Category: Fresno Bee Religion and Ethics Columns

Posted on

Reflecting on border walls

What kind of message would an American border wall send to the world?

Fresno Bee, August 7, 2015

  • Donald Trump’s border wall is a bad idea
  • Border walls are symbolic of inequality
  • The Berlin Wall fell under its own oppressive weight

It is sad that we are still talking about building walls. Donald Trump wants to build a wall along the southern border of the United States. The world’s borders are becoming more fortified and more difficult to cross. Israel has constructed a massive border wall. Hungary and Saudi Arabia are reportedly working on walls of their own.

This week I am touring Berlin, where the ghost of the Berlin Wall haunts the city. Cobblestones mark its former path. A few remnants are on display for curious visitors.

Checkpoint Charlie and the other infamous icons of the Cold War are tourist attractions. Young people take selfies in places that were once sites of oppression and brutality. Berlin is a wonderful reminder of the absurdity of walls.

East Germany constructed the Berlin Wall in the 1960s in order to prevent citizens from fleeing to the freedom of the West. In 1987, Ronald Reagan came to Berlin and famously said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Reagan asserted that peace and prosperity require open gates.

In 1989, a nonviolent revolution occurred, and the Wall fell. Those were hopeful times. A peaceful Germany was reunified with a reunited Berlin as its capital. Berlin is now alive with energy. Reagan was right: when walls are dismantled, peace and prosperity follow.

But we keep building walls. And people keep banging on the ramparts. Thousands have drowned in the Mediterranean in search of a better life in Europe. On the southern border to the U.S., hundreds have died in the deserts.

Inequality across borders explains all of this. People from impoverished and unstable places want to escape their misery. They will scale walls, brave deserts and swim the seas in order to find opportunity.

Unequal opportunity explains the direction of the flow of people. In Germany, Easterners fled west in search of liberty and prosperity. No one scaled the Wall to go East. Today, no one flees Europe or North America to get to Central America or the Middle East. Inequality is at the root of the immigration issue.

The history of divided Berlin reminds us that a wall is a blunt solution for a deep social and political problem. A wall cannot remedy injustice or end inequality. A wall is not as strong as a good idea. And a wall cannot create unity, friendship or lasting peace.

We place too much faith in walls. We tend to think that “good fences make good neighbors.” That proverb was made famous by Robert Frost in a poem called “Mending Wall.” But Frost is often misquoted. His poem refutes the idea that a good wall can make us good neighbors.

In the poem, Frost explains that his neighbor keeps insisting that good fences make good neighbors. But the poet is not persuaded. The urge to build a wall seems un-neighborly and inhumane. Frost says, “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know what I was walling in or walling out, and to whom I was like to give offense.”

Frost reminds us that building a wall is a symbolic act. What kind of message did the Berlin Wall send to the world? What kind of message would an American border wall send to the world?

Frost’s poem concludes, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wants it down.” When Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, he was channeling Robert Frost.

The desire to build a wall is understandable. Walls are cheap and easy to build in comparison with the difficulty of creating justice. But walls often indicate a poverty of ideas. The Berlin Wall went up because the East German government was based upon a bad idea.

A wall along the U.S.-Mexican border would be built on another bad idea. We permit goods and capital to move freely across borders. But we prevent human laborers from following suit. That’s an unstable system.

At Checkpoint Charlie, tourists from across the globe celebrate the fall of an oppressive wall and a bad idea. This vibrant corner of reunified Berlin shows that peace and prosperity develop from open borders. The human spirit cannot be confined by barbed wire and concrete. And bad ideas eventually collapse under their own oppressive weight.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/article30395943.html#storylink=cpy

 

Posted on

Space exploration, religion, and ethics

Exploration of outer space prompts philosophical reflection

Fresno Bee, July 24, 2015

  • Pluto’s icy world reminds us of earth’s fragility
  • Search for alien life creates complex problems for religion and ethics
  • Are are we conquerors or compassionate collaborators?

NASA is planning a mission to Mars in coming decades. And this week, a group of scientists announced a new effort to discover extraterrestrial life. At the launch of the new initiative to find ET, physicist Stephen Hawking said, “there is no bigger question” than whether we are alone in the universe.

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would certainly open new horizons. Space exploration prompts deep philosophical reflection, even if we find that we are utterly alone in the universe.

Consider how the discovery of alien intelligence would alter our understanding of our place in the cosmos. The old stories that put humanity at the middle of things would be radically transformed by the discovery of alien intelligence. Intelligent aliens would not know about Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. An encounter with intelligent aliens would likely relegate revealed religion to the dustbin of history.

Now some may suggest spreading the good news of earthly revelation to other worlds. But we should be cautious about the urge to evangelize. How would we like it if ET came to earth with tales of an alien religion?

The history of colonial expansion here on earth gives us a reason to worry about the urge to explore the stars. Will we pollute, exploit and despoil the planets we colonize? Until we can prove that we won’t harm alien worlds, we should be cautious in our explorations. Let’s be good stewards of this planet before we venture beyond it.

We also have a difficult time treating terrestrial “aliens” well. We are not great at dealing with immigrants, strangers and nonhuman animals. Our tendency toward xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and anthropocentrism may cause problems if we make contact with extraterrestrials.

We should get our own house in order before leaving home. For too many earthlings, the biggest question is how to find food, water and happiness. For suffering humans, space exploration is a distraction from the terrestrial afflictions of war, poverty, despair and hate.

Consider what earthlings must look like from an extraterrestrial vantage point. Billions of us are hungry. We continue to kill each other in large numbers. And we are destroying our own habitat and changing earth’s climate. If ET is watching, she would have good reason to keep her distance.

Fifty years ago, at the dawn of the space age, Aldous Huxley, the author of “Brave New World,” expressed similar reservations. Huxley was critical of the idea of “man conquering space.” He cautioned against seeing ourselves as conquerors. Instead, he imagined that space exploration could help us develop a kind of cosmic consciousness. The hope is that we would learn to act as “responsible collaborators with the evolutionary process that is perpetually creating, transforming, and transfiguring the world.”

It is amazing that billions of years of terrestrial evolution have allowed earthlings to see Pluto. In one lifetime we have made it to the edge of the solar system. We must now decide whether we are conquerors or compassionate collaborators with the cosmos.

Hawking and others imagine that alien life must have evolved independently on some other planet in our vast universe. But at this point, as far as we know, intelligence is a unique product of terrestrial evolution. Understanding this should give us pause. We ought to be extremely careful with this precious gift. The universe may not get another chance to create an intelligent species like our own.

As far as we know, we are a singular species poised precariously on a rock careening through empty space. Understanding this, we ought to care more deeply for one another and for this planet. Our existence is the lucky outcome of a unique configuration of gravity, liquid water and freedom from the onslaughts of space debris.

The icy geography of Pluto teaches us that life is precious and fragile. As we begin exploring the galaxy, we also need to explore inner space — the heart and the mind. And we need clean up our own planet before leaving it behind.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article28614523.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Nostalgia, Gay Marriage, and the Confederate Flag

Nostalgia a poor guide for morality as understanding of justice evolves

Fresno Bee, July 10, 2015

  • Gay marriage and the Confederate flag prompt reflection on historical progress
  • The sense of moral decline is misplaced
  • Let’s celebrate civility and rational discourse

d6af3df478bb4f439581a80d5d541c36-843fe42fa3174b008d1aeb7eb6abf6f2-0A June Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe that our morals are “getting worse.” Similar majorities have complained about moral decay every year since Gallup began asking the question in 2002. Another recent poll by the Wall Street Journalconfirmed that a majority of Americans are worried about “moral decline.”

Moral declinism — to coin a phrase for the sense of moral decadence — has a long history. The ancient Jewish prophets warned of moral decay. The Greeks accused Socrates of corrupting the youth. Ancient Chinese philosophers imagined a lost era of true men and virtuous kings.

Change is often greeted with skepticism and nostalgia. We have a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses. We pine for the supposed simplicity of the family home. We are homesick for a mythical time when things were purer, easier and better.

Nostalgia is, however, a poor guide for morality. There is no perfect past this side of Eden. Indeed, many are happy to leave the past behind, especially when the past includes injustice and oppression.

Consider the demise of the Confederate flag. Some Southerners may be nostalgic for the antebellum South. But most Americans understand the rebel flag as a sign of an oppressive history and view its fall as a progressive development.

Or consider the gay marriage debate. Some, like the Rev. Franklin Graham, have described acceptance of homosexuality as a sign of “the moral decline we are seeing manifest daily around us.” But for homosexuals, these are times of moral progress.

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage explained that the institution of marriage “has evolved over time.” It argues that we must learn from history, “without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

Opponents reject the idea that marriage can or should evolve. Chief Justice Roberts argued in his dissent that marriage “has formed the basis of human society for millennia.” Justice Alito added, in his dissent, that gay marriage is “contrary to long-established tradition.”

But tradition is not a sufficient guide to morality. The mere fact that something is old does not mean that it is good. Slavery is as old as the Bible. Its longevity is no justification.

The same point can be made with regard to new developments. New things are not better simply because of their novelty.

The key to moral progress is independent moral judgment based upon respect for human dignity. And the best method of making progress is dignified and rational critique. We reconstruct our values by trying to understand what matters and why.

Human beings are not perfectly wise, and human institutions are not perfectly just. We evaluate and improve things by criticizing them. Enlightened social progress results from reasonable civil discourse. Genuine moral progress must be grounded in good arguments that every citizen can understand.

Claims about a culture in decline are dangerous when they fuel the fires of social conflict. Indeed, some have warned about a newly emerging “culture war.” But the war metaphor is not helpful. Fundamentalists in some parts of the world take up arms to stifle dissent and preserve irrational traditions. Value conflicts can quickly escalate and become bloody.

We should reject the notion that Americans engage in culture wars. We argue and debate — and obey the rule of law, which allows us to agree to disagree. Moral argument is complicated and difficult. And some will be unhappy as change occurs. But in our system, social change happens without recourse to the blunt instruments of violence and war.

Instead of lamenting moral decline, let’s rejoice at the role of rational argumentation in American public life. Since the bloody civil war of the 1860s, moral development in the U.S. has happened in the courts, in Congress and through nonviolent civil disobedience. That’s moral progress.

We should, however, worry about a decline in civility and rational deliberation. Internet subcultures are filled with hateful speech — and terrible arguments. Some malicious morons turn hate speech into murder. Other citizens simply tune out. The solution to that problem is obvious. We have to teach our children to be more reasonable. And we should celebrate the fact that rational argument and civil discourse still guide our public life.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article26922784.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Science, Religion, and Hope for Ecological Revolution

Science, Religion, and Hope for Ecological Revolution

Fresno Bee, June 26, 2015

  • Pope Francis’s ecological manifesto provides a source of hope that is foreign to science
  • The question of population control will continue to divide science and religion
  • The ecological crisis may demand a revolution in culture and consciousness that could unite science and religion

It seems like we have always lived under the shadow of environmental crisis. Climate change, ground water depletion, pollution, and other ecological ills have plagued us for decades. Political posturing, ignorance, and denial continue to impede action.

pope-environmentPope Francis’s recent ecological encyclical offers a bit of hope. Addressing the global community with the hope of stimulating a green revolution, the Pope warns that we are “reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation.”

The Pope blames this on a variety of factors: consumerism, worship of technology, and our Promethean faith in human superiority. He sees the ecological crisis as a sign of a broader “ethical, cultural, and spiritual crisis.” To respond, Francis argues, we need a “bold cultural revolution.”

Some scientists have been saying similar things for years. Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich argues, for example, that we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event, which could lead to the collapse of civilization. In the 1960’s Ehrlich warned of “a population bomb.” Population growth and environmental degradation have continued unabated. Ehrlich is not convinced that we will do what is necessary to avoid ecological collapse.

I asked Ehrlich via email whether there are any reasons for hope. He responded, “I hope we will take the well-known steps that would give us a chance to avoid a collapse of civilization—like humanely stopping population growth and reducing overconsumption by the rich.”

Ehrlich is, however, not optimistic, given the cultural and political status quo. He concluded, “I see little hope that we will do the things required, like giving full rights and opportunities to women everywhere and supplying all sexually active people everywhere with access to modern contraception and safe backup abortion, and rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

Scientists are not in the hope business. They deal with facts. Species go extinct. Past civilizations have collapsed. The earth has a limited carrying capacity. The concentration of climate-heating CO2 continues to rise. The most a scientist can hope for is that human beings will respond rationally to the facts.

But the Pope has a different source of hope. For the Pope, we are “not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos.” Rather, Francis believes that God “does not abandon us.”

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. Does God promise ecological salvation? Or is civilization a fragile product of evolution, which could die of natural causes?

Ehrlich would argue that theological hope misleads, especially when religious moralism about reproduction is part of the problem. But the Pope might argue that without religious hope there is no basis for his imagined ecological revolution of the spirit.

Hopelessness is a significant ecological problem. It breeds indifference and selfishness. If civilization is doomed to collapse, then why bother to fix things? If we are destined for destruction, then why not horde, stockpile, and consume in anticipation of the collapse?

Hope is clearly needed, if we are going to make progress. But theology is not the only source of hope. The final chapter of human history is not yet written. Unprecedented change can happen. Spontaneous decency can occur. And rational behavior is not impossible. To succumb to despair is to deny that the future is ours to create.

One hopeful sign is the considerable agreement between the scientist and the Pope. They both call for a quick end to the fossil fuel economy. They believe we have an obligation to distribute resources equitably across the globe. They are each appalled by consumerism, especially overconsumption by the rich.

Some differences are substantial. Ehrlich advocates birth control—including backup abortion. Francis just as clearly does not. While the Pope rejects population control, Ehrlich views such rejection as part of the problem.

Population control will continue to divide us. It is easy to despair about such differences. But there is hope in the growing consensus about the need for an ecological revolution.

We need to cherish the delicate beauty of nature and understand our precarious place on this perishable planet. Science and religion actually agree about our fragile mortality and about the awesome wonder of nature. Religion and science can work together to foster the ecological revolution. Let’s hope it does not come too late.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article25546198.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Death and Dead Bodies

Deep questions about life and death and dead bodies

Fresno Bee, June 12, 2015

  • Medal of Honor ceremony, Fresno Public Administrator’s Office case are examples
  • We are appalled by corpse abuse, yet philosophers argue that dead people can’t really be harmed
  • The dead would want us to love life and stop worrying about them
medal of honorIn Bakersfield, the cops are being sued because an officer “tickled” the feet of a corpse, saying he “loved playing with dead bodies.” In Oklahoma, a woman slashed and dismembered her enemy’s body while it lay in a casket in a funeral home. And in Fresno, employees of the Public Administrator’s Office allegedly stole property from dead people’s estates.

Some believe that the dead haunt us when disrespected. Ghosts may speak from the grave to condemn such actions. However, if there is an afterlife, I hope that the dead have more elevated concerns. I doubt that the dead really worry about their mortal remains.

Those who mock or mar dead bodies do have a malicious intent. Such deeds are wrong because they harm grieving loved ones left behind. But these are also oddly “victimless” crimes, since the dead cannot be harmed.

Similar puzzles arise when we praise or honor the dead. PresidentObama recently awarded posthumous Medals of Honor to two long dead soldiers who fought in World War I. Obama explained, “It is never too late to say thank you.” How nice. But also — how weird. Can soldiers from previous centuries receive our gratitude?

I discussed these issues with James Stacey Taylor, a professor at the College of New Jersey who is an expert on the philosophy of death. Taylor maintains that a corpse is merely an object. It can’t really be harmed.

OUR TREATMENT OF THE DEAD IS SYMBOLIC OF OUR OTHER VALUES. WHEN WE AWARD POSTHUMOUS MEDALS AND TREAT DEAD BODIES WITH CARE, THIS SYMBOLIZES HOW DEEPLY WE VALUE HUMAN PERSONS.

Taylor understands that grieving is often focused on the dead body. The living gain closure from knowing that a loved one’s body is safely disposed. The living can also take comfort in honors given to the dead. But Taylor doesn’t believe that any of this can make any difference to the dead person.

Taylor agrees with the ancient Epicureans, who argued that your dead body is no longer “you.” It’s a mistake, for example, to imagine that when your body is buried, you will be aware of the clay pressing down upon you. It won’t matter to you whether your body is torn apart by wild beasts, or burnt on a pyre. You won’t know the difference.

Understanding this can liberate you from fears about death. It can also make it easier to see the value of signing up for organ donation. When I’m done with my body I won’t need it anymore. Let someone else benefit from it, if they can.

We are often confused about the value of the body. Some want to claim that all we are is our bodies. But a person is more than a body. Persons are characters. They have stories, plans, values and ideas. My personality extends into the projects and ideas that make up my life. My personality is constituted by those I love: they are part of me and I am the result of them.

When I die, I hope that some of my projects will be completed and that my loved ones will flourish. My least concern is what will become of my corpse.

Our treatment of the dead is symbolic of our other values. When we award posthumous medals and treat dead bodies with care, this symbolizes how deeply we value human persons. That’s why crimes against the dead are so disturbing. We suspect a character flaw in the hearts of those who steal from the dead or desecrate corpses. Those who abuse the dead are cruel, callous and cold-hearted. But to think that the dead can actually be harmed by actions done to their mortal remains is to be too attached to the idea that we are ever simply a body.

We honor the dead by completing their projects and cherishing the grieving people they love. These values, ideas and persons are much more important than the corpse that is left behind.

I imagine that if we could ask them, the dead would tell us to celebrate life and stop worrying about death. They would want us to focus our moral concern on the living, not the dead. After all, the dead can no longer be harmed or benefited. If the dead could speak, I imagine they would say that death arrives too early, and that we should love life and nurture the living, before it is too late.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article23860969.html#storylink=cpy