possible that the average person, or many of the leaders, really can’t think logically? Is it possible that the average person doesn’t have the necessary facts to make an intelligent decision? Is it that they don’t have the logical tools to evaluate the evidence effectively? Is it possible that the average person doesn’t care? Is it possible that spending their time playing video poker is more important than watching the evening news or reading a newspaper?”
--“There’s no question that
if we lack the ability for critical thinking we won’t be able to
wrestle intelligently with the tough problems of ethical thinking.
But more than the ability to think deeply and critically we need to
have a great deal of reliable evidence. When we criticize an
unwelcomed idea do we do it with facts or opinions? What evidence do
we have? Is it empirical or just a personal preference? This is
especially difficult in ethical questions where unprovable basic
assumptions are fundamental to the positions we take.
OUR BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR VALUES—
“Our beliefs guide us.I believe I will get my paycheck on Friday. I believe that my daughter will come home safely from her date. I believe I will go to heaven. These are commonly acknowledged assumptions. But there are other assumptions that we generally don’t even question the foundations of our thinking.They are absolutely basic to our thinking and our behavior. Philosophers generally realize that they have such assumptions. They call them metaphysics—meaning beyond the physical world.
“Philosophers usually see the world as basically ‘matter’ or as basically ‘idea’. The materialists believe that ideas come from matter. The idealists believe that idea is primary—usually that primary idea is God—the supreme idea, the ultimate of spirit. Matter then comes from God, the ultimate idea.
“Certainly not all philosophers agree. Plato saw the basis, the primary starting point, as ‘idea’—a world of concepts of perfection. But Karl Marx saw it as matter—the physical world. Plato, as do the great religious teachers, saw idea as coming first. Those religious sages would see the most fundamental idea as the spirit of God. Then God created matter. Marx would see the physical world as the fundamental starting point. As matter evolved into animal life, then human life, ideas evolved. So Marx had a diametrically opposite idea than that of the idealists.Then, philosophically speaking, along came Descartes who said that both mind and matter are equally important. So the greatest minds of our civilization cannot agree on a starting point for our thinking.
“Very few beliefs are basic assumptions. The idea that there are such things as human rights, and what those rights might be, are derived from God based or society based assumptions. Without such a foundation the theory, that rights exist, is groundless. The assumptions from which they derive, however, may also be groundless or untrue. If a basic assumption can be proven to be true or untrue it is no longer in the realm of assumptions. For example, if it could be proven or disproved that there is a god it would no longer be an assumption.
“Most people in the world believe in a religion that they sincerely think is true. The Hindus believe that God is the totality of the universe. This is called pantheism, meaning that ‘all is god.’ Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais and Parsis or Zoroastrians believe in a single God. This is called monotheism. The purist Buddhists would not believe in a special god, but some Buddhist sects do and some, such as ‘Pure Land’ Buddhism believe in a hereafter like the monotheistic religions. While each may believe deeply in his or her God, and may even be quite willing to die for that belief, it cannot be proven. If any of these beliefs could be proven we would all have the same beliefs.
“Every religion has its scriptures or traditions that describe its god or gods and the morality that their supreme being requires. The scriptures and traditions cannot be proven or all of us would believe in all of them.
“People are so certain of their beliefs that most will attempt to ‘prove’ that God exists by citing their scriptures. And how do they know that the scriptures are true? Because they are the inspired word of God! So we have a circular argument. “The Bible says God exists, and God wrote the Bible.” Anyone with any expertise in logic sees clearly the logical problem. But most of us are psychological, not logical, so it makes perfect sense to us. So for Jews, Muslims and Zoroastrians that’s all they need—the assumption that there is a God and the assumption that their scriptures are true. For Catholics they add another basic assumption, that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra. For Mormons, they add another scripture to the traditional Christian scriptures, their Book of Mormon. For most Christians a further assumption is needed—that Jesus is God. Once these two or three assumptions are accepted, the rest of the religion can follow, sometimes logically, sometimes with some gaps in logic.
“There is some historical evidence that verifies some events in the Bible. There are the foundations said to be of Solomon’s Temple. There are remnants of Jericho. But we don’t have the stone tablets of Moses, evidence of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea, or the remains of Noah’s ark. We can be quite certain that Muhammad and Paul lived and the historian Josephus mentions several Jesuses. It was a common name at that time, as was the name James. But the evidence for Abraham and Adam only come from the Bible. As in all historical evidence we have to account for the bias of the author. Then with ancient historical documents we have to be concerned with the biases of those who copied the original works or those who transcribed the oral traditions.
“So Homer’s tale of Troy, which would have actually occurred in about the 12th Century BCE, was not made into a poem by Homer for another 400 years. He couldn’t have written it down because he died before Greek writing was developed. While it may have been written in another language, it wasn’t written in Greek for another 400 years. So we might question whether everything in the written poem corresponds exactly with the events in Troy. Add to this the fact that scholars aren’t certain that Homer actually existed or that the war in the Iliad actually took place. Was it more of a conglomeration of 300 years of warfare between the Greeks of the west and those who lived in what we now call Turkey? Did Achilles or Hector really exist?
“This type criticism is also made of the Bible, of the works of Josephus and of all other ancient texts. Sometimes it is a question as to whether the authors to which the writings are attributed actually existed. Sometimes it is a question as to whether the people or the events talked about actually existed. Sometimes it is a question about how true the oral tradition was to the actual facts that were being related. Sometimes it is a question of when it was written and whether it had been mistranslated.
“For example, Moses is given credit for writing the first ten books of the Bible. Did Moses actually exist? Could he write? If he wrote did he write in his native tongue of Egyptian? If he wrote in Egyptian did he write the Pentateuch in hieroglyphics? Or did he know Phoenician writing, which was based on Egyptian writing? If he lived about 1200 BCE he couldn’t have written in Hebrew since the earliest Hebrew didn’t evolve from the Phoenician for another 400 years. Of course we know that the earliest written remnants of the Bible date from a thousand years after the time of Moses. Were there other written records, now lost, that came directly from Moses? Were the Biblical accounts merely oral traditions that were first written in the Second or Third Centuries BCE? There are so many questions that one might ask before a thinking person can accept any scriptures as basic assumptions for a belief system or a religion.”
—“Well,
I have taken a great deal of philosophy, both at Notre Dame and in
the seminary. I certainly understand metaphysical problems, but
certainly some metaphysical assumption is true. I believe in a
creating God. It can’t be disproved.
--“Right Father. That is your
basic assumption, and the assumption of billions of others. But some
basic assumptions can be criticized or questioned.
“But another kind of knowledge of a supernatural comes from personal experience. Those who are deeply religious hold that the most real knowledge is found in the spiritual experience of uniting with the supernatural. Since it is based on personal experience it can not be proven. It is therefore a basic assumption for that person, although the way neuroscience is developing we may be able to prove or disprove it in the future. Is it possible that there is an electrical or chemical reason for some people to think that they have had a mystical experience? Some work in Canada strongly indicates a psychological basis for the religious mystical experience.
“Still, with the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, who am I to argue with such a lofty conclusion from those who have experienced it? The holiest adherents to most religions have had similar mystical experiences—the Hindu who has united with the Brahman through years of correct meditation. The holy Jew, the holy Christian, and the holy Moslem have felt deeply the spirit of Yahweh, God or Allah. And they speak of their experiences just as do Buddhists or Hindus who have united with the oneness of nature. These saints are close brothers in their beliefs—all near the top of the mystical mountain, but all arriving by different means of travel.
“It has long puzzled me why the common brothers in your western religions have fought so violently among themselves for so long. Can’t they see that they believe in the same Supreme Being, identified by the same Abraham. But Christians and Moslems fight, Moslems and Jews fight,. Jews and Christians fight, Christians and Christians fight, Moslems and Moslems fight, Jews and Jews fight. Why? There must be an underlying mental process which is more powerful than their expressed beliefs in the supernatural. Yes Commander.”
---“I remember in college that
the head of the philosophy department at U.C.L.A., Dr. Kalish, had a
debate scheduled with the head of the philosophy department at Loyola
University. The U.C.L.A. professor called himself an atheist. The
Catholic priest from Loyola obviously believed in God. They debated
the question of “whether or not God exists” before a packed
auditorium. After three hours of debating they could not agree.As a
sophomore I was chagrined. But as a senior I understood why. You
cannot debate basic assumptions because they are merely assumptions.
They may be true, but they are unprovable by empirical methods. When
Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Hebrews that “faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” he
was not speaking as either a philosopher or a scientist—but rather
an explainer of that which is unexplainable. Remember that debate,
Con?”
---Ya
Wreck. At the time I was disappointed in not knowing for sure if God
existed. But you’re right. You can’t argue about basic
assumptions because they are only assumptions. If a philosopher
accepts the assumption that matter came first—an idea he cannot
prove, his materialism follows consistently from that premise. If
another philosopher accepts the non-provable assumption that idea
came first, her philosophy follows logically. But how can both
starting points be true? They can’t. In fact maybe neither is true!
“When we have been admonished to not argue about religion or politics it is sound advice because we would be arguing about assumptions that we cannot prove. There is a God. There is no God. Justice requires liberty. Justice requires equality. But liberty and equality are often antithetical concepts.”
---“Exactly
man, our values, like every other body of thought or opinion, must
start with basic assumptions—starting points for our thinking that
we cannot prove. That is, there are beliefs which each of us must
assume that are basic to the remainder of our thinking. These
assumptions are so clear to us, so ingrained in us, that we don’t
question them. Whether it is science, philosophy or religion—we
start with assumptions that we can’t prove. Whether we believe in a
Supreme Being, a certain set of scriptures, the belief that the
universe is merely matter, or that empirical science is the best way
of knowing—we are making assumptions that we can’t prove.
“Wanda, I believe in science. It is the best way to determine what is true. Science has given us the electric light, the space shuttle, the electric guitar—and the atomic bomb. Science is ‘real’ knowledge.”
--“It’s
not that simple Lee, because even science rests on basic assumptions.
The observation of scientists has told us that the sun always rises
in the east. BUT, what about tomorrow? Can I be absolutely certain
that it will? No! Scientific observation and analysis only gives us a
higher probability that many things will continue as they have been
in the past. Science does not give us certainty. And science does not
deal with values. Science gives us probabilities, values may tell us
what to do about them. Medical science discovered various techniques
of contraception, each with its own probabilities for success. But
whether we shoulduse these techniques is a value question. Science
gave us the atomic bomb, but should we use it? Science gave us the
automobile. Most of us use it, but the Amish don’t.
“Here are some assumptions of science. Science assumes that: the universe exists, that it shows some order, that we can discover that order, that true knowledge can be objectively demonstrated, and that most knowledge is in the realm of probability rather than absolute truth. To this we might add the assumption that truth is better than ignorance, but all belief systems would support that claim. They would merely disagree on what truth is. If you accept these basic assumptions you will probably be interested in what empirical science has to offer.
“Father Ray, Cardinal Schonborn recently said that ‘Dogmas of faith are OK, but not the dogmas of science’ Of course I would disagree. I see scientific investigation as much more likely to give me truth. A scientific theory may start as an idea, but unless it undergoes rigorous testing it is worthless as science. Which is easier to believe—that a Being created this intricate universe or that it just evolved? That the original ingredients for the universe existed or that a creator existed before that? The fact that the exchange of exhaled carbon dioxide by humans is converted to oxygen by plants and the exchange keeps them both alive is incredible. The order of the universe is unbelievable—but do comets that crash into planets show such order? Does global warming show an intelligent design that allows man-made pollutants to threaten human life? Does allowing children to be born to parents who will soon die, leaving them orphans in a country without food, water but with genocidal warfare, show an intelligent designer of the universe?
--“Dr. Wang, these aberrations
of what some humans see as problems with intelligent design do not
disprove an intelligent designer. Only an infinite mind can see the
whole picture. We don’t know whether God causes earthly
catastrophes to punish people, or to allow good people to enter
heaven earlier than a normal lifespan would allow.
--“Back
in the 1990’s I had occasion to fly the Concord from Paris to Los
Angeles. It left shortly after sundown. To my amazement as we flew
west I saw the sun rise in the west.Because we were flying westward
faster than the Earth was rotating I had a different point of view
than other scientists who were standing in one place and saw the sun
sink in the west.
“How many hundreds of thousands of times have students in chemistry classes put hydrogen and oxygen together? Hasn’t it always resulted in water? Two hydrogens and one oxygen make water. What if yesterday in a small college in Montana, a student put two hydrogens together with an oxygen and it came out beer!!
“But seriously, if that had happened it would not disprove the theory of the fundamental ingredients in water—it would only make it somewhat less than certain. It would just reduce the probability of it happening by less than a quadrillionth.”
--“The
point is that science deals with probabilities—with the assumption
that there is uniformity in nature. Science cannot give certainty.
The ancient Greek “scientists” could look at the sky and realize
that the sun moves around the earth. Certainly it was obvious. But as
we began to learn more about space we were able to understand that it
was just the opposite. We are in motion around the sun. Then we
learned that there were other planets also in motion around the sun.
Then we learned that the Earth wasn’t flat. Then we learned about
light years. Then we went to the moon. And here am I, the first
traveler around the solar system. I certainly am a believer in
science. But it is not the only way of knowing.
“Look at the geometry we studied in high school. That was the geometry that Euclid developed. We all assumed that it was true for all times because it was so logical. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. That’s obvious.What the teacher didn’t tell us was that Euclid’s assumption was that space is flat. But we can’t use that geometry to fly a plane from London to Los Angeles because the earth is somewhat round. It is an oblate spheroid, being a little flatter on the top and bottom and wider at the Equator so we have to use different assumptions than Euclid’s to find the shortest route. That’s why transatlantic flights go northwest then southwest, rather than directly west. But of course that’s only a small part of why we fly closer to the poles. Winds and other things are factored into the flight route by using the knowledges of other sciences.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-29 show above.)