Voice of the New City Vol 1, Issue 10, 4/21/05

Skeptic's Corner

By Anita Jeck
REASON, www.reason.ws

As noted by scientist Stephen Jay Gould, good and evil do not exist in nature. Good and evil are qualities assigned by humans and therefore dependent upon our values. This assertion is at the heart of disagreements between biblical literalists and most everyone else. It is difficult for rationalists to comprehend why fundamentalists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible as axiomatic to all other beliefs. Such a stance is not based upon reason, but rather faith and emotion. For instance, all the evidence and logic in the world will not convince a biblical literalist of the theory of evolution.

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas explains the literalist imperative:

People who regard Scripture as having passed from God to man without error have warned for years what happens when these texts are treated as something less than accurate. Once compromises are made (and I’m not talking about stoning adulterers…) all things become not only possible but probable.

If God is not God and if man says God didn’t say what He has said, then what standard is to be used to judge anything? It is more than a slippery slope. It is slippery theology with potential consequences that are eternal.

Who gets to decide, God or man? If man, then man becomes God and God is diminished, at least in man’s eyes.” (“This gay ‘holy man’ is unfit)

So what’s wrong with stoning adulterers? In Deuteronomy 23: 21, God is quite clear: “then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” Not much wiggle room there.

Highlighting such absurdities is not to demean or make fun of moralists like Cal Thomas, but to point out that biblical literalism is quite simply absurd. Clearly the Bible is not meant to be an accurate historical or scientific text. The spiritual inspiration that can be found in the Bible becomes obscured by such literal interpretations.

Nor can we dismiss the concerns of religious fundamentalists regarding morality. Addressing the nature of good and evil, right and wrong is a fundamental concern of society.

Whence then does a diverse society draw moral authority? The biblical moralist answer of course, is God—the God they envision who wrote the Bible. In their view, all other answers lead to moral decay. Their beliefs seem to be validated as they note with alarm what many perceive to be a growing decadence and moral degradation in society—the culture wars; and they are settling in for a long battle.

How then can rationalists respond to the question of moral authority? It may be easier to answer questions on evolution.

Good and evil do not exist in nature, or in the natural sciences; however that is not to say good and evil do not exist. Of course evil exists. Unfortunately, we see evil every day in the deeds of dictators and presidents, of corporations and citizens. No one escapes the potential for evil.

Biblical literalism itself is often a moral slippery slope. History recounts many evils rationalized as good by past literalists, such as the Inquisition, slavery, witch trials…stoning adulterers. It is troubling that many people glorify the biblical notion of a coming Rapture when Jesus comes to exact bloody revenge upon all nonbelievers—in essence, deifying violence.

Goodness also resides in the hearts of people of good will of all stripes; not just rationalists or biblical literalists—but in Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Christians. For the most part, we actually do agree on what is good and evil. As social animals we have developed finely tuned senses of compassion, cooperation, and fairness, and we feel outrage at evil. Often we simply prioritize our values differently, which leads to those moral shades of gray that literalists despise so much.

For example, some people are opposed to abortion—because they value life. Others are pro-choice—because they value life, especially the lives of young women. Some are against stem cell research because they value the representation of life in stem cells. Others approve stem cell research because they value the lives of people who could be helped from such research.

Our diverse society draws moral authority from our shared values. Disparate religious perspectives often guide us toward such shared values as compassion, justice, integrity, reason, stewardship, and responsibility. There will always be some shades of gray to which we best relegate to the individual conscience. For instance, is a miserable or meaningless life better than no life at all? There will always be disagreements as to the prioritization. Democrats tend to place compassion high on the list. To Republicans, personal responsibility trumps compassion. Greens place a high value on nature. And in corporations, profit trumps all.

Nevertheless, there are core values upon which most of us can surely agree. For starters, perhaps a future should top the list. Life should continue! Seriously, some actually seem to question this, planning for that Rapture when they can make the great escape—such a hateful and ungodly plan. Hopefully, most of us can agree that a quality future for our children and grandchildren is important. (I sure hope the president is with us on this one, or is that why he’s so unconcerned about the environment—he figures he won’t be here anyway?)

Secondly, surely compassion and human dignity should be important values as we continually strive to structure our laws and institutions to serve humanity. Yes, to my Republican friends, personal responsibility is important. But let us not forget our personal responsibility to those less fortunate. When we provide for everyone, “deserving” or not, we set a standard for compassion and dignity from which we all benefit.

How can we possibly nurture a compassionate, sustainable society without reliable knowledge? Just as biblical moralists decry moral degradation, rationalists justifiably decry the degradation of human learning. Compromising the integrity of science for the sake of religious doctrine dishonors both science and religion.

As in the Garden of Eden, good and evil will continue to grow in our society. We have a choice as to what we nurture—good or evil. When we invest in the quality and compassionate dignity of peoples’ lives, we nurture goodness. When we succumb to greed, ignorance, and hate—we nurture evil. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, may we choose well.