david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/30/85)
I'm very grateful to Bill Peter for replying about the morality of the application of science to warfare, especially when this technology threatens to destroy hundreds of millions of the innocent for the sake of self-serving and unjust ideologies. In my opinion, this is true of all the so-called 'superpowers' who lord it over the earth. As I have recalled to mind before, there is a very ancient Jewish interpretation (among many others) of the story of mankind taking of the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil': it is said in Genesis by the serpent, said truly according to the interpretation, that if mankind would eat of the fruit of that tree, they would become like gods. The explanation of this, according to the interpretation, is that mankind would become like gods 'having the knowledge to create and destroy worlds.' I would say that the inherent danger in technology, the fruit of knowledge, is that its power is inherently corrupting, in the sense that it makes existent, out of possibility, what is a grave temptation for the evil in our nature. As Jesus said, it is better to cast away those things which would tempt you to self-destruction. Furthermore, the power of this technology, as well as the sociology of scientific knowledge, is so dominated by governments, with self-serving economic and military purposes, that 'imperialism' over poorer nations is inevitable. As governments become more and more powerful they become less and less charitable, seeking every advantage for so-called national interests of security. In short, they become bullies. The presumption underlying this 'nationalism, with power' is that we have more right to live than others, happening to be more powerful. As if we were God Almighty. The other thing said in Genesis about this temptation was that upon taking of the dangerous fruit of knowledge, mankind would surely die. I have said before that I can imagine many wonderful worlds among the stars, full of life, like our own Earth, very much like ornaments of a celestial Christmas tree. But somewhere, too, there are stillborn worlds, where notions of just warfare combined inevitably with theories of nuclear physics, and arrived quite naturally at a final uncharitable conclusion. And, as I have said before, it is the so-called 'superpowers', who lord it over the Earth, who would indefinitely secure their incredible 'peace' with probable horror. The apostle Paul warns us that there will be false apostles of Christ, for even "Satan masquerades as an angel of light." And it is more than fitting that the 'superpowers' secure their so-called 'peace' on Earth by appeals to what they call the 'necessary evil' of an abomination whose ungodly light would make the Earth desolate. We should not be decieved by those who identify 'imperialism' with the Gospel, and the thermonuclear weapons with the arm of God. In Zechariah, it is plainly, "Not by force of arms, but by my spirit, saith the Lord." And we should not forget that at the end of his life, David, the King of Israel, assembled all the leaders of the Israel and said, that although he had intended to build the Temple for the Lord, the Lord made it known to him that he would not, because he was a warrior, whose hands were covered with blood. Other comments to Bill Peter's reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: peter@unm-la.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: physics and history (Reply to David Harwood) Message-ID: <283@unm-la.UUCP> Date: 28 Apr 85 17:09:57 GMT In article <335@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: >It is good for you to inform us that you are a physicist...but I would >rather have you inform us of your moral reservations about the military >research of physicists. I suppose that you are employed at Los Alamos, and I >would be very interested in your views. I had initially declined to answer David publicly. But after some private exchanges, I have agreed to answer him publicly. He has agreed to allow me to summarize the views he expressed to me privately over the net. From our private correspondence, I understand David to be a very moral and religious human being who considers working on any project funded by a military contract to be immoral. I consider this commendable considering his pacifist ideology. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am sometimes partly employed under military contracts, at a university research center where I have considerable freedom to choose what I do, and I refuse to work on projects which have direct military application. (I've been employed under the Defense Mapping Agency, also National Bureau of Standards, NASA, etc; as an example of something I don't work on -- the Army robot vehicle project.) I have turned down jobs in defense-related industries, and make my position clear on my resume; I have sometimes been unemployed in the past because of this, and have had considerable difficulty in finding suitable work. I do often feel guilty about being employed by a research center, like many others devoted to computer science, primarily supported by military funds, even when the research is not primarily military (the point is not so much where the money comes from, but what it is used for; many projects would be useful anyway in a peaceful world, but, as it is, the military dominates most very advanced technological development, period, with the expectation that it may be prove to be relevant to national defense.) It is true that I have been a politically active among pacifist church organizations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a non-christian, I am confused as to his beliefs that non-pacifism is a contradiction of the gospels. Many of the more bellicose people I am acquainted with happen to be very zealous christians. One of the local pastors here in Los Alamos works in one of the weapons divisions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To answer your last observation first, I heard Bishop Mathieson of Amarillo,Texas say that for many years he had been proud of the work done at the Pantex plant, where nuclear warheads are assembled. After all, many of members of his diocese were employees there. Then three years ago, someone of the employees came to him wondering whether it was a morally acceptable for him to work at the plant. The Bishop said that he did not see the light until that one of his flock came first to him. But the Bishop did listen to the voice of conscience. As for other 'bishops' of their flocks, I'm afraid they are like the corrupt shepherds described by Zechariah, and confuse the Gospel of reconciliation with contingency plans of the lowest DEFCON status. I say that justification of warfare contradicts the Gospel, and teaching of Jesus; I do not say that Christianity has been peaceful at all. I am not an apologist for the violent history of Christianity; it amounts to saying that so-called Christianity is largely a betrayal of Christ; it is a compromise of the Gospel with self-serving nationalism and materialism, which are in absolute contradiction to the principle of reconciliation through charitableness, of overcoming evil with good. Those who cite NT scriptures generally do not understand what they are reading, if they would choose to interpret them in a literal belligerent sense which plainly contradicts the example of Jesus. They are preferring a self-serving lie to the clear example. (Also, I do not accept citation of OT teachings as legitimate Christian justification of warfare; with the coming of Christ, the time of warfare and of its justification is ended among those who are called to be Christians.) Every single one of the literally belligerent verses of the NT has an obvious figurative sense which is consistent with his life and the life of the first Christian communities who certainly had a more faithful tradition than we do. We must never forget that Jesus willingly gave up his life to preach what he believed was true about how we should live. He ~was~ a warrior, but a warrior for what is uncompromisingly right with God. This is a war for the hearts and souls of mankind, an ideological war in the racial consciousness of many generations since his time, which is not won or over yet. The two swords which he wielded were that of the Old and New teachings. He plainly rebuked Peter, the chief apostle, who would use the sword to defend him against the imperial and religious forces, saying "That is enough of that." And then he healed the one that Peter wounded, whose ear was cut off; I say how do you expect anyone to listen, and be reconciled, if you are violent against them, even if you are in the right. In the first three centuries of our era, Christians almost entirely refused military roles as a matter of conscience. Except for some later sons of veterans who were conscripted according to the Roman law, there is no evidence that any Christians served the military in the first two centuries. And I have read the transcript (in Toynbee's History of Religion) of the Roman hearing of Maximilianus (sp?), who was legally required for conscription as the son of a veteran in the 3rd century: He said "I am a Christian; I cannot serve, in violation of my conscience." He said this, even given the alternative of death. There is absolutely no mistaking the original pacifism of the Christian religion. Those who deny this are simply deceiving themselves. (For the record, I am fairly recently a member of the Catholic Church, although with somewhat heretical 'Quaker' tendencies.) What happened, then? Political corruption by the State is what happened. As I said already, in the first three centuries of our era, those who were "Christians", so-called, refused military roles. But in the fourth century, the emporer Constantine (the Great), wanting to choose politically among three popular religions, is said to have had a vision of a 'cross', flaming above the setting sun on the western horizon. And so, the imperialist state which had crucified Christ became the new baptized 'Holy' Roman Empire, and the Church became the apologist of 'just warfare' (in no way excepting the later Protestant state religions). The symbol of hope had become the mark of Cain. The emporer Constantine might just as well have foreseen the 'cross' of the thermonuclear cloud standing above a manmade fireball on the distant horizon of the West, like the setting sun of righteousness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I myself view the morality of working on scientific research funded by defense contracts somewhat cautiously. On the one hand, I accept the need for a nation (especially a democratic one like the United States) to provide for its own defense. On the other hand, it is impossible to ensure that research knowledge gained will never be misused by those in power. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There is not one example of technological innovation in warfare that has not been abused. Besides this, the very possesion of weapons of mass destruction is a crime against humanity. Why wait to post-War III to have the Court stand in judgement upon the Holocaust and tell us what is perfectly obvious already? Are we scientists to rationalize this by appeal to national interests? In my opinion, the primary reason that oppressive totalitarian governments exist is because "democratic" governments elect to violently defend economic and political injustice rather than be genuinely charit- able. Besides this, the worldwide political instability has so increased that it has become uncontrollable by military means. Why has it become so unstable? First, because of the underlying merciless injustice. Secondly, because every political faction is armed, as well as convinced of its own justification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I do not view all wars as immoral (e.g., the war against fascism in 1939-1945). I am not a pacifist. Though I have high regard for David's principles, I cannot understand them in a world containing an Iran and a South Africa. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don't you see. The nations are not charitable at all -- they are self-serving and greedy. We never had more good-will than after World War II because of the Marshall Plan. There is absolutely no reason for anyone born into the world to starve or be unemployed; there is plenty for all, if only the nations would stop fighting, and the rich nations would help build the industries and schools and hospitals of the poor, expecting nothing in return. Surely, it would mean giving up our wasteful lives, but it would not be too great a sacrifice to allow others to be our neighbors and equals, who would want to live together in peace. The consequence of raising up the poor would be to raise up their talents for everyones' benefit. If there were the example of charitableness among the nations, the preference of the tyranny of Iran and South Africa would be inconceivable. These tyrants would never gain power, or hold it for more than a generation. It has been said, by Neibuhr I believe, that WW II proves the ineffectuality of pacifism. I don't think so. The fact is that pacifist resistance was generally not even attempted in this war (except in one case where it was fairly successful). If it had been, by the opponents of the early Nazis, certainly the incipient evil would have become publicly known for what it was, and perhaps Hitler would have failed to gain support. (I am not certain this is true, but I have heard that Hitler said that the first thing he would do if he defeated England would be to eliminate the Quakers -- whom I know to be very hardy and pesky variety in the vineyard.) The point is that you must nip evil in the bud by bringing it into the light so that everyone may see. When evil is ignored and allowed to grow, then it is much harder to deal with. I believe that many churches knew that the Nazis were evil, but they were complacent and timid. By the way, the churches were required to sign a statement of obeisance to the Nazi state -- those Quakers in Germany, admittedly a few, refused. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I appreciate the fact that David does not blame scientists for the misuse of science by those in power. Unfortunately, some scientists have not been blameless. But in a broader sense, no citizen is blameless when a government misuses the power given to it by it's citizenry. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Scientists, better than anyone, can forsee the possible abuse of their research. Oppenheimer said, following the explosion of the first atomic device in the desert of New Mexico, "I have become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds." Almost all the scientists who worked on that project lived to regret it (except Teller). Who will live to regret the Holocaust? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For personal reasons, I find it hard to relate to a few of my colleagues on a personal or humanistic basis. But I will not condemn them for choosing employment in research laboratories set up by the citizenry of this nation to provide for their own defense. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We all have to live with our own conscience, but this does not mean that others should not speak out against the dangerous evil we foresee. After all, it is their children and grandchildren who will be destroyed in this 'national defense'. Even according to the usual rationale, I don't believe that the creation of nuclear weapons for national defense is in any way justifiable. Even if our country was utterly destroyed in a nuclear attack, retaliation against millions of 'the enemy' and many times more of the innocent is immoral. The only purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence, and perhaps this purpose has so far been sustained, although it certainly has not stopped virtual mercenary warfare between the 'superpowers' all over the world, from which they profit greatly, each selling 1/3 of the total armaments. Nevertheless, even this so-called 'deterrence' will also inevitably fail, in an increasingly unjust, militant, and politically unstable world. Frankly, the third world nations are not going to care very much whether their actions result in our self-destruction. We already ignore their suffering and exploit their economic weakness and political divisions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For whatever reason, many of David's fellow christians either do not agree with his pacifist ideologies or do not abide by them. This is historically understandable, since from the times of Constantine, Christianity has been one of the more aggressive ideological movements in history. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If I get to Heaven, I will say that the Quakers and others like them should be given their 'stars'. Followers of Constantine and imperial Christianity get nothing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Jewish prophets foresaw a time when a nation will not lift up sword against another nation. This may be ambiguous from a Christian perspective since their messiah has already come. But in an age witnessing the destruction of six million Jews in Christian Europe, I will not trust in man what I hope of G-d. -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hitler professed not to be a Christian; I believe he had in mind the 'Superman' of Neitzche, the anti-Christian, and anti-Jew, who envisioned a 'Superman' beyond 'good and evil', who rejoiced in proclaiming the death of God. Jesus would never have been an accomplice to the holocaust of the Jews, or of the innocent in any generation. Therefore, it is we who have betrayed him in the first place, and we who are remote spiritual accomplices of the crucifixion, who have put to death the Son of God. If you would not trust in man, neither would I despair of God in Christ. For when the age of shalom does come, perhaps after an even more terrible holocaust, we may then understand the meaning of the life of Jesus and of the crucifixion of the Son of Man, and so, at last, we shall be resurrected, as from the dead. It is prophesied by John, quoting Zechariah, that after all, "They shall look upon the one they have peirced," and they shall mourn for him as a first-born son. David Harwood